The Legends of Our FallThe left-wing postmodern idea of “truth” as a mere pick-and-choose official narrative is now normal. By: Victor Davis Hanson March 14, 2021 HAT TIP: RIP MCINTOSH “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. “Carleton Young in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance Many politicians at one point or another live by lies—if they can get away with them.  Our supposed sentinels, the media—self-defined as independent, cynical, and skeptical journalists—are supposed to separate political fictions from truth.   Legends As Facts Of course, sometimes they used to do that—if only selectively. There were Communist sympathizers in the Roosevelt Administration and holdovers in the 1950s deep state. But the Red Peril was not always what the demagogic Joe McCarthy claimed when shaking his lengthy, indiscriminate “lists” of “commie” names and crimes. Once U.S. Army counsel Joseph Welch, Edward R. Murrow, and assorted journalists began to demand proof of all of McCarthy’s charges, his public following dissipated.   The George W. Bush Administration in its case to remove Saddam Hussein unwisely ignored all the 23 bipartisan writs authorizing the use of the force by the Congress. Instead, it rhetorically bundled all congressional authorizations into one case against Saddam Hussein: the existential threat of huge Iraqi stockpiles of deliverable “weapons of mass destruction.”   After Saddam’s removal, U.S. forces did not find depots of poisonous and nerve gases. Whether they were nonexistent, or moved stealthily to border dictatorships like Syria or even Iran, or were destroyed no one knew. The public only remembered the government assurance that WMDs, the popular justification for the preemptive invasion, would be there upon U.S. arrival—a narrative that the media originally did not question and then later swore that it always had been skeptical as it led the cheer: “Bush lied, people died.”  Noble LiesSo there are lots of legends common across the political spectrum. Yet those of the Left are quicker to become fact. They become “truthful” because of the current appeasing progressive octopus of traditional media and Silicon Valley. In other words, some untruths become either “noble lies” that serve communitarian purposes or canonized lies that would cause too much collateral damage if exposed. The lie, or at least an unproven “truth,” soon becomes so institutionalized that the effort to challenge, or even modify it, is seen as corrective medicine far worse than the disease of the lie.  From the health of FDR late in his third term, to “family man” JFK, to the moral “lion of the Senate” Teddy Kennedy, our media printed legends when facts were considered too heretical or injurious to themselves and their icons. Yet when an ideological media decides to print legends, then we all descend into a nation buttressed by lies.  Russian CollusionTake the “Russian collusion” lie. For three years, everyone from Hillary Clinton and the New York Times to John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and the newsrooms of CNN and MSNBC, assured the nation that Donald Trump stole the 2016 election through “collusion.” Indeed, Trump was declared an active Russian“asset.” That was pure legend from its beginning with no proof, and none of its purveyors have yet apologized. Carter Page was a fall guy, not an agent. The FBI lied about him, and eventually forged an email to entrap him. Christopher Steele was a Trump-hating, washed-up British spy, who was a pathological prevaricator. His “dossier” remains unproven and, in places, on even a first reading is demonstrably absurd. Any “collusion” likely was Steele’s own gullibility in believing Russian-sourced fantasies. It was Hillary Clinton who hired Steele to do opposition research on her opponent Donald Trump. She disguised her payments through the three firewalls of the DNC, the Perkins Coie law firm, and Fusion GPS. When pressed to put up or shut up, Steele claimed he no longer had his notes and documentation. The FBI had fired him and considered him unreliable—but not without utility, given his anti-Trump venom and his vestigial high-level contacts.  The “dream team” of the doddering Robert Mueller never proved Russian collusion. The special counsel’s $35 million project ended up disgracing itself with resignations from soon-to-be admitted felon Kevin Clinesmith and the Peter Strozk-Lisa Page partisan paramours. The special counsel Mueller, while under oath no less, could not recall any real knowledge of the Steele dossier, or indeed Fusion GPS, its progenitor—the two foundational catalysts for his entire investigation. James Comey on 245 occasions swore to the House Intelligence Committee that “he could not remember” when asked about the basic details of his own FBI investigations. CNN serially was forced to retract its “bombshell” and “walls are closing in” psychodramas. No matter. Collusion is still a legend seared into the mind of the Left as fact, given the media’s three-year saturation of the airwaves and its value in harming the hated Trump.  The PlagueNo modern era has changed American life more than three events in the 12 months between February 2020 and February 2021—the COVID-19 pandemic, the death of George Floyd, and the January 6 Capitol assault and riot. Yet in all three cases, legends, not facts still dominate.  The legend is that a mysterious virus, birthed in a wet market, escaped from Wuhan to the world at large. Then, the Chinese government, with the timely help of the World Health Organization, marshaled the world’s health experts. They immediately did all they could to appraise the endangered global public of the looming dangers.  After normal hits and misses, and despite the buffoonery of Donald Trump, the legend has it that finally experts and courageous state governors implemented life-saving national quarantines that mitigated the disaster of an inept administration. Meanwhile, China and the EU far more effectively dealt with the pandemic than the hapless United States. In truth, we still have no proof of when or how exactly the virus from Wuhan first originated. It is just as likely that a level four viral lab was the incubator, and the virus was released through a mysterious accident. The origins and nature of the virus were hushed up by the Chinese Communist Party from the beginning. A sycophantic and compromised WHO issued lies about the imminent danger, consistent with its patron China’s instructions.  On the accessibility and reliability of initial testing, the utility of masks, travel bans, transmissibility, and the dangers of a pandemic, our medical experts at the CDC, the NIH, NIAID, and our own Dr. Anthony Fauci were, as humans and like our politicians, contradictory and sometimes dead wrong.  They presented arguments from authority rather than from fact—and then constantly changed narratives without admissions that prior assertions were flat-out wrong. Often their narratives were shaped by media flattery, political polls, and the election year 2020. Year-long quarantines and lockdowns finally lost credibility, not because of clueless red-state governors or the ignorance of the deplorables. The edicts were implicitly mocked by our own officials who sometimes violated them even as they loudly insisted on them, from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to California Governor Gavin Newsom to San Francisco Mayor London Breed.  Medical professionals went on record that mass protests in May, June, and July were not medically unsound given their ideological urgency. No one told the people that the careerist, Emmy winner, and now alleged sexual predator, Andrew Cuomo—who up until now has been deified by the media—for political reasons had sent thousands to their death by releasing COVID patients into pristine populations of the vulnerable in nursing homes. In other words, ideology constantly adjudicated medical narratives. The media in 2020 further assured us that the Trump Administration’s promised 2020 COVID-19 vaccination was a myth, another Trump-brand brag. Politicians like Kamala Harris virtue signaled to the nation that she would not take a Trump-endorsed vaccination.  When the drug companies announced a successful vaccination mysteriously just a few days after the November election, Harris and other vaccination deniers were among the first cohorts to be vaccinated.  Joe Biden, first vaccinated on December 21, claimed no American was vaccinated until he took office on January 20 (“It’s one thing to have the vaccine—which we didn’t have when we came into office”). He quickly took ownership of the once ridiculed Operation Warp Speed and blamed Trump for not producing quickly enough vaccinations that Biden had doubted would even appear in 2020. Never have the facts of a pandemic in American history become more politicized and warped by the media for political advantage. From the Capitol to Mighty Joe Biden to MinneapolisNow we are presented with yet more legendary narratives. On January 6 a mob, mostly of pro-Trumpers, broke into the Capitol. Some vandalized it and many resisted police. That account of a violent intrusion seems fairly certain. But we additionally were assured that this was an “armed insurrection,” and that an insurrectionist “murdered” a police officer, Brian Sicknick. His body lay in state at the Capitol in rare homage to his sacrifice thwarting off alt-right, white supremacist revolutionaries. Yet—so far—no master insurrectionist planners have emerged; no plan of a coup or of a Capitol takeover exists. There are no cells found deep inside the government that were activated by or followed up on the assault. Donald Trump did not urge violence, but the opposite in warning demonstrators to be peaceful. If he is culpable of anything, it was the bad idea of organizing a huge rally, while the Congress was in session, on the premise that it was still imminently possible to overturn the election result of early November. He should have informed his supporters that, whatever grievances they had, there was zero chance on January 6 of that election reversal ever occurring.  Officer Sicknick did not, as the media and impeachment narratives insisted, die from head trauma from a violent assaulter. The cause of his tragic demise remains unclear. But he may have died from natural causes, not necessarily aggravated by riot-related violence. No one arrested in the Capitol was found either to have brought in or to have used a firearm. No one was then “armed.” No protest or vandal brought their own plastic ties into the Capitol to kidnap or “arrest” legislators as media reports have alleged.  We still await the full story of January 6, an event that was used politically to justify a second impeachment and trial of Trump, the greatest militarization of Washington, D.C. since the Civil War, and the most intrusive use of state power in memory to root out supposed insurrectionists throughout government. Another legend presented as fact is the vigorous presidency of 78-year old Joe Biden. If he has not given a press conference in 50 days, we are told, it is only because he does not wish to become a distraction from pressing events.  His slurred speech, fragmented pronunciation, mental fogginess, slips, and blank stares are not reported fully. In late 1944 if millions of Americans still believed the myth that FDR could walk on his own, albeit with difficulty, and remained in sound health, so in 2021 Joe Biden is supposed to be cogent, alert, and without cognitive issues.  The result? The United States is now unknowingly engaged in a great experiment not seen since the hushed-up incapacity of stroke-victim Woodrow Wilson: can the oldest president in our history, with obvious cognitive impairment, serve as a virtual commander-in-chief? Can he meet head-to-head with either friendly or hostile leaders? Or will the fusion media play its accustomed role of putting ideology over the interests of the American people and keep raving over his purported Lincolnesque speeches? We are soon to witness the most contentious and volatile trial in modern American history. It will not just determine whether Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin was innocent, or guilty of either manslaughter or second or third-degree murder in the death of George Floyd while in police custody. It will also determine whether there is peace or violence again in our major cities. The media has not apprised us that there are legitimate arguments that Chauvin may not be guilty of murder, given the strange Minneapolis police institutionalization of knee-to-neck methods of subduing resisting suspects, and possibly lethal levels of drugs found in the toxicology reports of the deceased. Any effective prosecutor might well convince a jury of Officer Chauvin’s recklessness and his obliviousness to the appeals of the gasping suspected that nonetheless would justify a conviction of involuntary manslaughter—but not murder. The case is ambiguous, difficult, and no doubt will be full of surprises as heretofore new evidence is introduced. Clearly, it should never have been held in a tense Minneapolis. Yet the public is not prepped by the media to envision a fair trial in which we allow attorneys, judges, juries, and the evidence to determine the likely truth.   Instead, there is a sword of Damocles hanging over the entire proceeding—that of a return to 2020 summer-like looting, arson, and riot. That specter results from 90 days of prior violence contextualized and excused by the media. Street activists expect the same exemption should they not like the verdict—that is, anything other than a murder conviction and a long prison sentence.   Since May 25, 2020, an entire country has been recalibrated with woke remediation and reparatory programs—in hiring and admissions, and through workshops, reeducation thought training and renaming and rewriting of American customs and traditions. Thanks to the media, that entire reset has hinged on the supposedly open and shut case of a murderous Chauvin, aided and abetted by his co-conspirator officers and partners in crimes.   Their supposed murder of an innocent in custody was proof of an institutionalized racist, lethal, and nationwide rogue police industry—itself the reflection of a racist America. That allegation is now printed as fact. At this late date, the media will not wish a mere trial to stand in the way of the ongoing Jacobin revolution in our midst that it helped to start.  In sum, the left-wing postmodern idea of “truth” as a mere pick-and-choose official narrative is now normal. The relativist idea that everyone has a legitimate “truth” of his own broke out of its incubator—in this case, the university—and is now a scourge upon the land. Legends become fact, and lies become truth on the basis of their service to a cause.  In our upside-down world, the smeared “liar” is the revealer of such fraud. And sadly the deified “truth-teller” is in truth the abettor of falsity.  And all this is the work of amoral “moralists.”

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Viganò: “In the Conservative Milieux, we hear it said that Benedict XVI is the “True Pope” and that Bergoglio [Francis] is an “Antipope”

March 14, 2021

Hat Tip: Fred Martinez

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in an interview by Radio Spada stated “especially in the conservative milieux, we hear it said that Benedict XVI is the “true Pope” and that Bergoglio is an “antipope”:Radio Spada: In some articles that appeared on CatholicFamilyNews.com it was noted that your position on the situation of the Church is close to that of Archbishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. From the same source was reported a sentence by you according to which Archbishop Lefevbre himself would be an exemplary confessor of the Faith. Also, in the light of your firm criticism of Vatican II and, on the other hand, of your non-adherence to sedevacantism, it would seem that the approach you promote is very close to that of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. Can you tell us something about it?Archbishop Viganò: From many parts of the Catholic world, especially in the conservative milieux, we hear it said that Benedict XVI is the “true Pope” and that Bergoglio is an “antipope.” This opinion is based, on the one hand, on the belief that his Renunciation is invalid (due to the way it was formulated, due to pressure exerted by external forces or the distinction between munus and papal ministerium [ministry]) and, on the other hand, on the fact that a group of progressive Cardinals is said to have tried to have their own candidate elected at the Conclave of 2013, in violation of the norms of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis of John Paul II.Beyond the plausibility of these arguments, which if confirmed could invalidate Bergoglio’s election, this problem can only be solved by the Supreme Authority of the Church, when Providence deigns to put an end to this situation of very serious confusion. [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/vigano-pope-benedict-surrounded-himself-with-inadequate-unreliable-or-even-corrupt-collaborators] 

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=1Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.  

OPINION

Why it’s impossible for Catholic Church to bless homosexual couples: Cardinal Müller

‘A union of whatever kind, which is contrary to God’s Will, cannot at the same time be declared to be approved by God.’Mon Mar 15, 2021 – 10:54 am EST

By Gerhard Cardinal Müller

---

• Share on Gab
• Share on Facebook1
• Share on Twitter
• 3
• Share via Email
• Print this Page

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

March 15, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – 1. Behind the debates about the matrimony between a man and a woman and the “marriage for all” of the LGBT-ideology there is to be found the diametrical opposition between two incompatible images of man. In this context, it is necessary to understand marriage correctly and to live it in a new way.2. The Christian image of man is based on the order of creation: philosophically, the order of creation has a counterpart in the concept of ‘nature’. The concept of ‘nature’ does not mean the factual-material, but the spiritual-personal, which gives the material existence its form, its essence. Man is a person in a spiritual-bodily nature. The moral law has been written into the heart of every human being (Rom 2:16sq) as well as explicitly revealed to the people of God in the form of the 10 Commandments (Ex 20: 1-17; Deut 5:6-22). Thus there is a common insight into the nature of man beyond the borders of religions and world views. Man is never a means to an end, but an end in itself. This is also the meaning of the natural and international law, which has its origin in the thinking of the school of Salamanca and of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). These principles have been reflected in 1948 in the Charter of Human Rights or in the German Basic Law: The dignity of man is inviolable and this dignity precedes all positive legislation. The state cannot determine what the nature of man is, if it does not want to achieve a dictatorship of opinion and thus undermine its own democratic foundation. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic3. The image of man of genderism, the socially arbitrary construction of gender and of transhumanism is purely materialistic “as if God did not exist”. Gender ideology is therefore an anti-human ideology that wants to destroy the natural order and with it the spiritual-bodily integrity of man: the human being is not recognized as a unique person in the conditions of his corporeality, his historical and social location, but much more as biological matter that serves one’s own pleasure or the alien arbitrary will in just any form. Human nature, the creation as man and woman, is first to be deconstructed, i.e. destroyed, in order to be then newly constructed and defined at the complete discretion of whomever. What a devilish game that is to be played here with man. A game that is diametrically opposed to the principle ‘the dignity of man is inviolable’ from an anthropological and Christian point of view. In reality, the identity of man lies first in his person as man or woman, in his language, his culture, his conscience, etc. – but not in the erotic attraction to himself, another person, a fetish as a means of sexual self-pleasure.4. Only the Christian Sacrament of Marriage forms the perfect framework for the sexual development of man as man and woman. That is to say, it is oriented towards the other beloved person and thus towards God, Who also carries out His Will of creation and salvation through marriage and family. Marriage between a man and a woman is in no way only a form of mutual sexual satisfaction, but, rather a community of intimate personal love and holistic responsibility for each other (including the sacramentally mediated salvific relationship with God) and for the children and relatives. The classical and at the same time very modern doctrine of marriage has nothing to do with an appropriation of the spouses for (utilitarian) child rearing and for the egoistic satisfaction of sexual desires. Marriage is rather the participation of the spouses in God’s creative love in becoming one flesh (in Christ as a sacrament) and in the realization of the Creator’s will through the succession of generations. The children are here not toys of the parents. Rather, they are created by God and entrusted to the parents so that they may find their salvation in the glorification of God the Creator, Redeemer and Perfector of every human being.
5. The effort to adequately understand marriage in God’s Will of creation and salvation remains Christian only if the biblical testimony and the anthropology developed in the life of the Church and in the doctrine of the sacramentality of marriage do not fall under the paradigm of the anthropology of genderism, which is not natural but materialistic, i.e. atheistic. One must not, as in Gnosticism, submit the entire Revelation to an ideological speculation and only with some reminiscences maintain the appearance of Christianity (with associative Bible quotations or the insane dictum, such as “God created me diverse, egoistic, racist, nationalistic, etc.”, as if the dysfunctions and character defects were caused by God in a Manichaean way).

6. Thus, the state can not arbitrarily redefine the nature of marriage according to political interests, since the mutual assignment of man and woman belongs essentially to the nature of man. The concept of “marriage” can be properly used only in the context of the natural law and even more so in the ecclesiastical context: the unique union of a man and a woman in the communion of love, body and life before God. Thus, the use of the political slogan “marriage for all” is only a proof that nothing has been understood. One can even go so far as to suggest that such confusing and deliberately cynical wording may even be a violation or attack on religious freedom. The husband and the wife are unique persons in their love community and not the interchangeable sex partners in smaller or larger numbers.

7. People with same sex attractions are just as beloved by God as everyone else. Also the blessing of those individuals is –  just like the blessing of all people no matter what sexual inclination – is always an act of divine grace and a call to live according to the Commandments of God. But on the morning of creation, God blessed the first marriage as the union of a man and a woman. A union of whatever kind, which is contrary to God’s Will, cannot at the same time be declared to be approved by God. For to bless, benedicere, means to declare something to be good and to become good in God’s view and towards God. Respect for individuals with certain inclinations must also be distinguished from the interests of pressure groups that deliberately want to impose by force or with the help of brainwashing their views on the majority in society. According to the dictatorship of relativism, anyone who justifiably disagrees with this view is to be silenced, ostracized by the media or even legally prosecuted.

8. However, no other forms of living together can be blessed by the Church – if she remains loyal to her Divine Founder – except marriage and consecrated life; individuals, on the other hand, can all be blessed.
This does not only refer to the partnership of people with sexual inclinations to persons of their own sex. Also the partnership of a man and several women or of a woman and several men cannot be blessed by the Church. Even normal friendships are not formally blessed. Marriage between a man and a woman is part of the essential characteristic of the Church, since it is the fertile nucleus of the Christian family. It was instituted as a Sacrament by Jesus Christ and is inseparable from the community of believers. It is only with Jesus that, in the face of many an obscuration (caused by Original Sin) of marriage, God’s original Will for monogamy, indissolubility, openness to the child and sacramentality has once again become fully apparent.

Therefore, it is important that pastors, in the name of Christ the Crucified and Risen Lord and the Good Shepherd, encourage spouses to rediscover each other again and again, also as unique persons loved by God, and to rekindle in the Holy Spirit the fire of personal and integral love again and again. The family is and must remain the only place where the highest form of this spiritual and physical love and union with each other and with God is lived and where God’s Love for His creation is presented by man and woman in a uniquely fruitful manner.

Gerhard Cardinal Müller, RomeEditor’s note: Authorized translation from the German by LifeSite’s Dr. Maike Hickson

NEWS

RADIOACTIVE VIDEO ON BILL GATES BANNED IN 5 SECONDS BY YOUTUBE

MARCH 15, 2021EDITOR3 COMMENTS

Now watch the video which exposes Bill Gates as the chauvanistic anti-women  monster that he is. Fortunately, Ordo Militaris Radio TV records all its programs and upload them on channels which are free speech and pro-women, which evidently YouTube is NOT.

The attached is from LifeNews.  
See paragraph 4:  How can I “feel used and betrayed”?????  All of us knew exactly what biden stood for and it sure wasn’t LIFE for God’s unborn.  IMO – those stating that they “feel used and betrayed” are simply tragic pretenders. 
See paragraph 6: The TEACHING of the Catholic faith is that LIFE is always the preeminent issue.  About 50% of Catholic voters disregarded the teaching of their faith in 2020.  I don’t know of any Faith Tradition that has an “it is OK to murder God’s unborn” teaching / dogma {if you know of any, please inform me of such}. 
IMO – ALL Catholic Bishops & Priests and ALL Protestant Pastors and ALL Jewish Rabbis should / must TEACH LIFE from the PULPIT.  Silence is not shepherding their respective flocks.
Yea, we send each other emails decrying the election of those supporting the murder of God’s unborn children.  Shouldn’t we do much much much more than send each other emails?????  Shouldn’t we get off our butts and publicly stand up for God’s unborn children????? Shouldn’t we put our $ where our email writings are?????  Shouldn’t we financially support our state’s PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATIONS and PRO-LIFE candidates?????
Jesus told us to LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.  Are not THE UNBORN our neighbors?????  At my personal particular judgment {immediately post earthly death}, I am pretty sure that Jesus is NOT going to be impressed that I wrote some emails regarding the murder of His children, IF I didn’t also get off my butt and try hard to actively do something. 

NEWS

BERGOGLIO SAYS ONLY BY EMBRACING THE NWO CAN INJUSTICE BE HEALED!

MARCH 15, 2021EDITORLEAVE A COMMENT

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There is nothing more eloquent to condemn a man than the words from his own mouth: in this case, I speak of the anti-Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio in his interview published by the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, yesterday, March 14, 2021:

Here are his exact words, first in Italian, then in English translation:Con quale atteggiamento la sprecheremmo?«Chiudendoci in noi stessi. Invece, EDIFICANDO UN NUOVO ORDINE MONDIALE  basato sulla solidarietà, studiando metodi innovativi per debellare prepotenze, povertà e corruzione, tutti insieme, ognuno per la propria parte, senza delegare e deresponsabilizzarci, potremo risanare le ingiustizie. Lavorare per offrire cure mediche a tutti. Così, praticando e manifestando coesione, potremo risorgere».Now, in English translation:

With what mindset should we confront (the Pandemic)?

“What is happening can awaken everyone. It is time to remove social injustice and marginalization. If we seize the trial as an opportunity, we can prepare for tomorrow under the banner of human brotherhood, to which there is no alternative, because without an overall vision there will be no future for anyone. By putting this lesson to good use, the leaders of nations, together with those with social responsibilities, can guide the peoples of the Earth towards a more prosperous and fraternal future. The heads of state could talk to each other, confront each other more and agree on strategies. Let us all keep in mind that there is something worse than this crisis: the drama of wasting it. From a crisis one does not come out the same: either we come out better or we come out worse”.

With what attitude would we waste it?

“By closing in on ourselves. Instead, by building a new world order based on solidarity, studying innovative methods to eradicate arrogance, poverty and corruption, all together, each for his part, without delegating and deresponsibilization, we can heal injustice. Working to provide health care for all. Thus, by practicing and demonstrating cohesion, we can rise again.”

If you are a reader of FromRome.Info this discourse of Bergoglio should not surprise you, since you know that he was installed by the Freemasons in the USA, spouts chiefly the ideology of the Rockefeller Eugenic movement, and was installed in a coup d’etat which is ongoing. You also know that he is not the Pope but a NWO puppet, and that the real pope, His Holiness Benedict XVI, has been imprisoned in the Vatican in broad daylight by careful censorship of all his mail and personal contacts.

Would to God that an army of crusaders arise to liberate the Holy Father! After 8 years, it is shameful that no Catholic prince has taken any action.

https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0YvDPI8W?share_id=eyJ1c2VyaWQiOjQzMjQ1NzI4LCJkb2NfaWQiOiIwWXZEUEk4VyIsInRpbWVzdGFtcCI6MTYxNTgyNjAzNTY5MX0=&share_destination_id=NDMyNDU3MjgtMTYxNTgyNjA0MjEwNw==&s=a3&pd=02vSBkK8&hl=en_US

Vatican Slams The Door On Gay Unions March 15, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a Vatican statement issued March 15 that is sure to be controversial: There will be no recognition of homosexual unions or marriage by the Catholic Church. It is non-negotiable. End of story. Pope Francis has been under considerable pressure by gay activists, in and out of the Church, to give the green light to gay marriage. The statement released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to queries on this issue is the most decisive rejection of those efforts ever written. The Church’s top doctrinal office said, “it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e, outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex.” It further noted that “since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit.” The statement made it clear that this “does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching.” It is homosexual unions that are the problem, not homosexuals. Speaking of homosexuality, Vatican officials said it cannot “approve and encourage a choice and a way of life” that is “objectively disordered.” God, they declared, “does not and cannot bless sin.” In short, “the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.” The Vatican left nothing on the table. The door has been slammed shut on the gay agenda.

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

Dr. Mazza: “’It’s nothing business, it’s strictly personal’: The Psychic Powers of Pope Emeritus Part One”

March 15, 2021

Hat Tip: Fred Martinez

“The plain facts of the matter are these. If the mind presents an erroneous idea to the will and the will acts on it, that act is invalid by the very fabric of realty itself—not because canon law says so. And it doesn’t take a canon lawyer to determine whether or not the idea of the person was likely accurate or erroneous when said person has been obliging enough to make official speeches and book-length interviews for eight years. The pope might be above canon law (I’ve heard it both ways)—but he is certainly not above natural law, which is man’s participation in God’s Eternal Law, under which heading substantial error falls. Lastly, the silent acquiescence of the shepherds of the Conciliar Church to Bergoglio’s abysmal regime hardly has the power to bend the nature of ontological reality either.” – Dr. Ed Mazza

The Catholic Monitor wants to thank the great scholar Dr. Ed Mazza for his permission to post his article “’It’s nothing business, it’s strictly personal’: The Psychic Powers of Pope Emeritus Part One”:

Edmund J. Mazza, PhD

Only one is Pope…because of his psychic powers.

No, Ann Barnhardt’s favorite historian hasn’t taken leave of his senses—or his Catholic faith. By “psychic,” I mean the powers of the soul [psyche in Greek].

What makes us human, or rather, what makes us God-like is our use of the soul’s faculties of reason and free will. Animals lack both and precisely for this reason, can neither “sin” nor accumulate “merit” (as we can after Baptism).

Our reason presents us with knowledge and our will chooses in the face of this knowledge. Or to cut to the chase: the mind of a pope presents him with knowledge and his will chooses in the face of this knowledge. A pope knows about the Papacy and chooses to do something about it based on this knowledge, like say resigning, for instance.

This is what Pope Benedict told journalist Peter Seewald about his resignation in the 2017 book, Benedict XVI, Last Testament: “The Pope is no superman…If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function…the follower of Peter is not merely bound to a function; the office enters into your very being.”[i] (Emphasis mine) 

Benedict comes to the realization that he is not Superman—he is an old man. He shall, therefore, step down from the physical duties of the bishop of Rome, but his understanding of the Papacy is that it can never be relinquished in its spiritual aspects. He views it not essentially as a juridical office like the US Presidency or the Chief Executive Officership of a business enterprise, but as an ONGOING EVENT WHICH CHANGES THE ONTOLOGICAL NATURE OF THE PERSON.

At Lourdes, the Virgin Mary did not say “I am she who was immaculately conceived by God’s power.” She declared rather: “I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.”[ii] (And let us not forget that Benedict deliberately chose February 11^th, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes to make his “Declaration” to the world.) Or to use Benedict’s phrase, “the office enters into your very being.” He “remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on…” For Benedict, “it’s nothing business, it’s strictly personal”:

the sedes [Chair of Peter is] a cross and thus proves the Vicar [of Christ] to be a representative. He abides [exists] in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ; professing the Lord’s death and Resurrection is his whole commission and personal responsibility, in which the common profession of the Church is depicted as personally ‘‘binding’’ through the one who is bound . . . . This personal liability…forms the heart of the doctrine of papal primacy…[iii]

In April 2005, Joseph Ratzinger took on the awesome, ontological, personal responsibility of the Papacy: the Episcopacy of Rome and the Vicarship of Christ. Nearly eight years later, however, the pontiff felt that his 85-year-old stamina no longer permitted him to continue the “functional” duties of “words and deeds.” He will step down from them, but he will remain in the spiritual “suffering and prayer.” He says all this quite plainly in his official “Declaratio” of February 11, 2013:

my strengths, owing to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I  am well aware that this ministry because of its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with  words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.[iv]

vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum. Bene conscius hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando.[v] (Emphasis mine)

Benedict admits his physical strengths no longer allow him to adequately wield the Petrine ministry [munus Petrinum], this ministry [munus] is essentially spiritual in nature, but nevertheless, humanly speaking, must be functionally administered in words and deeds, he therefore concludes:

well aware [reason] of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom [free will] I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from February 28, 2013, at 8 p.m., the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant…

bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet… (Emphasis mine)

Did you catch the anomaly? You probably did not, if you only read the English.

In the first quote from the Declaratio which we reproduced above, Benedict uses “munus Petrinum” to describe the essential spiritual nature of the “Petrine ministry;” he is able to fulfill this “munus” through suffering and prayer but is no longer able to do so through words and deeds. In the second and concluding quote from his Declaratio, he declares that he renounces the “ministry of Bishop of Rome,” stating in Latin: “ministerio Episcopi Romae.”

Why, may we ask, did he suddenly replace “munus” with “ministerio”? Why abandon the consistency of his narration? Likewise, why abruptly change from speaking of the “Petrine” ministry or “munus Petrinum,” to “ministerio Episcopi Romae,” “Bishop of Rome” instead?

Actually, Benedict is being consistent.

He told Seewald that “he remains within the responsibility he took on…the office enters into your very being.” Accordingly, in his Declaratio, he never renounces the essentially spiritual munus Petrinum.

Likewise, he told Seewald that due to weakness of age he stepped down from the functional aspects—and so he did renounce the “ministerio” of Bishop of Rome.

Let us now return to our discussion of psychic powers.

In February 2013 Benedict saw the munus Petrinum as an essentially spiritual, invisible, ontological, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY he accepted back in 2005.[vi] This one thing or munus consists of active and contemplative “ministerii” Acting on this knowledge, he chose to renounce the “active” ministry “ministerio” of the Bishop of Rome, but not the Petrine munus or office itself, which by its nature enters into your very being and thus is incapable of renunciation. And this is what Benedict confirmed a few short weeks later at his last General Audience:

Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision [to accept the Papacy] was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church…The “always” is also a “for ever” –My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. (Emphasis mine)

In Benedict’s mind, he was only resigning the active exercise of the ministry of Bishop of Rome, not the spiritual essence of the munus Petrinum: “in the service of prayer I remain…in the enclosure of St. Peter.” Ontologically, as a PERSON he is to be found “remaining…at the side of the crucified Lord” for the sake of “the whole Church.” Or as he once put it: “This personal liability, which forms the heart of the doctrine of papal primacy, is therefore not opposed to the theology of the Cross or contrary to humilitas christiana but rather follows from it.” Or again, as he reiterates to Seewald, he REMAINS “connected to the suffering Lord as well, in the stillness of silence, in the grandeur and intensity of praying for the entire Church. So this step is not flight, not an attempt to escape, but in fact another way of remaining faithful in my service.”

But was what was subjectively in Benedict’s mind an accurate or erroneous understanding of the objective reality of the munus Petrinum? If one’s will acts on an erroneous appraisal presented to it by one’s reason, the WILL DOES NOT CHOOSE FREELY. Mistakes of this kind are most frequent in attempts at marriage. Marriage is an objective state of being that does not come into existence except from a free act of the will, which as we have seen, is dependent upon an accurate understanding on the part of reason:

error invalidates the act if it is an error concerning the substance of the act…Error affects consent, for the will in an act of consent elects an object presented to it by the mind. If the mind is in error, the object is imperfectly or incorrectly presented and choice made upon such a premise is not always the same choice that would have been made if the object were correctly known.[vii] (Emphasis mine)

Genesis chapter 29 is an illustrative example of such a “substantial error.” Jacob wishes to marry Rachel. (So in love is he that he labors seven years for her father.) At last, under cover of darkness, her sister Leia is introduced to the bridal chamber instead. Even though they engage in the marital embrace that night, they are not actually married, because his reason was operating on the erroneous assumption that he was choosing Rachel, not Leia. (As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, it was only Jacob’s subsequent choice the next day to accept her, despite the fact, that she wasn’t Rachel, that ultimately made the marriage valid.)[viii]

In the case of Pope Benedict, the stakes couldn’t be higher. If his notion of the munus Petrinum was erroneous, then his resignation was invalid. Canon 188 of the New Code of Canon Law (1983) states explicitly that “a resignation made out of…substantial error” is invalid.[ix] This would mean Benedict is still the Head of the Catholic Church and that Jorge Bergoglio is “Antipope Francis.”

Furthermore, it must be noted that for years-on-end critics of those who hold that Benedict is pope have accused them (among other things) of “not being trained canon lawyers.” Others have argued that Canon 188 does not matter anyway because the Pope as Supreme Legislator is “above canon law.” Still other prominent critics argue that because all the cardinals and 99% of the bishops of the Church have “peacefully accepted” Francis as pope, Benedict’s resignation AUTOMATICALLY MUST HAVE BEEN VALID.

The plain facts of the matter are these. If the mind presents an erroneous idea to the will and the will acts on it, that act is invalid by the very fabric of realty itself—not because canon law says so. And it doesn’t take a canon lawyer to determine whether or not the idea of the person was likely accurate or erroneous when said person has been obliging enough to make official speeches and book-length interviews for eight years. The pope might be above canon law (I’ve heard it both ways)—but he is certainly not above natural law, which is man’s participation in God’s Eternal Law, under which heading substantial error falls. Lastly, the silent acquiescence of the shepherds of the Conciliar Church to Bergoglio’s abysmal regime hardly has the power to bend the nature of ontological reality either.

In the end, the question comes down to Pope Benedict’s psyche, his understanding of the munus Petrinum. Can a man resign the active functions, yet remain “in the enclosure of St. Peter”? If you want to know how deep that rabbit hole might go, you will have to read Part Two.

[i] Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI, Last Testament: In His Own Words, (Bloomsbury Continuum, 2017).

[ii] “relativity toward the other constitutes the human person. The human person is the event or being of relativity.” Joseph Ratzinger, “Concerning the Notion of Person,” Communio, No. 19 (Fall 1992), 452.

Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of Papal Household, Benedict’s long-time personal secretary:

“And I, too, a firsthand witness of the spectacular and unexpected step of Benedict XVI, I must admit that what always comes to mind is the well-known and brilliant axiom with which, in the Middle Ages, John Duns Scotus justified the divine decree for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: “Decuit, potuit, fecit.”

That is to say: it was fitting, because it was reasonable. God could do it, therefore he did it. I apply the axiom to the decision to resign in the following way: it was fitting, because Benedict XVI was aware that he lacked the necessary strength for the extremely onerous office. He could do it, because he had already thoroughly thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of popes emeritus for the future. So he did it.”

From Diane Montagna, “Complete English Text: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s ‘Expanded Petrine Office’ Speech,” May 30, 2016 at Aleteia.org as cited in Robert Moynihan, “One Pope, One Petrine Ministry” at https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/lead-story/one-pope-one-petrine-ministry-response-archbishop-georg-gansweins-recent-remarks-benedict-francis/

[iii] Joseph Ratzinger, October 1977, during the symposium “On the Nature and Commission of the Petrine Ministry” marking the 80th birthday of Pope Paul VI; Cf. “The Primacy of the Pope and the unity of the People of God,” published as “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes” in a book Ratzinger edited, Dienst an der Einheit (Service to Unity); it has also been republished in books by Ignatius Press and in Communio Spring 2014.

[iv] “Full text of the resignation speech of Pope Benedict XVI” https://www.dw.com/en/full-text-of-the-resignation-speech-of-pope-benedict-xvi/a-16591358

[v] “Declaratio” [official Vatican Latin translation] at http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

[vi] “The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with ‘Petrine ministry.’ And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” [i.e. munus] He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi-shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst)…”

[vii] William F Cahill, “Fraud and Error in the Canon Law of Marriage,” The Catholic Lawyer, April 1955, Vol. 1, No. 2.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] “Substantial error is a mistaken judgment which affects the essential elements of resignation…either the cause or motivation for resignation or the nature of resignation and its consequences.” John P. Beal et al., eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 2000), p. 221-222. [https://www.edmundmazza.com/2021/03/12/its-nothing-business-its-strictly-personal-the-psychic-powers-of-pope-emeritus-part-one/]

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=1Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. SHARE

ALT-MARKET.US 

How The Fight Over American Freedom Will Probably Escalate

March 4, 2021 95 Comments

By Brandon Smith

Three months ago in December I published an article titled ‘Is The Globalist Reset Failing? The Elites May Have Overplayed Their Hand’. I was specifically interested in the development of the pandemic “crisis”, the lockdown mandates of governments worldwide, the bizarre vaccination campaign for the new and under-tested mRNA cocktail which was rushed out to the public in the span of six months, the World Economic Forum’s open statements that they hoped to exploit the pandemic as a springboard for their globalist agenda, and the public’s reaction to it all.

I have to say, I continue to see a divergence in what the elites clearly wanted to happen vs. what has actually happened. If the Event 201 pandemic war game on a coronavirus outbreak, held two months before the actual outbreak occurred in China, is any indication, then the globalists greatly overestimated the fear effect of Covid.

They predicted at least 65 million deaths from a coronavirus outbreak, but over a year has passed since the pandemic went international and the official death count stands at 2.5 million, with over 40% of deaths in the US attributed to nursing home patients that were ALREADY dying from preexisting conditions. Removing suspect nursing home deaths from the equation, the death count is probably closer to 1.5 million, again, if we adhere to official estimates.

To put this number in perspective, the CDC states that global deaths from the flu virus peak at around 649,000 depending on the year. Deaths from the flu and pneumonia reach as high as 1.4 million globally per year. Studies funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation find annual pneumonia death stats that are comparable to the CDC’s. Yet, we never saw Bill Gates calling for economic lockdowns, mask mandates and medical passports because of the flu or pneumonia. Why is that?

Today, the death rate of covid is 0.26%, FAR below initial predictions by globalist institutions and governments. It is now widely proven that the lockdowns did NOTHING to slow the infection spread of the virus, and now many areas of the US are starting to experience what the lab coat “professionals” affectionately call “herd immunity”. Infections and deaths are plunging, and the lockdowns and mask mandates were useless.

Like the vast majority of all viral illnesses, humans simply get sick, endure, build immunity and get healthy. Some of us die, as we always have, and government intervention is not needed nor is it welcome. This is why large portions of US and European populations are refusing to accept the lockdowns and the vaccines. Why destroy the economy and submit to a potentially dangerous genetic cocktail over a disease that 99.7% of the population is sure to survive?

The establishment elites really blew it this time.

My suspicion, my “conspiracy theory” if you will, is that the globalists announced their reset agenda under the assumption that the death rate for covid would be MUCH higher than it is. They were expecting something biblical, and instead they got something not much more dangerous than the flu and pneumonia.

There is now mass public resistance to the vaccinations and medical passports. This is probably why they rushed out the vaccines in the span of 6 months instead of a year to 18 months as they hinted at in early 2020. They are trying to get as many people as possible to take the experimental vaccines before the citizenry realizes that covid is a nothing-burger.

I can say that in my area the majority of people never wore the masks and the majority of local businesses never tried to enforce them. And though they initially went along with the first economic shutdown, they will not be complying with another. In my state of Montana, there are 1,300 deaths attributed to covid. In my county, the estimated infection rate is over 25% (which means almost everyone has probably already been infected), and there are only 13 deaths total.

No one is scared of this thing. Almost no conservative is going to wear a mask, and many people in Red states (and some in Blue states) are going to refuse to take the vaccines or accept medical passports.

This means that the globalists have a big problem. They obviously invested a lot into this pandemic. It is the key to their entire Reset agenda. Without a frightening pandemic killing tens of millions, the globalists will not be able to lock down the public and prevent them from traveling or organizing. They will not be able to institute the medical passports and contact tracing apps that would allow them to watch the public 24/7. They certainly won’t get most Americans to go along with the cashless society and the centralized global governance the elites are so obsessed with.

The fear of cronavirus is waning. The globalists have indeed failed in epic fashion. But, this doesn’t mean that they are going to give up. If my experience studying psychopathic people tells me anything, it is that when these lunatics are cornered they tend to double and triple down on their failures.

The question is, what will happen next? The establishment will need maximum instability and chaos in the near term if they hope to salvage their Reset project. If they wait too long awareness will spread and they might not get another chance for many decades to come, if ever. Here are the events I expect to see over the course of the next year…

Covid Mutation Hype

The globalists are doomed unless they can keep the pandemic panic rolling forward. For now, puppets like Biden and Fauci are going to pretend as if a full reopening of the economy is going to happen. This us a lie. Already we are seeing Biden waffling on when a reopening will take place. He has indicated that it will be at least a YEAR before the shutdowns will completely end, and this is predicated on the majority of Americans submitting to vaccinations and medical passports.

In other words, the establishment is telling us that they intend to hold the economy hostage until we take the jab and give up our freedoms.

Now, are these inbred totalitarians just out of their minds? Well, probably, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a Plan B. Just look at all the hype surrounding “covid mutations” in places like South Africa and Brazil; the narrative will be that a “new covid variant” that is more dangerous and deadly than the first virus is spreading, and that the lockdowns must return for the greater good of the public.

As a recent article from ‘The New Scientist’ states:

“Existing vaccines should stop people getting severely ill and dying if they do get infected by the P.1 variant. However, because many people remain unvaccinated, plans to ease lockdown restrictions would have to be rethought if this variant causes a resurgence in case numbers. Plus, any variant that circulates widely will have more opportunities to evolve into a more dangerous form.”

The New Scientist does not seem to understand basic science. The overwhelming majority of viruses circulating in the world usually evolve into less deadly forms of their original iteration. Viruses need to survive too, and they don’t do this by mutating into more and more deadly monstrosities that kill their favorite hosts. There is still no evidence that the new covid mutations are any threat whatsoever, but the establishment is already staging the narrative that new lockdowns are coming.

Federal Lockdowns

If the mutation narrative continues on the path it seems to be following, then I expect the Biden Administration to attempt a national federalized lockdown similar to the Level 4 lockdowns used in Europe and Australia, and it will be announced sometime this year.

This program will trigger several reactions; most importantly, most conservative states and counties will refuse to follow federal mandates. I know that my county and probably most of Montana will defy any new shutdown.

There will be several economic consequences that will erupt from this conflict; some positive and some negative.

Domestic Economic Warfare

This phase of the crisis will happen within a month to two months of any national shutdown. Red states will refuse to comply. State politicians, even if they are part of the agenda, will be too scared to try to enforce federal mandates. They will be compelled by the conservative citizenry to keep their states open. Most people in these areas will ignore mandates.

This will lead to a red state fiscal boom, at least in the beginning, as business continues to thrive in conservative areas while blue states suffer under medical tyranny. Companies will flee leftist states by the thousands and move to any states that remain open and accommodating. This will be short lived, though.

Biden and the federal government will try to retaliate, first by cutting off federal funds to any state that does not bow to their power and refusing to give stimulus to any businesses that relocate. Blue states will be flush with stimulus cash while red states will be forced to reduce or eliminate welfare programs and some pension funds.

Of course, the government has no real money to give, they only have our tax dollars and the fiat that the central bank creates from thin air. The likely response will be that conservative states and citizens will simply stop paying federal taxes. Another reaction will be red states taking over federal lands and utilizing the resources on those lands to rejuvenate their industry and make up for the federal dollars lost.

What this amounts to is a soft secession of conservative regions, which will eventually lead to federal attempts at physical intervention (the economic war will turn into a shooting war). The argument from the establishment will be that conservatives are putting the rest of the country “at risk”, that we are “selfish” and “literally killing grandma”.

Complete Erasure Of Conservatives From The Internet

I expect Biden and Big Tech to further pursue their current witch hunt against conservative voices, far beyond what we have already seen. In order to win a fight with conservatives they will first have to silence us so that our side of the argument is never seen or considered by the rest of the population. If they allow us to be heard, we will undoubtedly win because facts and moral reason are on our side.

It is hard to demonize people that simply want to be free.

But, if you can silence conservatives and moderates, then the narrative can be rigged. The establishment spin doctors can tell people that we don’t actually want freedom; we want something else, something evil and nefarious. They can tell people we are “fascists”, and that we are “racists” and that we actually want tyranny. Who is going to tell the public otherwise when we are removed from all available platforms and our websites are booted off service providers due to “dangerous ideas”?

Gun Control Madness

I know that some people think that leftists under Biden will not try to carry out a widespread gun crackdown and that much of the current talk is merely hollow rhetoric. I disagree. I think the globalists are going for broke, and they need to get as many combat capable firearms as they can from Americans soon. Democrats will push hard for legislation like HR 127.

They will then offer a “compromise” with Republicans and the NRA, cutting out portions of the bill. This will be a trick to make the public think that the new restrictions are a “reasonable compromise”. They think we will breath a sigh of relief and say “Well, at least they didn’t take everything…”

The gun grabbers are delusional.

What will really happen is millions of gun owners will pass local and state laws negating federal restrictions. No conservatives are going to give up their gun rights, allow red flag laws to be implemented or allow high capacity firearms to be limited; not at this stage in the game.

International Intervention

Eventually, leftists and the establishment will realize that conservatives will be harder to subjugate than they expected. They will discover that a large part of the US military and law enforcement is on our side. They will start to see mutiny among the people that they rely on as cannon fodder to carry out their dictates.

Even now, there are sheriff’s departments across the country refusing to enforce lockdown orders. And, 30% to 50% of medical professional say they will not be taking the covid vaccine depending on the state. When the rebellion goes live, this is when the globalists will have to pursue extreme options. They will not be able to win using domestic forces. Instead, they will seek out an international response, probably through the United Nations.

The rationale will be that the US has an enormous nuclear arsenal and that the international community cannot allow these weapons to fall into the hands of “white supremacists”. This is when the real fight will begin. If international intervention fails in the US, the globalists will find their heads on the chopping block. If the globalists win the fight in the US then there will be very few people left to resist them in the years going forward.

I have had numerous readers from all over the world write to me, saying that they believe in the face of the pandemic lockdowns it is now all up to Americans to turn the tide. I agree. A successful rebellion against globalism in America will lead to rebellions elsewhere, but the fact remains that if we lose, no one else will dare lift a finger. The future is in our hands.

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

With global tensions spiking, thousands of Americans are moving their IRA or 401(k) into an IRA backed by physical gold. Now, thanks to a little-known IRS Tax Law, you can too. Learn how with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals how physical precious metals can protect your savings, and how to open a Gold IRA. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.

You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com 

BRANDON SMITH

All posts

Posts Navigation