It appears that Francis despite much evidence that shows that the Covid vaccines can cause serious side effects and death is on the side of “good Catholic” Joe Biden on vaccine mandates:

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Did Pope John Paul II condemn the Vax Mandate Effect & the Francis Effect on Abortion?

November 05, 2021

Argentine Senate approves bill to legalise abortion - YouTube

It appears that Francis despite much evidence that shows that the Covid vaccines can cause serious side effects and death is on the side of “good Catholic” Joe Biden on vaccine mandates according to Pillar:

The order requires that anyone entering Vatican City or its “extraterritorial properties” will be required to show a Covid “green pass” or other proof of vaccination, issued either by the Vatican or another government or health authority. It takes effect Oct. 1.

The rule applies to all Vatican City citizens, employees, residents and visitors, both to the territory of the city-state and the departments of the Roman curia outside of the Vatican territory.[https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/did-the-vatican-really-issue-a-vaccine]

Might Pope John Paul II when he spoke of the Culture of Death consider the Covid vaccine effect and Francis who apparently supports the vaccine mandate as purveyors of the Culture of Death because of its dangerous effects?

The Epoch Times reported that the “Death Toll Exceeds a Million in Chinese Vaccine-Reliant Latin America”:

The report also said that, according to the latest statistics from the PAHO, as of May 14, 26 Latin American and Caribbean countries had received more than 84 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Of these, nearly 55 million doses—or around 65 percent—were Chinese vaccines…

… Many countries in South and Central America and the Middle East that have embraced communist China’s “vaccine diplomacy,” including Brazil, Chile, Pakistan, and Turkey, have seen a spike in confirmed viral infections and strong side effects among vaccine recipients after widespread administration of the Sinovac vaccine.

On April 10, at a Chinese national conference on vaccines and health, Gao Fu, director of China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, admitted that China’s vaccines don’t offer much protection and that the effectiveness might be improved by using several types of vaccines in an alternating fashion.

In January, the Instituto Butantan, a leading Brazilian producer of vaccines, lowered the effectiveness rate of the Sinovac vaccine from 77.96 percent to 50.38 percent, and in March, three phases of clinical trials in Peru of the Sinopharm vaccine showed that the vaccine by Beijing Bio, a subsidiary of Sinopharm, was only 11.5 percent effective; Wuhan Bio’s vaccine was 33 percent effective, far below the CCP’s claim of nearly 80 percent. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/death-toll-exceeds-a-million-in-chinese-vaccine-reliant-latin-america_3837692.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-06-01&mktids=c2f44648d1f2989d5343c085a6522bb4&est=CadI%2FRpmKVk%2B73rfsYwKbMRkD3r4%2FfwthyN3BZARsJTPHyeuBmsoePSAlnCy]

Meanwhile, the Gateway Pundit asked “Is this the ‘vaccine effect’ in action?”:

“It’s Hard to Watch:” Hospital ERs Across The Nation Are Completely Overwhelmed With Non-Covid Patients “Sicker Than They Have Ever Seen” – Nurses Forced to Give Treatments in Hallways Because No Beds are Available

With fewer people catching the virus, you should reasonably expect hospitals to see a decline in ER visits, but, somehow, the opposite is happening. Throughout the country, even in places that are not considered ‘Covid hotspots,’ emergency rooms are absolutely overrun with seriously ill patients, forcing hospital staff – in many cases – to provide care in the hallway because every bed is already occupied.

The sharp uptick has mainly been driven by much more severe illnesses and conditions than Covid. In fact, the bulk of the ER visits have been to treat things like abdominal pain, respiratory problems, blood clots, and HEART CONDITIONS – suicide attempts are also way up.

Is this the ‘vaccine effect’ in action? [ttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/hard-watch-hospital-ers-across-nation-completely-overwhelmed-non-covid-patients-sicker-ever-seen-nurses-forced-give-treatments-hallways-no/?ff_source=Email&ff_medium=the-gateway-pundit&ff_campaign=dailypm&ff_content=daily]

The renowned statistician Dr. William Briggs, who is a consultant and adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell University with specialties in medicine and philosophy of science, says even the best of vaccines cause harm as well as death and we are not even talking about the rushed experimental Covid vaccines:

All vaccines cause harm. They are designed to. They force your body to react as if it was being attacked, which it is, by the vaccine, so that your body might better fend off stronger attacks. Again I say, causing harm is what vaccines are designed to do on the age-old theory no pain, no gain.

Many, and perhaps even all (numbers, as we’ll see, are hard to come by), vaccines cause so much harm that some die from the vaccine. Not just the coronadoom vaccines, but all of them.

So there’s a risk of either death or great, measurable harm to all vaccines. There’s also a risk of death or great, measurable harm from the diseases the vaccine are for. People, not Experts, have to choose between these risks. [https://wmbriggs.com/post/35617/]

What did Pope John Paul II say on forcing vaccines according to the Spring 2004 THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY:

The Right of Conscience

Most people tend to think of conscience as a mental faculty, but for Aquinas
conscience is the act of arriving at a correct moral conclusion about what is to be done and John Paul II says the same thing.5 The principles that ought to guide us in
our conduct toward each other are not inborn, but are acquired over time through experience and education; hence, we must first acquire a moral code…

… Once we have a grasp of the principles of morality, we can

apply these to our daily life. One “sees” that doing such-and-such a thing would be

good (or evil) and thus concludes that this ought (or ought not) to be done. This

understanding of conscience is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral
conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality
(synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discern-ment of reasons and goods; and finally, judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judg-ment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity
with this judgment.7

The exercise of conscience, therefore, is a type of rational decision-making. Given

that no one else can carry out this task for me (another can offer me moral guidance,

but I must accept or reject that advice according to the light of conscience), the

Church recognizes that: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as

personally to make moral decisions.” [https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/furtonarticle.pdf]

Lastly, everyone know Pope John Paul II strongly condemned abortion. What has been the Francis Effect on abortion in his home country?

It appears Francis by engineering the Peronist victory in his home country brought “free abortion” to Argentina.

The Spanish language news site Infobae reported Argentine Bishop Alberto Bochatey said Peronist President Alberto Fernandez’s new abortion “protocol” means “free abortion is installed in Argentina.”
(Infobae.com, “For the Church, with the new protocol ‘free abortion is installed in Argentina,'” December 13, 2019)

The Financial Times reported that the pro-abortion leftist Peronist party factions by the engineering of Francis were reunited and won the elections due to his meddling in Argentine politics:

“Francis encouraged Alberto’s reconciliation with Cristina [Fernandez de Kirchner], said a close adviser of [the next Argentine president] Alberto Fernandez.”
(Financial Times, “Argentina’s opposition reunited with Pope’s blessing,” August 17, 2019)

Apparently, Francis is helping to bring abortion to Argentina:

“Fernandez, a leftist Peronist, pledged last week he would move to legalize abortion.”
(France24.com, “Argentina’s leftist president-elect reignites abortion debate, November 23, 2019)

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

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

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

Francis Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

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

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

Election Notes:

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

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Keep in mind that the survival rate for this ‘planndemic’ is 99.98%. There is no logical reason to force anyone to get this proven dangerous ‘vaccine’. There must be other reasons that we would probably shoot them for if we knew what they really wanted to accomplish.

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

How Can Vaccine Mandates Be Legal?Part 1 We first must look at the meaning of the word mandate. Webster’s modern dictionary states an official order to do something. It also states that one of the meanings is: the power to act that voters give to their elected leaders. In the case of the ‘vaccine’, the latter is more important than the former. Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives the meaning as: A command; an order, precept or injunction. From these definitions, it sounds like if the government decrees something that we are required to follow that command almost no matter what. The problem with that mindset is that is the mindset of a dictator. Stalin, Castro, Chavez, and that ilk. Americans have forgotten that we are a constitutional republic and a constitutional republic is a nation ruled by laws, not mandates. During World War II Germany did medical experiments on Jews, homosexuals, the mentally retarded, and many others. These ‘experiments’ were done without their consent and many times were never informed of what the ‘experiment’ was. Many of the ‘experiments’ were very painful and were done without pain medication. Injecting chemicals into the eyes while the patient was still awake, exposing them to anthrax and the list goes on and on.I would hope that by the time we got to a quarter of the way through the twenty-first century we would have reached a point where we no longer experimented on humans. But that does not seem to be the case. In all the research I’ve done on the COVID 19 ‘vaccine’ I have learned that all the animals utilized in the testing died but not from the ‘vaccine’ but from covid when it was introduced to them, According to Dr. Lee Merritt,What happened is all animals died… but they didn’t die of the “vaccine”. What they died from what used to be called “immune enhancement” and now they call it “antibody-dependent enhancement” (ADE).Here’s what happens:They make the RNA and you get the “vaccine” and you do fine. Now, you challenge the animal with the virus that you are supposed to be immunizing against.So when they challenged those cats with SARS [a.k.a. SARS-CoV-1, is a coronavirus species], instead of killing the virus or weakening it, the immune response that they built into your system when out and codded the virus, so the virus came into the cat’s body like a Trojan Horse, unseen by the cat’s own immune system, and then it replicated without checking and killed the cat with overwhelming sepsis and cardiac failure. And that [also] happened in ferrets, that happened every time they tried this.Let me just point out. We have never made it through an animal study successfully for this type of virus.We have never done this in humans before… We don’t really have a track record of success.¹ I don’t know about you but I don’t want this ‘vaccine’. Studies do show that most of the hospitalized patients with covid have been fully vaccinated. Not much of a vaccine if you ask me but this is what the Biden administration is telling us that he is mandating that we get the ‘vaccine’ or our travel may be restricted, our ability to attend certain public events like the ones where they are shouting “Let’s Go Brandon”, we may not be able to fly, travel on a train, and he’s even thinking about restricting our ability to travel from state to state without the ‘vaccine’. If you’ve ever studied history study 1930s Germany and you’ll see an eery resemblance to what the Democrats are doing in America.Now, with this information, we have to look at the laws of America. The first law we can look at is the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Democrats think that they are a Bill of Suggestions but our basic rights were instilled in that document. Our 1^st Amendment carries a large portion of the rights that the Biden Administration simply ignores. It states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.² Part of our freedom of religion is not having to take a ‘vaccine’ that is made partly of aborted baby cells which most if not all vaccines contain. This has created a ‘market’ for aborted babies. Follow the money. Journalist David Daleiden obtained video evidence of Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts which is illegal but Kamala Harris, California’s Attorney General at the time, charged David with 9 felonies but ignored the provable illegal actions of Planned Parenthood.One of the most disturbing aspects of the 1^st Amendment that is being breached and ignored by our government is that of free speech. The government is supposed to see to it that these rights are not hindered in any way but the Big Tech corporations violate our free speech rights daily and the federal government does nothing. Some say they are private companies and can do what they want but they have public stockholders and the federal government has asked them to not allow certain articles that discuss the truth about COVID 19’s origins, preventive medicines, treatments, and other things that oppose the government’s position, Hunter’s laptop, Hillary’s emails, Biden’s dealing with Ukrain and the list goes on. When they comply with the requests of the government that makes them an agent of the government which in turn makes their actions illegal. If someone wants to publish information concerning their citizen’s rights to NOT abide by the mandate they are de-platformed, banned, and not allowed to express the rights our Constitution is supposed to guarantee. These are actions of dictators not of a constitutional republic. Even when people peacefully assemble to protest the forced mandates the government, specifically in blue states, will use the police to harass the protestors and arrest them for exercising their constitutional right to peacefully assemble. Police say two people were arrested during a “disturbance” outside Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee’s home, where protesters were rallying against the state’s vaccine mandate for health care workers.The two people arrested Friday night were charged with disorderly conduct, obstruction and resisting arrest, Rhode Island State Police said. Police did not provide further details about the disturbance or the reason for the arrests.McKee announced in August that all health care workers would be required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. ³Keep in mind that the survival rate for this ‘plannedemic’ is 99.98%. There is no logical reason to force anyone to get this proven dangerous ‘vaccine’. There must be other reasons that we would probably shoot them for if we knew what they really wanted to accomplish.
Foot Notes1. https://varjager.wordpress.com/2021/01/30/dr-lee-merritt-in-animal-studies-after-being-injected-with-mrna-technology-all-animals-died-upon-reinfection/2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment3. https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/2-arrested-during-vaccine-mandate-protest-outside-16521497.php
©Roger Anghis

Post
Block

Status & visibility

VisibilityPublicPublishImmediatelyPost FormatAsideGalleryStandardStick to the top of the blogPending reviewAuthorabyssumEnable AMPMove to trash

Permalink

Featured image

Excerpt

Discussion

Open publish panel

Post

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

A LITTLE TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

Who Eventually Won the Cold War?

There is nothing like an old Bolshevik grinning that ossified American wokesters are stuck circa 1920s in the old Bolshevik Russia.

By Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

October 31, 2021

(Emphasis added)

Pause for a minute to recall the recent past:

· Did the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unlawfully intervene in the chain of command to reroute decisions of nuclear weapon readiness through himself? Did he really contact his Chinese Communist counterpart to promise him that China would be warned of possible U.S. aggression?

· Did the lead medical authority on America’s COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci, deny under oath the fact that he routed U.S. aid money, through a third party, to the ground-zero Wuhan virology lab to enhance gain-of-function viral research?

· Did Attorney General Merrick Garland sic the FBI on parents complaining about critical race theory—on the concocted accusation from a school board group, in part cooked up with White House staffer help, that the parents were likely “domestic terrorists”?

· Did we really spend 22 months and $40 million chasing the “Russian collusion” hoax, a myth ginned up by the left-wing media and its enablers in the FBI and CIA?

Does the public really believe:

· Our current ministry of information that the “border is closed”?

· Or that high gas prices are good?

· Or that empty shelves reflect strong demand and will result in a more mature public no longer needing to buy superfluous goods?

· Or that spiraling inflation is proof of a strong economy?

· Or that the road to the Kabul airport was open to anyone with a U.S. passport who wished to leave?

· Or that the accidental U.S. drone killing of a family in Kabul was a “righteous strike”?

· Or that Russians and Trump operatives created a fake lost Hunter Biden laptop, as our former intelligence officials implied on the eve of the election?

Since when did the government and the now state media issue such serial lies? When did we begin to resemble our old Cold War enemies—to the delight of our current enemies?

Commissars and Culturalists

In the ancient days of the Cold War, the United States relied on its open society, political tolerance, the Bill of Rights, and meritocracy to outproduce and out-arm both the far larger Soviet Union, and Red China.

In other words, the Soviet commissariat and ideological watchdogs of Communism were drags on Russian and Chinese research and development. Apparatchiks were not only unproductive but expensive. They even hampered the pursuit of science if they believed it challenged the monopoly of Marxist-Leninist ideology and control.

In the case of Mao’s Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, Communist China destroyed entire cadres of scientific and intellectual research teams for generations by unleashing the Red Guards who applied Orwellian revolutionary litmus tests to the most productive elements of society. And they usually found them worthy of death, imprisonment, or forced nonexistence for their supposed lack of correct Maoist fervor—as proven by reading the wrong books, wearing the wrong clothes, saying the wrong slogans, or belonging to the wrong faction.

At the end of the Cold War, the crumbling Soviet Union still had a population 40 million larger than that of America, and an area over twice as large, with greater natural resources. Yet after initial disarmament and confusion in the immediate postwar era, the United States throughout the ensuing 40 years of the Cold War consistently out-produced the Soviet Union and fielded more sophisticated and high-tech weaponry, as it enjoyed a far more innovative higher-education system and corporate sector.

The same disparities held true of Red China. Beijing was never able to leverage its much larger population (some 850,000 million larger then than the United States in 1989), and similar area, to threaten America militarily, technologically, or economically. Again, rigid ideological censorship, indoctrination, and coercion spelled the doom of both Communist behemoths. In both, mediocre and politically correct lackeys rose to positions of influence, while the unorthodox, innovative, individualistic, and outspoken talents were deemed enemies of the revolution, of the people, and especially of the ruling apparat.

In contrast, the United States even welcomed countercultural and idiosyncratic capitalists—from the wacky founder of CNN Ted Turner to the unorthodox Nebraska investor Warren Buffet to the loner Steve Jobs of Apple. SAT and ACT college-entrance standardized tests were seen as meritocratic. They were envisioned as a balance to toady letters of recommendations, wealth and status, or grade inflation and distortions, and thus helped ensure talented undergraduates from all walks of life.

Whereas in the Soviet and Maoist systems, large swaths of public discourse were off-limits—curbing not just free expression but inhibiting science, history, art, literature, music, and religion—in theformer United States, citizens spoke freely about anything and assumed that their talent and hard work could trump even the ideological, ethnic, racial, religious and class prejudices of the ruling classes.

The result was that postwar American universities surpassed their global hostile counterparts in almost every field of research. When lazy corporations and unions squandered their postwar global prominence, natural self-criticism and self-reflection ensured more innovative successors who quickly regained advantages over their 1980s Japanese and German economic rivals—who had been deemed for a time during the Carter era as the real winners of World War II.

No longer.

Most American universities are now madly rushing to institutionalize expensive, unproductive, and dangerous commissars to warp research, restrict free speech, and monitor instruction and expression. They are euphemistically deemed diversity, equity, and inclusion administrators and human relations directors. Like French Jacobins, Russian Bolsheviks, and Chinese Maoists they justify their anti-Enlightenment and totalitarian means by their supposedly exalted ends of “equity.”

Maoist Woke

A social media lynch mob, born and bred in America, equates incorrect thought with felonious behavior. Our online American Red Guards act as judge, jury, and executioner canceling out careers and lives in the manner of a virtual online gulag—in hopes of deterring all incorrect thought and expression. Ministries of the U.S. government sic the FBI, as if it is the KGB, on incorrect expression at school board hearings. The IRS both targets and exempts the elite on the basis of ideology. The CIA and Pentagon are likewise weaponized, as attuned to the dictates of social justice ministers at home as thwarting enemies abroad.

In the culture at large, the way movies are reviewed, books are rated, and universities calibrated so often hinges on the apparent degree of wokeist adherence. As in the Soviet and Maoist systems that likewise in multifaceted ways destroyed meritocracy, so too engineers, researchers, CEOs, mavericks, innovators, writers, artists, and musicians now calibrate their own career trajectories in terms of whether they will satisfy or offend critical race theory, green, or identity politics commissars.

The Communist Chinese put dunce caps on professors and political operatives deemed counterrevolutionaries; we simply dox, cancel, ostracize, and shout them down or drive them off campuses.

Note how the United States, in its woke reinvention, is doing its best to stifle creativity, free expression, and scientific and social research by applying ideological parameters and doling out political rewards and punishments for right and wrong thinking.

Does anyone really believe that Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.)—serial sexual harasser and virtual killer of thousands of elderlies who were the victims of his insane policy of transferring the COVID-infected into rest homes—deserved an Emmy award for his talents?

Or was it his daily anti-Trump agitprop and race and gender virtue-signaling that delighted his Hollywood aficionados? Can a comedian still joke about anything he pleases, a professor lecture without fear of disruption, or a CEO publicly doubt critical race theory?

As we learned from the impoverishment of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, eventually the ideological pandemic results in poverty in the streets. Or in our current terms, nine months of constant woke bullying and government ideological recalibration really do result in internecine racial animus, empty shelves, sky-high gasoline and natural gas prices, stagflation, soaring debt, high labor non-participation, military mediocrity, international humiliation, and a national state of fear and paranoia.

Are our law and medical schools admitting students on the basis of their GPAs, test scores, and recommendations? Or do they assume that ideology, race, gender, and ethnicity will better serve their own ideological rather than meritocratic agendas?

Do we hire K-12 administrators on the basis of their proven records of improving student test scores, and upping graduate rates while avoiding grade inflation, or on the criteria of their own appearance and proper vocabulary of woke activism?

Do the COVID-19 public-health policies of Admiral Rachel Levine, or the administrative talents of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in solving supply-chain hold-ups, define their media coverage, or do we hear more about their sexual identification and status?

Will we soon issue “The Hero of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Revolution” medals?

The New Vladimir Warns Us About the Old Vladimir?

Notice how both the former Soviet Union and the former Maoist Chinese are reacting to our own regressions into systems that they once embraced, but finally discarded when they resulted only in poverty, civil strife, and ultimately mass death.

Autocrat Vladimir Putin, smiling as the Cheshire Cat, recently lectured America on its bizarre regression into racial tribalism, ideological intolerance, and cultural revolutionary nihilism. Putin surreally assumed the role of the all-knowing “I warned you” truth-teller, as he compared 2021 America to his own former Soviet Union.

So, he acted delighted that such wokeism might do to the United States what Sovietism once did to his Mother Russia—creating the Orwellian conditions that can only lead to implosion—while bashing illiberal Americans as if they were the natural descendants of Bolsheviks. Indeed, Putin managed somehow both to wish us well in our headlong descent into Hell and to virtue signal his moral superiority and greater historical insight:

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.

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.

There is nothing like an old Bolshevik grinning that ossified American wokesters are stuck circa 1920s in the old Bolshevik Russia.

Racist Chinese Love Racist Wokeism

China just about every month displays some new sort of frightening strategic weapon or boasts of yet another stratagem of destroying Taiwan. Meanwhile, at about the same pace, our defense secretary, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, chief of naval operations, or CENTCOM generals offer another reassurance that Afghan refugees arrive in correct gender ratios and with culturally sensitive food awaiting them, or that advocates of white supremacy and white privilege are systematically being rooted out of the military, or the military is busy fighting climate change and white rage.

So, the new Communist-state capitalist Chinese naturally gloat over our wokeness. Whereas a Putin sees fundamentalist diversity, equity, inclusion religion as suicidal Bolshevism worthy of celebration, the Chinese are more adroit. They prefer not to mock but to tap into what they see as our fatal strategic disadvantages. In other words, rather than boasting that even the former Soviet Union is tired of destructive ideological wokeism, Beijing eggs it on—albeit in America.

During the COVID-19 pandemic that China likely birthed—even if accidentally—and helped to spread, the Chinese hierarchy replied to any criticism with accusations of “racism!” An accusatory China was hardly shamed that it is one of the most racist countries in the world and institutionally discriminates against non-atheists and the non-Han Chinese residing in its midst. Instead, Chinese propagandists brilliantly egg on U.S. wokeism in the surety that it is both weakening the economic, military, and political sinews of the country, and useful in deflecting its own racist, imperialist, and colonialist policies by accusing America of just those sins.

Are we supposed to treat seriously charges of racism from an accuser that has incarcerated in forced labor camps over 1 million Uighur Muslims, and yet annually sends over 300,000 of its brightest and most privileged Chinese youth to American universities where supposedly they would be targets of racist Americans?

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs either hated his former president so much or was so enthralled or terrified by his Communist Chinese military counterparts, that he called them to reassure them that the U.S. military would warn them beforehand should Trump consider any preemptive action directed at China. After that, China likely felt it had already won the propaganda war.

Beijing interprets such naïve American magnanimity as weakness to be exploited and hardly to be reciprocated in kind. It is assured that no Chinese leader would ever act so foolhardy as to send his American counterpart any such reassurance. It grows even more supercilious that while Mark Milley would rightly never warn Putin ahead of time about any supposedly lunatic move by Donald Trump, the four-star general will fall all over himself in appeasing the Chinese, who in the narrow terms of their nuclear stockpile are a small threat compared to Moscow’s nukes.

In a strange transference of domestic witch-hunting to foreign policy, the American woke detested the Russians in a way they never did the Communist Chinese. And yet by any fair measure, Trump was harder on the Russians than was any prior administration. But according to woke party lines, he was considered soft on Russia and excessively hard on China.

China, to take one example, was able to warp Hollywood enough to demand whiter actors for its huge domestic market, while Russians were the favorite tattooed, oligarchic, and orthodox villains of most Hollywood spy movies. So, stereotyping and hating Russian belligerents became patriotic while doing the same to the wealthier Chinese was racism.

Why the asymmetry in appeasing one totalitarian threat and ignoring the other? Was it the greater assets of China and thus our elites’ greater chances to get rich with them? Was it because however dictatorial and murderous the Chinese may be, they were still “the Other” and thus de facto victims of the American oppressor class?

The Cold War has been over for over 30 years. But who really won that war of ideas may be the real question of the new millennium.

After all, America is now seeking to emulate the crude modalities of the old Soviet Union and Maoist China that the now-gleeful autocratic Russians and Chinese at least realize nearly destroyed them.

____________________

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

A reckoning is coming, through popular protests now and a year from now in the midterms. Radicals and leftists have assumed battered and denigrated citizens are forever comatose, but they have been silently seething — and are just starting to resuscitate in ways the intolerant Woke cannot even fathom but will soon learn all too well.

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

As The Left Tries to Kill American Citizenship, Americans Fight for Their Ancient Rights

The American citizen is dying and is losing civilian control of the country. But some Americans won’t go quietly.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The Federalist

October 29, 2021

How did our southern border simply vanish — in complete nullification of all federal immigration laws?

Since when did our unelected leaders — Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, the former directors of the FBI, former director of the CIA John Brennan, and James Clapper, former director of national intelligence — feel they could routinely exceed their legal authority?

Who allowed them to spin untruths or feign memory loss while under oath before our Congress? Who gave these unelected partisans the power to warp the very political process of the nation?

How is it that our tax-exempt universities and publicly funded colleges ignore the First Amendment and due process with impunity in their campus kingdoms?

How did a small number of extremists hijack our culture — toppling statues in the night, erasing ancient names from streets and monuments, canceling our Founders, hounding their critics, and assuming birthright amnesty for rioting, looting, and arson?

Why did America abruptly give up its long aspirations to be a racially blind society?

Why did our universities, our media, our professional sports teams, our corporations, and Hollywood revert to pre-civilizational tribalism, insisting that our superficial appearances were now central not incidental to who we American citizens are?

When did our generals and admirals begin talking down to citizens about their supposed biases, prejudices, and conspiracies, while on their watch nonchalantly suffering the worst military defeat in the last half-century?

Why are citizens struggling to fuel their cars? Is it because an arrogant Biden administration deliberately cut back oil and gas production, canceled pipelines, and put vast swaths of federal lands off-limits to drillers?

Is first-world America now Venezuela, as are our store shelves empty, our ports stay paralyzed, and our streets of the major cities after dark grow as unsafe as medieval cities?

Why do the homeless freely violate health and public safety laws, in a way the middle-class citizen would be jailed if he did the same?

Since when do the formerly hardest working people in the world sit home awaiting inflated government checks while their country is in desperate need of their labor?

How did it happen that thrifty citizens permitted their government to run up $30 trillion in debt, and to claim printing money would bring anything other than rampant inflation? Are we so rich or so stupid that we can just abandon tens of billions of dollars of our best military equipment to terrorists in Afghanistan, so secure that we can flee in ignominious defeat and abandon our allies?

American citizens must show their passports when they reenter their own country, but not noncitizens who enter illegally and for whom our borders are their open doors.

Federal employees and soldiers must be vaccinated, but not so refugees and illegal immigrants who are exempt from such mandates.

Citizens go to jail if they lie under oath, not so their unelected grandees. Everyone must show an ID to board a plane, but not so to vote — as if the sacred right of a citizen is less important than a vacation.

The very wealthy and the very poor often are de facto exempt from onerous regulations. But middle-class citizens lack the clout of the former and the romance of the latter, and so are targeted unduly because they follow the law, pay their fines and taxes, and become the bureaucrats’ primary targets. When societies go broke, their desperate regulators and functionaries fixate on the shrinking law-abiding middle class that alone always complies and pays up.

The root cause of the chaos? The American citizen is dying and is losing civilian control of the country. Eroding is the ancient idea of an empowered and self-reliant middle-class that makes its own laws, sees that they are enforced, and ensures that accountable elected officials — and not unelected functionaries — govern the country.

How did the forgotten citizen lose control of America?

For years the middle class has seen its wages shrink, as the hyper-wealthy got richer, and the poor grew more reliant on subsidies. There is no sacred space anymore between secure borders to sustain a common, shared civic identity.

Somehow running a state bureaucracy became a kingly perk, as clerks aggregated the powers of judges, juries, and executioners. When progressives felt they had lost public support, they sought either to change the demography of America or to jettison its ancient customs, traditions, and even constitutional norms — or both

Globally spreading Westernized consumer capitalism was one thing, but letting a mostly non-democratic world, rather than U.S. citizens, share in the governance of the United States, was suicidal. Yes, citizenship is dying — but it is not yet dead.

In its eleventh hour, we can sense it stirring from its coma. Seemingly out of the shadows, millions of angry middle-class parents are reemerging to reclaim local control of their woke schools, despite being smeared as “domestic terrorists” worthy of being hounded by the FBI.

Thousands of state and federal employees and soldiers are demanding to know why those with naturally acquired COVID-immunity must be fired or discharged unless they are vaccinated, despite often being better protected from COVID-19 than are the inoculated.

Communities along the southern borders are jettisoning political orthodoxies and choosing new leaders to enforce old immigration laws for their own protection.

A reckoning is coming, through popular protests now and a year from now in the midterms. Radicals and leftists have assumed battered and denigrated citizens are forever comatose, but they have been silently seething — and are just starting to resuscitate in ways the intolerant Woke cannot even fathom but will soon learn all too well.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

BIDEN’S IMPLAUSIBLE VERSION OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH HUGO BERGOLIO

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

Pope-Biden Meeting Still Unresolved
November 2, 2021
Catholic League president Bill Donohue reexamines the meeting last week between the pope and the president:
Many Catholics were dismayed, if not furious, with news reports indicating that Pope Francis told President Biden on October 29 that he was “a good Catholic” and “should keep receiving Communion.” The Vatican has neither confirmed nor denied this account. As I said when the news broke, we have good reasons to be skeptical of Biden’s rendition.
After taking another look at this issue, examining the exact words used by Biden—not relying on media interpretations of what he said—my skepticism is growing. The president was asked about this matter at two press conferences: one on October 29, and the other on October 31.
On October 29, Biden was asked, “Mr. President, did the issue of abortion come up at all?” The first words out of his mouth were, “No, it didn’t.” Then he contradicted himself saying, “It came up.” So which account is true?
After Biden said, “It came up,” he then said what the media widely reported. “We just talked about the fact that he was happy I was a good Catholic and I should keep receiving Communion.”
If the first version is right—abortion never came up for discussion—then it seems peculiar, to say the least, for the pope to tell him he should “keep receiving Communion.” What would be the context for such a statement, if not abortion? After all, the entire controversy is about Biden’s pro-abortion record, so it is hard to imagine the pope imploring him to “keep receiving Communion” absent any discussion of abortion. Are we to believe he said this out of the blue?
If abortion did come up, what did the pope say to him about it? Just recently Pope Francis said that “abortion is murder. Those who carry out abortions kill.” Such an unequivocal remark suggests it is unlikely that the pope would discuss abortion without talking about it in such graphic terms. That would surely have made Biden uneasy, yet he did not appear to be that way when he spoke.
At the same press conference, Biden was asked, “Did you discuss the U.S. Conference of Bishops?” He answered, “That’s a private conversation.” This begs the question: Why would a discussion of the bishops’ conference be considered a private matter but not one that affects him personally, namely his suitability to receive Communion?
It is entirely possible that Biden is lying.
After admitting that abortion never came up, he quickly pivoted. Why? Because he saw an opening, an opportunity to report to the press the most important thing he wanted from the pope—a chance to undercut those U.S. bishops who are deeply troubled about his pro-abortion record (they will be meeting in less than two weeks to discuss this subject). Having been denied the photo-op the White House desperately wanted, he had to come away with something that served his interest. The Communion issue had to be in the forefront of his mind.
At the October 31st press conference, Biden was asked, “For these Catholics back home, what did it mean for you to hear Pope Francis, in the wake of this—in the middle of this debate, call you a good Catholic? And what did he tell you—should that put this debate to rest?”
“Look, I’m—I’m not going to—a lot of this is just personal,” Biden said.
But it wasn’t personal just two day earlier. In fact, he showed no hesitancy in getting the word out that the pope regarded him as such a good Catholic that he allegedly encouraged him to “keep receiving Communion.” What changed? Could it be that the Vatican contacted the Biden team and asked them to quash this issue, knowing that Biden’s account was not accurate?
Our incurious media are not asking these questions. That’s because they want to protect the pope and the president, both of whom they like.
There are too many unanswered questions to put this matter to rest. The unwillingness of the Vatican to confirm or deny Biden’s account, and Biden’s inconsistent and implausible responses—only adds to the problem. This doesn’t make either side look good.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

WE EAVESDROP ON A CONVERSATION BETWEEN ANTHONY FAUCI AND GUESTMASTER

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Might Pfizer power Bill Gates and leftist Climate Change fanatics who support Covid lockdowns like apparently the Antifa supporter David Hoggs who is a anti-Second Amendment fanatic want millions of “non-white people living in poor third world countries” such as in Africa to die because it is “great for the environment”

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

World “Food Prices Vault to Highest Level in a Decade”: Did the Biden-like World Leaders who have issued the Totalitarian Covid Lockdowns commit Stalin-like Starvation Genocide against the Poor?

November 05, 2021

There are reports that millions of “non-white people living in poor third world countries” may die of starvation due to fallout from the Covid lockdowns.

Might leftist Climate Change fanatics who support Covid lockdowns like apparently the Antifa supporter David Hoggs who is a anti-Second Amendment fanatic want millions of “non-white people living in poor third world countries” such as in Africa to die because it is “great for the environment”? – The Catholic Monitor

The Epoch Times reported world “Food Prices Vault to Highest Level in a Decade”:

Food prices across the world have risen to their highest levels in a decade on the back of tightening supply conditions coupled with robust demand, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

The FAO’s food price index, which measures world food commodity prices, surged 31.3 percent in the 12 months through October, coming in at a reading of 133.2 points, a level not seen since July 2011.

On a month-over-month basis, the index rose by 3.9 points, or 3.0 percent, with the October rise representing the third consecutive month of increases.[https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/food-prices-vault-to-highest-level-in-a-decade_4085899.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-11-05&mktids=9e83805539ccea2fa7171d75d04eaf44&est=bWLXYCHr7DjE0rHrP1CKI9B0F1k%2FQFw7D1ViIukM0N5XjlgtLrYzqaQUzuLG]

This means that the world poor death number are only going to increase.

For example,last year, the worldwide deaths from January 1 to March 25, 2020 were: 21,297 – Death by Coronavirus 2,382,324 – Death by Hunger(Source: http://www.worldometer.info)

Are the WorldOMeter numbers and the “Food prices across the world have risen to their highest levels in a decade” saying that the death toll of over two million people worldwide dying of hunger this year could increase dramatically due to the totalitarian Covid lockdowns?

Is it possible that the COVID-19 lockdowns could kill millions of the poor by starvation?

According to The Guardian, the Covid “[c]urbs on the movement of people, because of the lockdown, also threatens to create shortages of farm labour at a crucial time of year for many crops” which “could double [the] number of people going hungry.”

Another reason for this The Guardian reported is because “[f]ood supplies across the world will be ‘massively disrupted’ according to “some of the world’s biggest food companies have warned.” (The Guardian, “Coronavirus could double number of people going hungry,” April 9, 2020)

It appears that the totalitarian lockdowns are not just anti-Christian and unconstitutional, but also could possibly kill millions more than could be killed by the Covid.

Are the Covid lockdowns a kind of genocide against the poor on a worldwide basis by the media, the globalists and the cowardly conservative world leaders? 2020 headlines across the globe showed this may have already been happening:

“Divided [India] Delhi under lockdown: ‘If coronavirus doesn’t kill me, hunger will'(The Guardian, March 2020)

“Navajo Nation [in the United States]: Fears of hunger as COVID-19 lockdown to intensify”(Al Jazeera, April 8, 2020)

“In Zimbabwe, ‘you win coronavirus or you win starvation”(ABC News, March 14, 2020)

The above ABC News article showed that dying from the coronavirus is a minor concern for Africans compared to the real concern of dying from hunger:

“‘It’s better to get coronavirus while looking for money than to sit at home and die from hunger,’ Kampira said, to the loud approval from other vendors.”

There is a German government assessment reporting that the totalitarian lockdowns could kill many more than could be killed by the Covid:

Tichys Einblick revealed that a leaked impact assessment from the German Ministry of the Interior says that the lockdown may kill more than the COVID-19. [https://lockdownsceptics.org/analysis-by-a-senior-official-at-the-german-ministry-of-the-interior/]

Moreover, the Irish Society for Christian Civilization report on the COVID-19 apparently says that the lockdowns could kill many thousands and even millions of poor due to hunger and starvation. [https://www.isfcc.org/post/the-most-monumental-social-engineering-ideological-transshipment-effort-in-history-is-bolstered]

Are Joe Biden-like world leaders who have issued the totalitarian Covid lockdowns committing Stalin-like starvation genocide against the Poor?

Did the American and world leaders by their totalitarian lockdowns commit to killing people like Kampira and possibly millions such as him by starvation?Are all the leftist American and world leaders as well as the cowardly conservative world leaders who have issued the totalitarian lockdowns complicit in committing a type of starvation genocide against the poorest of the poor on a worldwide basis?
Did they become like Joseph Stalin who killed millions by starvation in the Ukraine in 1932-33? Might leftist Climate Change fanatics who support Covid lockdowns like apparently the Antifa supporter David Hogg who is a anti-Second Amendment fanatic want millions of “non-white people living in poor third world countries” such as in Africa to die because it is “great for the environment”?:
In a report by Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson, he ran across posts made by DavisGreen111 on Reddit and discovered that the poster was none other than little David Hogg [if Watson’s speculation is correct].
Watson shares what he discovered.

In a 2017 Reddit post, ‘March For Our Lives’ gun control activist David Hogg celebrates the fact that mosquitoes kill “billions” of people as being “great for the environment”. Another user on the site asked the question, “What is a positive reason for mosquitoes to exist?” to which Hogg responded, “They kill humans, billions of them, which is great for the environment.” The post was made eight months ago.

Although the entry was posted under the pseudonym ‘davisgreen111’, the account almost certainly belongs to Hogg. The poster refers to himself as “David Hogg” in one post and another post links to a video from Hogg’s personal YouTube channel. Another post confirms that he lives in Parkland, Florida.

Another post also links to a story about Hogg’s father, former FBI agent Kevin Hogg. In another post, ‘davisgreen111’ makes reference to his dad being an FBI agent.
According to the World Health Organization, mosquito bites result in the deaths of more than one million people every year. There are 300-500 million cases of malaria every year and a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds.

The Reddit post conflicts with Hogg’s public image as somebody who cares about saving lives. Some would also construe the remark as racist given that mosquito-related deaths disproportionately affect non-white people living in poor third world countries.

#Malaria is a life-threatening disease caused by parasites that are transmitted to people through the bites of infected mosquitoes https://t.co/x6I15Ye9rE pic.twitter.com/Mq8Dv3MUXy
— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) November 29, 2017

In other posts, Hogg repeatedly discusses his inability to get a girlfriend and in one instance refers to girls as bitches.

Well, I’m none too surprised that he keeps the reference of girls to “bitches” instead of some of the more colorful language his sewer mouth produces. I’m also not surprised to see an anti-Second Amendment, scripted, useful idiot reveling in the deaths of other humans while he puts on the mask that he actually cares about people’s lives.
[https://steemit.com/davidhogg/@reformedmedia/apparently-david-hogg-is-celebrating-how-mosquitoes-kill-billions-of-people]
“My grandpa was part of the Antifa forces in WWII sad Donald Trump has labeled him and his fellow vets as terrorists.” David Hogg [https://mobile.twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1267455359213621248]
There are reports that millions of “non-white people living in poor third world countries” may die of starvation due to fallout from the Covid lockdowns.

Might leftist Climate Change fanatics who support Covid lockdowns like apparently the Antifa supporter David Hogg who is a anti-Second Amendment fanatic want millions of “non-white people living in poor third world countries” such as in Africa to die because it is “great for the environment”? 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.

Francis Notes:

– “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

Election Notes:

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

When Stanford University killed off its Western Civ course over 30 years ago, conservatives warned that something more than a graduation requirement was at play in the debate. Without that course of study, they said, our way of life would be endangered. Western civilization itself, they argued, was at stake in the debate. That claim was mocked by leftist critics and cowardly administrators alike, but time has borne out the warnings. With liberty itself increasingly rejected, even as an ideal, by the rising generation, the continuity and flourishing of our civilization can no longer be taken for grant

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

Parents Can Save Western Civilization

Published on November 4, 2021

National Review Online

By STANLEY KURTZ

The parents of Loudoun County, Va., stand at the forefront of a movement with the power to reverse the decline of our constitutional republic, our traditions of liberty, our faith in ourselves, and ultimately, Western civilization itself. It is no accident that the weight of this struggle has fallen upon the shoulders of parents.

The woke assault on core American principles such as freedom of speech and individual merit germinated in the 60s, matured in the American academy in the late 80s and 90s, achieved dominance on campus in the early decades of the millennium, then spread in just the past few years out of the quad and into the leading institutions of the country at large.

This transformation moved slowly at first, then took hold seemingly everywhere at once. That’s because a generation of America’s elite has been steadily imbued with an alternative set of beliefs. Those beliefs were inculcated full force during the college years and to an only somewhat lesser extent in K–12. Once the recipients of this (mis)education reached critical mass, a direct challenge to core republican principles became viable. Meanwhile, the decline of religion has helped transform the new belief system into an alternative faith, lending tremendous energy to its acolytes.

Yet the legions of woke possess a strength which in time may become a weakness. For every convert to the faith, one or two others are merely cowed into silence. The sword of the wokerati is the accusation of racism or bigotry. Woke illiberalism rides on the power of liberal principle itself. Because Americans dread being shamed for any betrayal of our core belief in individual merit or worth, we shrink from anything that might provoke such an accusation, whether the charge be true or not.

This fear supplies the woke with a formidable strategy: expand accusations of racism and bigotry to cover any disfavored policy or principle, including even the very nature of our constitutional republic and the norms that support it. Neither the Constitution nor its underlying principles can reply to such accusations. Only individuals can do that.

Yet any given person who gainsays false charges of racism risks being attacked as a racist himself. For decades, the calculus has been the same. It is not worth the cost of fighting back against promiscuous charges of racism, even — or especially — when accusations are expanded to cover intellectual traditions, institutions, or systems. Once a critical mass of accusers stand watch over the false charges they generate, silent and sullen acquiescence is the sensible response.

Thus, woke dogma has gained acquiescence from students cowed by peer pressure, administrators who dread disruption and bad publicity, and now editors and corporate leaders who fear the same. The calculus counsels surrender, whether individual or institutional reputation is at stake.

When this process started, decades ago, it was college administrators who shrank from defending academic freedom, free speech, individual merit, and the teaching of the civilizational tradition out of which these principles emerged. Once false accusations of racism were laid on the table, college presidents folded and the game was lost. As this same dynamic of accusation and sullen surrender spreads beyond the academy to society as a whole, not only the theory but the substance of our constitutional system and the mores that uphold it hang in the balance.

Yet someone holds the power to reverse this decades-long trend: parents.

Parents can stand against false charges of racism, because for parents the calculus is different. A parent’s calculus is the calculus of love and sacrifice, of responsibility and stewardship, of duty and courage. The calculus of a parent is the calculus of a soldier, and soldiers are what is wanted.

The irresistible force has at last butted up against an immovable object. Just when the calculus of individual caution green-lighted the most extreme and openly racist versions of woke ideology — the assault on so-called whiteness and the 1619 Project’s false version of American history — parents entered the picture. It took parents to finally say no.

The question now is whether the momentum of societal decay can be reversed instead of merely halted. Can rebellious parents go on offense against the woke seizure of our culture?

Here is a way to begin.

Restore the teaching of Western civilization. Restore an appreciation for Western civilization as the common heritage of all Americans, regardless of race, creed, or ethnicity. Accepting false claims that teaching Western civilization is mere racial or ethnic cheerleading was a big part of what got us into this mess to begin with. We sold out our heritage — the story of our governing principles, where they came from, why they’re worth defending, and the ways in which they remain available to all — in fear of false charges of bigotry. To restore what has been destroyed, we must bring the teaching of Western civilization back.

True, college Western civilization courses now barely exist. Longtime holdouts have lately been crushed, and a movement to “decolonize the curriculum” is on the march. Woke classicists are actively working to destroy their own discipline. In such circumstances, restoration may seem impossible. It is not. There is a way for a counter-woke revolution to strike back. The path to restoration runs through states and local school districts, where parents rather than academic ideologues hold the initiative.

Traditionally, the latest trends in leftist ideology percolate down from universities to K–12 by way of state standards and textbooks, although the process can take years to play out. Once Western civilization was expelled from the halls of academe, statewide K–12 history standards dumped the term and started teaching “world history” instead. At first, statewide K–12 world history standards remained largely focused on traditional Western Civ content, even if under a new name.

Over time, however, the academic “world history movement” began to purge K–12 standards of their “Eurocentric” content and replace them with education for “global citizenship” and the leftist version of “social justice” instead. The point was to undercut our sense of national and civilizational identity, creating one-sided political activists in the process.

Often, this shift is engineered under the noses of conservative legislators and governors by the woke bureaucrats and consultants who dominate even red-state education departments. Republican-appointed state education leaders are either disinclined to challenge the left-leaning professors, bureaucrats, and curriculum subject specialists they rely on, or are sufficiently unfamiliar with the latest academic codewords even to realize they’re being conned. A veritable industry of education consultants now specializes in language games and clever strategies designed to hijack state K–12 standards and turn them to leftist ends, without state legislators, governors — or parents — catching on.

But what if states and local school districts were to actively push back against all this? Instead of blindly following the lead of the woke education-school graduates who populate state bureaucracies, state office-holders and local school boards could pursue a return to the teaching of Western civilization. (This does not mean eliminating the study of non-Western history, by the way.)

This program would require the active leadership of governors, legislators, and school-board members determined to get out from under the leftist education monolith now killing our culture. With parents across the country activated by the fight against critical race theory, this strategy has a chance of success. Yet it requires that governors and legislators appoint state education officers who are not the usual suspects, and explicitly charge them with restoring Western civilization to the K–12 curriculum. It will also require the creation of new curriculum material on Western civilization that can be adopted at the local school-district level. Non-profits such as American Achievement Testing (AAT Education) are already beginning to do this for U.S. history and civics. Curricula in Western civilization could follow.

It won’t be easy. But instead of blindly following illiberal academic fashions dictated by a politicized academy, states and school districts have the power to actively resist these trends. If a series of red states and school districts were to restore the teaching of Western civilization at the K–12 level, it would serve as a powerful cultural counterweight to the woke ascendency. To be sure, a campaign to restore the teaching of Western civilization would raise the hackles of the entire American education, media and cultural establishment. Yet a public debate over Western civilization’s role in shaping our republic is precisely what we need. Once parents, rather than woke education bureaucrats, are in the driver’s seat, victory is achievable.

With college students shouting down visiting speakers while holding placards that say “rule of law=white supremacy” or “liberalism is white supremacy,” it is apparent that something in this country has gone terribly wrong. A recent survey showed that two-thirds of college students favor speaker shout-downs, while nearly a quarter say they’d go so far as to use violence to stop a speaker with whom they disagree. These students no longer understand what classical liberalism or the rule of law represent, how difficult they were to develop and secure, or how precious and fragile they remain. The woke ascendency aims to solidify the slogans on those placards with a curriculum built around claims of “systemic racism.” In more ways than one, that would mark the decline and fall of Western civilization.

It is no coincidence that the generation of students who approve of shouting and violence as ways to deal with speakers with whom they disagree knows little of ancient Greek democracy, Roman law, the Magna Carta, the common-law tradition, the Judeo-Christian sources of liberal democracy, Enlightenment philosophy, and so much more that used to be taught as a matter of course in our schools. It’s not uncommon for state-level K–12 history standards to omit the European Middle Ages altogether. The history of liberty and its development over millennia in the West — once the centerpiece of American education — is now barely emphasized. If anything, great effort is expended to ensure that this story — our story — cannot be told.

Parents can change all of this by refusing to accept top-down orders from the woke higher-education establishment. Instead, they can push back from below by way of school boards and state legislatures, not only by blocking CRT, but by restoring the teaching of Western civilization to our schools.

When Stanford University killed off its Western Civ course over 30 years ago, conservatives warned that something more than a graduation requirement was at play in the debate. Without that course of study, they said, our way of life would be endangered. Western civilization itself, they argued, was at stake in the debate. That claim was mocked by leftist critics and cowardly administrators alike, but time has borne out the warnings. With liberty itself increasingly rejected, even as an ideal, by the rising generation, the continuity and flourishing of our civilization can no longer be taken for granted.

It is not too late to repair the damage. Parents take note. Killing off Western Civ got us into this mess. Bringing it back gets us out.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The point of traditionalism as a movement today is that if you try something new and it leads to problems you start looking at what your predecessors did. If there are practices and understandings that have actually sustained the faithful, why not give them a try? To all appearances, that approach has been helping many people. Among other things, it has given them a stronger sense of the solidity of the Faith. Even so, many want to crush it. How can that be the right thing to do?

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

Tradition and traditionalism

The faithful need assurance that those in charge of the Church are bound by some authority above themselves, and it helps for that authority to be as visible as possible. Appeals to the principle that God can be trusted to guide his Church shouldn’t be presumed upon.

November 2, 2021 James Kalb Columns, Ecclesia et Civitas, Features 24 Print

stignatiuschurchrome — The Church of St. Ignatius of Loyola (Chiesa di Sant’Ignazio di Loyola in Campo Marzio) in Rome. (Image: Clay Banks/Unsplash.com)

“Traditionalism” mostly has a bad name among commentators. Critics often quote a comment by historian Jaroslav Pelikan:

Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide.

People treat that as a good summary of the situation. But where does it take us?

The comment seems to make tradition a matter of current views (“living faith”). We converse with our predecessors, as with our contemporaries, and then decide what’s what and what we should do about it.

So where Jude tells us to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,” Pelikan wants us to contend earnestly for what we now believe. That, of course, is not the same. It might have made sense from his point of view, since he was Lutheran when he made the comment, but not all of us are Lutheran.

For Catholics “traditionalism” has something indispensable to say, because it’s something we don’t decide. That means it can give us truths that seem dead to us, because we are dead. It keeps them in front of us until eventually we notice them. That’s how dry bones can live.

The original liturgical movement provides an example. People had forgotten what the liturgy was about, so they needed to look at it anew and see what’s there. There was no notion that the Church should scrap her inherited liturgies, because people no longer understood them very well, and compose something that seems more meaningful today.

Pope Francis, however, seems to take an anti-traditionalist view. In an airborne press conference a couple of years ago he put it this way:

Tradition is the guarantee of the future and not the container of the ashes….
The tradition of the church is always in movement. The tradition does not safeguard the ashes.

The idea seems to be that tradition shows where things come from, and it should inspire where they go, but that’s it. The specifics are up to us and our discernment of present needs.

Many people agree with that view, but it’s not clear how far they want to take it. To what extent, for example, does it apply to scriptures, creeds, councils, and dogmatic definitions? People don’t say. Instead, they talk about how it’s bad to be a “fundamentalist”—apparently, someone who takes specific religious propositions seriously—and good to be nuanced and take context, pastoral needs, and contemporary insights into account.

The result though is that interpretation becomes open-ended, and different people will take it very different places. As a practical matter, then, an emphasis on current interpretations means an emphasis on personal authority. We learn whose interpretations are binding, and the Faith becomes what that authority says it is.

That might be one person, a council, or the consensus of experts or the people collectively. Whatever the approach, it won’t work if it’s understood as political. The faithful must believe the interpretations are correct and follow from principles that bind everyone, leaders as well as followers. If they think what’s decided just shows what the higher-ups want, they will lose interest and drift away.

That’s a big reason exercises of interpretive authority have normally been rather limited, with an emphasis on the authority of the system as a whole rather than the interpreter. Judaism and Islam rely on the findings of experts, and their more durable forms are extremely conservative. The Eastern Orthodox, who rely on councils, are also quite conservative. And the more congregational Protestant churches, at least the ones that last, tend to be rather literal-minded.

Some suggest a pope can do anything, but actual popes have also been quite restrained: they haven’t claimed prophetic gifts, rarely appealed to infallibility, and have dependably fallen in line with the historical consensus of bishops, the faithful, and other authoritative figures.

But every age brings its own problems. Today we’ve developed a technological way of thought that weakens tradition as a principle, denies the fixity of linguistic meaning, and views social order as a human construction. If the Church is viewed that way, as one construction among many, her discipline, doctrine, and governance become human decisions that can be changed if those in charge prefer a “different way of being Church.”

Catholics of course don’t want to look at the Church as a human construction. They would rather emphasize her divine origin and see any changes as following the lead of the Holy Spirit. But the temptation to view everything as a matter of the will of those in power is basic to modern ways of thought, and it’s hard to keep it from affecting attitudes and conduct even among us.

That’s a strong reason to be very cautious today about the Pelikan view of tradition and traditionalism. The faithful need assurance that those in charge of the Church are bound by some authority above themselves, and it helps for that authority to be as visible as possible. Appeals to the principle that God can be trusted to guide his Church shouldn’t be presumed upon. That principle can also be understood in a nuanced way, and a great many things are done in the Church that are obviously not attributable to God’s guidance. So if you press the principle hard you’ll lose people.

Those at the top easily overlook the problem. For them the Church is their life and livelihood. It’s a solid, this-worldly reality that isn’t going to evaporate. So if they undertake to create a “different Church,” their confidence in the Church isn’t going to weaken. They believe their authority guarantees that what they do will be as valid as what their predecessors did, and the bigger the changes they make the more they can tell themselves that God is active in his Church.

Others, who see the human flaws of their leaders and may not be impressed by their projects, are likely to be less confident. Even if they retain their faith in God and his Church, they’re likely to have less confidence in particular things the Church says and does.

That reflection may help us understand some of the difficulties following the Second Vatican Council. Those involved were looking for a “new Pentecost.” Instead, the Church visibly declined. Belief and activity lessened. Many priests, religious, and laity dropped out altogether. The Pope retained celebrity status, but the world mostly lost interest in the Church herself. Like other Christian groups she grew in Africa as indigenous religious traditions weakened, but where she had been established she rapidly lost ground.

But why, when so many intelligent, responsible, and devoted men intended and expected otherwise? There are a variety of reasons. One was that a formal assembly of prelates and academic advisors does not seem a likely vehicle for a new Pentecost, the subsequent actions of administrators even less so.

Church councils have mostly limited themselves to dealing with practical issues, like disciplinary problems and doctrinal disputes. Inspiration has been for saints, and has had very little to do with planning, process, voting, hierarchy, or academic qualifications. Benedict, Francis, and other saints who renewed the Church didn’t have formal positions or qualifications, and didn’t come out of action plans or a global listening process. They saw what they had to do, did it, and that changed the world.

Also, the Council and later actions led to a sudden sense that everything in the Church could change overnight if those in charge so decided. For the people making the changes that must have seemed exhilarating, but for many others it meant the Church could no longer be relied on. However, if the Church cannot be relied on, why build your life on her?

The point of traditionalism as a movement today is that if you try something new and it leads to problems you start looking at what your predecessors did. If there are practices and understandings that have actually sustained the faithful, why not give them a try? To all appearances, that approach has been helping many people. Among other things, it has given them a stronger sense of the solidity of the Faith. Even so, many want to crush it. How can that be the right thing to do?

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

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

About James Kalb 120 ArticlesJames Kalb is a lawyer, independent scholar, and Catholic convert who lives in Brooklyn, New York. He is the author of The Tyranny of Liberalism(ISI Books, 2008) and, most recently, Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It (Angelico Press, 2013).

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

THE INSANITY OF OUR NATIONS HEALTH AUTHORITIES (STARTING WITH DR. FAUCI IS BECOMING MORE EVIDENT EVERY DAY

Posted on November 5, 2021 by abyssum

We will kill 117 kids to save one child from dying from COVID in the 5 to 11 age range

That’s according to a risk-benefit analysis done by risk-benefit expert Dr. Toby Rogers. His analysis has been viewed by over 22,000 readers. No mistakes were found. Nothing but praise.

Steve Kirsch20 hr ago69 31

Dr. Toby Rogers writes a popular substack looking at risk benefit issues. His credentials are described here.

In a recent article that I hope everyone will read or at least skim, he concluded: “So, to put it simply, the Biden administration plan would kill 5,248 children via Pfizer mRNA shots in order to save 45 children from dying of coronavirus. For every one child saved by the shot, another 117 would be killed by the shot.”

That’s stunning. Read it again. We kill 117 kids to save one kid.

Not surprising to me. It’s consistent with the scientific peer-reviewed literature such as the Kostoff paper which concluded:

In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions! This demographic is the most vulnerable to adverse effects from COVID-19. As the age demographics go below about 35 years old, the chances of death from COVID-19 become very small, and when they go below 18, become negligible.

The Walach paper found the same thing. It has now been re-published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law which is a peer-reviewed medical journal. The Walach paper appears in this issue along with a scathing editorial by the journal editor talking about how the paper authors were mistreated by the scientific community. James Lyons-Weiler wrote, “Either way, the authors of the latest paper in Science, Public Health Policy, & the Law (Walach et al.) have been caught, like grist in the mill, in a nonsensical, convoluted torture session in which their detractors have broken all logic and reason on the question of how society renders causal inference between vaccine exposure and serious illness or death.” James would love to debate anyone who disagrees with his editorial, but nobody wants to talk about it.

They don’t really care how many kids they kill from the vaccines. It just doesn’t matter. Their sole focus is on saving kids from dying from COVID, regardless of how many kids have to be killed from the drug. All-cause mortality is ignored entirely even though Pfizer’s own study showed 4X the deaths from cardiac arrest in the group that got the drug.

Even though there were 20 deaths in the group that got the vaccine vs. 14 deaths in the group that got the placebo, they can simply write that off as “not statistically significant.” In other words, the data does show that the drug does kill more people than it saves, but the study was never powered to measure that. So they can say “nobody knows” as long as they can keep fooling everyone to believe that the VAERS data is unreliable (which it isn’t which I address in detail here).

Over 22,000 people have read Toby’s analysis and nobody came up with a better estimate or a material error in his analysis. There were nothing but compliments on the quality of the analysis. In particular, nobody from the CDC or FDA pointed out any errors.

Here’s the background…

On September 24, 2021, Toby posted this reasonable request on Twitter:

He did get a response, but not to the question he asked. He wrote, “Pharma sent a swarm of trolls in to attack me and Pharma goons published hits pieces on me outside of Twitter to punish me for even asking the question. Of course none of the Pharma trolls provided an estimate of the NNTV for COVID-19 shots. That tells us that we are exactly over the target.”

Since nobody, not even the trolls, responded with data, he started looking into it himself.

Next, he wrote a series of articles on what he found; the risk-benefit analysis for the current COVID vaccines. In particular, he examined the case for the 5 to 11 year cohort which was just approved by the FDA.

I like Toby because he doesn’t pull any punches when he writes. He calls a spade a spade. Here are a few “highlights” from his recent articles that I think everyone should know:

“So then the NNTV to prevent a single fatality in this age group is 630,775 (28,384,878 / 45). But it’s a two dose regimen so if one wants to calculate the NNTV per injection the number doubles to 1,261,550. It’s literally the worst NNTV in the history of vaccination.” [ NNTV article ]
“Where to even begin with the FDA’s preposterous risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” in children ages 5 to 11?” [Red flags article]
“The FDA’s risk-benefit analysis in connection with Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application to inject children ages 5 to 11 with their COVID-19 vaccine is one of the shoddiest documents I’ve ever seen.” [Red flags article]
“The CDC “Guidance” document describes 21 things that every health economics study in connection with vaccines must do and the FDA risk-benefit analysis violated at least half of them.” [ NNTV article ]
“Pharma HATES talking about NNTV and they hate talking about NNTV even more when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines because the NNTV is so ridiculously high that this vaccine could not pass any honest risk-benefit analysis.” [ NNTV article ]
“If the FDA or CDC want to calculate a different NNTV (and explain how they arrived at that number) I’m all ears. But we all know that the FDA refused to calculate an NNTV not because they forgot, but because they knew the number was so high that it would destroy the case for mRNA vaccines in children this age. Your move CDC — your own Guidance document states that you must provide this number.” [ NNTV article ]
“So the Number Needed to Vaccinate in order to prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death, according to Pfizer’s own data, is infinity. ∞. Not the good kind of infinity as in God or love or time or the universe. This is the bad kind of infinity as in you could vaccinate every child age 5 to 11 in the U.S. and not prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death from coronavirus according to Pfizer’s own clinical trial data as submitted to the FDA. Of course Pfizer likes this kind of infinity because it means infinite profits.” [ NNTV article ]
“I’ve studied corruption at the FDA & CDC for a while now (6 years) and I’m always shocked at how brazen and blatant it is.” [this is a comment Toby wrote in the NNTV article shown below ]
“A funny thing happened this afternoon. Not funny as in “haha”. More like funny as in, “ohhhhh that’s how the FDA rigs the process.” [ NNTV article ]
“I watched all 6+ hours of the ACIP meeting today. Here are my initial reactions. These people are batsh*t insane. They live in an alternative universe. As cartoonish as the FDA’s VRBPAC meeting was last week, this was even worse.” [ACIP article]
“Pfizer learned their lesson with the adult trial and so when they conducted a trial of their mRNA vaccine in children ages 5 to 11 they intentionally made it too small (only 2,300 participants) and too short (only followed up for 2 months) in order to hide harms.” [ NNTV article ]

There is more, but you get the idea, right?

But the dose for the kids is 1/3 the adult dose… doesn’t that reduce the risk?

The short answer is nope. These people are playing fast and loose with the data. What they did is extrapolate the benefits from the older kids and claim that the benefits would be unchanged even at 1/3 the dose. So if they do that, then the risks should be unchanged as well.

If they admitted that the benefits may scale down with the dose, then the risks are likely to scale down as well.

Note that there were no benefits demonstrated in the 5 to 11 trial because it was too small to show that. So the benefits are really completely unknown. We have to extrapolate from the older age groups.

It’s not a compelling case to inject our kids

Solonsax wrote me on Gab the following questions with respect to the 5 to 11 cohort which I was unable to answer because there is no data that I’m aware of. Perhaps someone else can? (good luck)

How will one child be saved by the jab? Please explain.

1) The injection does not confer antibody immunity to the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2); it promotes antibodies to the ‘synthetic spike protein’; that spike protein is not specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus

2) The antibodies produced do not provide protection from the pathogen (SARS-CoV-2 virus)

3) The injection does not reduce hospitalizations or deaths

4) The injection does not reduce severe symptoms

5) The injection does not prevent the carrying of the pathogen

6) The injection does not stop transmission from one person to the next

So are these injections vaccines?
The conclusion therefore is NO. This injection for COVID-19 is NOT a vaccine (the vaccines do not stop infection, transmission, severe COVID, hospitalization, or death); it is best described as a gene manipulating platform. The mRNA shots has had disastrous results on laboratory test-animals for decades. Injecting RNA into the body to force the body to make SARS-CoV spike proteins, is itself very harmful. When our immune system detects the presence of the SARS-CoV spike protein, it attacks it with antibodies and lymphocytes. This causes cell death and other complications. Worse, the spike protein itself is toxic to cells. Among other things, it can cause bleeding and clotting throughout the body. In a very ugly twist, the spike protein is engineered in such a way that it especially attacks the testes and ovaries, potentially causing hormonal irregularities and sterility. The jab is very dangerous in multiple ways and in no way should it be considered a vaccine.

Nobody wants to know the NNTV?!?

It is amazing that there is no NNTV analysis from the FDA or CDC isn’t it? And isn’t it surprising that nobody in the mainstream media is asking for it?

Nobody in the mainstream medical community wants to see the NNTV analysis (and the associated risks) either! Do you see Eric Topol asking any questions? Monica Gandhi? Sanjay Gupta? Of course not!! Don’t be silly. That is never going to happen.

Even worse than that is that nobody on either the VRBPAC or ACIP committees wants to know the NNTV and see the risk-benefit analysis using the proper URF and the VAERS excess mortality analysis. So if you were ever on the fence on whether the system is rigged by the drug companies, you have your answer. The oversight committee members aren’t critical thinkers. None of them. I tried emailing all the members many times. NOBODY would engage in the data we found about VAERS (and we have the top VAERS experts in the world on our team).

Nobody in Congress wants to talk about the NNTV or the kids we will kill

Nobody in Congress will ask about it either. They never hold these people accountable. They trust them. Completely. Except maybe Senator Johnson and Senator Rand Paul who have been the only ones asking questions. Sadly, nobody else cares about how many people we kill with these “vaccines.” Seriously. Call your congressperson. You will never be able to ask them about it.

I’ve tried to get 5 seconds with my member of Congress, Anna Eshoo to talk about the issue of vaccine safety and all cause mortality caused by the vaccines, but she doesn’t want to hear about it and blows me off every time. Won’t take a meeting. Won’t answer any questions. Her staff no longer responds to any emails I write. They won’t tell me how our analysis is wrong. Their attitude is that it must be wrong because the CDC is never wrong. They won’t even read what you wrote.

Nobody will debate us on this analysis, even though it’s the only one out there

If anyone qualified wants to do a public recorded debate with Toby and our team on this, we’ll happily do this so we can resolve any issues ASAP. But nobody is going to want to do this. You won’t find anyone in the comments below saying, “let’s debate it.” That’s just not going to happen and that pretty much tells you who is on the winning side of this argument.

And the people who think the vaccine is safe cannot argue that they don’t have the time to do this because: 1) they want to stop misinformation and 2) this is the only qualified guy to have done the risk-benefit analysis so it’s not like there are hundreds of these. This is the only one!

They all say they want to stop misinformation. Fine. All they have to do is agree to a recorded scientific discussion where they can explain to us how we got it wrong and answer our questions and show us the correct answer. They will not do that. They will ignore and censor us to avoid being put in a situation where they will have to answer any pesky questions from people who know what is going on.

Wow. Just wow.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP

It appears that Francis despite much evidence that shows that the Covid vaccines can cause serious side effects and death is on the side of “good Catholic” Joe Biden on vaccine mandates:

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Did Pope John Paul II condemn the Vax Mandate Effect & the Francis Effect on Abortion?

Keep in mind that the survival rate for this ‘planndemic’ is 99.98%. There is no logical reason to force anyone to get this proven dangerous ‘vaccine’. There must be other reasons that we would probably shoot them for if we knew what they really wanted to accomplish.

Status & visibility

Permalink

Categories

Tags

Featured image

Excerpt

Discussion

A LITTLE TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE

BIDEN’S IMPLAUSIBLE VERSION OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH HUGO BERGOLIO

WE EAVESDROP ON A CONVERSATION BETWEEN ANTHONY FAUCI AND GUESTMASTER

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

World “Food Prices Vault to Highest Level in a Decade”: Did the Biden-like World Leaders who have issued the Totalitarian Covid Lockdowns commit Stalin-like Starvation Genocide against the Poor?

Parents Can Save Western Civilization

Tradition and traditionalism

THE INSANITY OF OUR NATIONS HEALTH AUTHORITIES (STARTING WITH DR. FAUCI IS BECOMING MORE EVIDENT EVERY DAY

We will kill 117 kids to save one child from dying from COVID in the 5 to 11 age range

That’s according to a risk-benefit analysis done by risk-benefit expert Dr. Toby Rogers. His analysis has been viewed by over 22,000 readers. No mistakes were found. Nothing but praise.

But the dose for the kids is 1/3 the adult dose… doesn’t that reduce the risk?

It’s not a compelling case to inject our kids

Nobody wants to know the NNTV?!?

Nobody in Congress wants to talk about the NNTV or the kids we will kill

Nobody will debate us on this analysis, even though it’s the only one out there

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Top Clicks

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Top Clicks