Germany: “Lockdown… Apparently Cost more Lives [than COVID-19]…’Cause Unimaginable Suffering'”
It appears that the totalitarian lockdowns may kill more the coronavirus.
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.
Lockdown Sceptics reported:
“The following is a translation of a press release put out by Tichys Einblick, a German magazine” “The lockdown and the measures taken by the German federal and central governments to contain the coronavirus apparently cost more lives – for example of cancer patients – than those actually killed by it. This is the result of an internal analysis by the “Protection of Critical Infrastructures” unit in the Federal Ministry of the Interior which has been made available to members of the ministry’s crisis team and leaked to Tichys Einblick magazine.”
“The 86-page paper with its critical evaluations – for example, of the data submitted by the Robert Koch Institute – has since been dismissed by the ministry as being an “isolated individual opinion”. According to information from Tichy’s Einblick, the paper’s author – a senior official at the ministry”
“– has now been suspended.”
“The study claims that the decisions of the ministry’s crisis team are exaggerated and that they cause more damage than they avoid.”
‘At the moment, supposedly protective measures cause further serious damage every day, financially as well as medically. They supposedly even cause a large number of avoidable deaths. It is the crisis management that has to be held responsible for this,” the author writes. “Coronavirus essentially kills people who would statistically have died anyway because they had reached the end of their lives and their weakened bodies could no longer bear additional everyday stress factors. The danger of Covid-19 was therefore overestimated.’
“With Covid-19, there have been no more than 250,000 deaths worldwide over this quarter of the year, while the 2017–18 flu outbreak alone claimed 1.5 million lives. ‘The risk is obviously not bigger than with many other viruses, so we have probably been dealing with a global, yet unnoticed, false alarm all along.’”
“Even worse: ‘The collateral damage is now higher than the apparent benefit.’”
“The seriously ill will die due to a lack of treatment because intensive care beds are now reserved for coronavirus patients. Operations are being postponed. ‘The deaths caused by that cannot be assessed seriously, yet experts already assume that there are between 5,000 and up to 125,000 patients who will die or have already died due to postponed surgery.’”
“The paper also sees a higher death rate as a result of the coronavirus measures in nursing: ‘The forced reduction of care in nursing homes in March and April 2020 will have caused premature deaths. For 3.5 million people in need of care, an additional death rate of 0.1% would result in 3,500 additional deaths. In the absence of more precise estimates, it is not known whether there are more or fewer.’”
“The data provided by the Robert Koch Institute used by the ministry’s crisis team as the basis for their decision-making are criticized as being unusable: ‘The ratings are often speculative, sometimes implausible. Unfortunately, the crisis team’s evaluations rely solely on these data.’ It is necessary to improve the data so that the pandemic can ‘finally be assessed with reasonable accuracy’”.
Moreover, it appears that the totalitarian lockdowns could kill many more than could be killed by the coronavirus by starvation.
Worldwide Deaths from January 1 to March 25, 2020:
21,297 – Death by Coronavirus 2,382,324 – Death by Hunger(Source: http://www.worldometer.info) The WorldOMeter says the death toll is over two million people worldwide dying of hunger so far this year which could increase dramatically due to the totalitarian coronavirus lockdowns. According to The Guardian, the coronavirus “[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 kill many more than could be killed by the coronavirus. Are the coronavirus lockdowns a kind of genocide against the poor on a worldwide basis by the media, the globalists and the cowardly conservative world leaders? Headlines across the globe show this may already be 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.” Are the American and world leaders by their totalitarian lockdowns willing to kill Kampira and possibly millions like 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 willing to commit a type of starvation genocide against the poorest of the poor on a worldwide basis? Are they willing to become like Joseph Stalin who killed millions by starvation in the Ukraine in 1932-33? Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Also, pray an Our Father now for God to give President Trump the grace to do His will in this present crisis.Posted by Fred Martinez at 9:54 PMEmail ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE CURE IS MORE DEADLY THAN THE DISEASE
The Washington Post is providing this important information about the coronavirus for free. For more free coverage of the coronavirus pandemic, sign up for our daily Coronavirus Updates newsletter where all stories are free to read.
Deborah Coughlin was neither short of breath nor coughing. In those first days after she became infected by the novel coronavirus, her fever never spiked above 100 degrees. It was vomiting and diarrhea that brought her to a Hartford, Conn., emergency room on May 1.
“You would have thought it was a stomach virus,” said her daughter, Catherina Coleman. “She was talking and walking and completely coherent.”
But even as Coughlin, 67, chatted with her daughters on her cellphone, the oxygen level in her blood dropped so low that most patients would be near death. She is on a ventilator and in critical condition at St. Francis Hospital, one more patient with a strange constellation of symptoms that physicians are racing to recognize, explain and treat.
“At the beginning, we didn’t know what we were dealing with,” said Valentin Fuster, physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak. “We were seeing patients dying in front of us. It was all of a sudden, you’re in a different ballgame, and you don’t know why.”
Today, there is widespread recognition the novel coronavirus is far more unpredictable than a simple respiratory virus. Often it attacks the lungs, but it can also strike anywhere from the brain to the toes. Many doctors are focused on treating the inflammatory reactions it triggers and its capacity to cause blood clots, even as they struggle to help patients breathe.https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
Learning about a new disease on the fly, with more than 78,000 U.S. deaths attributed to the pandemic, they have little solid research to guide them. The World Health Organization’s database already lists more than 14,600 papers on covid-19. Even the world’s premier public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have constantly altered their advice to keep pace with new developments.
“We don’t know why there are so many disease presentations,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “Bottom line, this is just so new that there’s a lot we don’t know.”
More than four months of clinical experience across Asia, Europe and North America has shown the pathogen does much more than invade the lungs. “No one was expecting a disease that would not fit the pattern of pneumonia and respiratory illness,” said David Reich, a cardiac anesthesiologist and president of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.
Brain: Strokes from blood clots, neurological issues
Eyes: Pinkeye
Nose: Loss of smell and taste (anosmia)
Blood: Unexpected blood clotting; attacks the lining of blood vessels
Gastrointestinal system: Vomiting and diarrhea in some people
Lungs: Clogs and inflames alveoli (air sacs), hampering breathing; pulmonary embolism from breakaway blood clots and microclots
Heart: Weakens heart muscle; causes dangerous arrhythmias and heart attacks due to small clots
Kidneys: Damage to structures that filter waste from blood; patients often require dialysis
Skin: “Covid toes,” or fingers, a purple rash from the attack on blood vessels
Immune system:Widespread impact, including overactive immune response that attacks healthy tissue
It mostly spares the young. Until it doesn’t: Last week, doctors warned of a rare inflammatory reaction with cardiac complications among children that may be connected to the virus. On Friday, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) announced 73 children had fallen severely ill in the state and a 5-year-old boy in New York City had become the first child to die of the syndrome. Two more children had succumbed as of Saturday.
That news has shaken many doctors, who felt they were finally grasping the full dimensions of the disease in adults. “We were all thinking this is a disease that kills old people, not kids,” Reich said.
Mount Sinai has treated five children with the condition. Reich said each started with gastrointestinal symptoms, which turned into inflammatory complications that caused very low blood pressure and expanded their blood vessels. This led to heart failure in the case of the first child who died.
“The pattern of disease was different than anything else with covid,” he said.“We were all thinking this is a disease that kills old people, not kids,” said David Reich, president of Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. (Jeenah Moon/Reuters)
Of the millions, perhaps billions, of coronaviruses, six were previously known to infect humans.
Four cause colds that spread easily each winter, barely noticed. Another was responsible for the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome that killed 774 people in 2003. Yet another sparked the outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome in 2012, which kills 34 percent of the people who contract it. But few do.
It has infected 4 million people around the globe, killing more than 280,000, according to the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center. In the United States, 1.3 million have been infected and more than 78,000 have died.
Had SARS or MERS spread as widely as this virus, Rasmussen said, they might have shown the same capacity to attack beyond the lungs. But they were snuffed out quickly, leaving only a small sample of disease and death.Paramedics bring home a woman with covid-19 who underwent an emergency C-section because she was gravely ill. After extensive care, including time on a ventilator, she was released from a hospital in Stamford, Conn., and she has a healthy newborn. (John Moore/Getty Images)
Trying to define a pathogen in the midst of an ever-spreading epidemic is fraught with difficulties. Experts say it will be years until it is understood how the disease damages organs and how medications, genetics, diets, lifestyles and distancing impact its course.
“This is a virus that literally did not exist in humans six months ago,” said Geoffrey Barnes, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan who works in cardiovascular medicine. “We had to rapidly learn how this virus impacts the human body and identify ways to treat it literally in a time-scale of weeks. With many other diseases, we have had decades.”
In the initial days of the outbreak, most efforts focused on the lungs. SARS-CoV-2 infects both the upper and lower respiratory tracts, eventually working its way deep into the lungs, filling tiny air sacs with cells and fluid that choke off the flow of oxygen.
But many scientists have come to believe that much of the disease’s devastation comes from two intertwined causes.
The first is the harm the virus wreaks on blood vessels, leading to clots that can range from microscopic to sizable. Patients have suffered strokes and pulmonary emboli as clots break loose and travel to the brain and lungs. A study in the Lancet, a British medical journal, showed this may be because the virus directly targets the endothelial cells that line blood vessels.
The second is an exaggerated response from the body’s own immune system, a storm of killer “cytokines” that attack the body’s own cells along with the virus as it seeks to defend the body from an invader.
“Things change in science all the time. Theories are made and thrown out. Hypotheses are tweaked. It doesn’t mean we don’t know what we are doing. It means we are learning,” said Deepak Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Inflammation of those endothelial cells lining blood vessels may help explain why the virus harms so many parts of the body, said Mandeep Mehra, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and one of the authors of the Lancet study on how covid-19 attacks blood vessels.The novel coronavirus is a master of disguise: Here’s how it workshttps://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
An Inchoate and Growing Genetics-Based Revolution in Military Affairs: Some Implications for a Predominant Culture of Scientific Materialism and Uncertain Strategic Culture
(An 11 May 2020 note from the author: This essay was first prepared for the JSCOPE January 2000 Conference on Military Ethics, while the author was a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In light of the current situation with the corona virus and its societal implications, we thought to re-post these reflections here after some 20 years.)
We must prepare ourselves, I think, for the fact that there exists an inchoate and growing scientific revolution in molecular biology which will be very subtly and fearsomely applied to the conduct of war. In combinationor consilienceiwith advances in neuroscience, psycho-neuro-immunologyii, nano-technologiesiii, micro-encapsulation, information science, and the like, gravely consequential bio-technologies will, almost irresistibly and quite seductively, be employed in future forms of warfare, to include what two Chinese colonels have recently and emphatically called “non-military forms of warfare”iv and also what General Peter Schoomaker of the Special Operations Command has called the equivocal and ambiguous “seam between war and criminality.”v
Moreover, these bio-technologies will be used under the euphemistic covers of “non-lethal weapons” and of “artificial intelligence,” or under the new Orwellian “Newspeak” of the “cyborganization of warfare,” which will emphasize the progressive “interface” between cybernetics and biological organisms, including man (to include, that is, having implanted computer chips in his brain to enhance “real-time intelligence”vi). This is, indeed, a terrible thing to think upon. We may run, but we can’t hide. Such developments, often in the name of medical progress, will take us, I believe, to the foundations of our humanity and of what it means to be a man.vii What is man? And, what is man for? These two questions will not seem so abstract or etherealized when we are forcefully faced with concrete manipulations of the human genome (the entire human genetic map) and variegated genetic engineering.
If you knew that someone could manipulate nanogram doses of neuropeptides and permanently affect your immune system or your endocrine system, how would you respond, strategically, as well as personally? To what extent might you consider its subtle methods as a potential (or actual) new form of “command and control warfare,” rather than as a “weapon of mass destruction”? And then what? If we momentarily do not mention the even more intractable biological realm, but remain only within the blurred boundaries of cyberspace and cyberculture, we see that it is even now very difficult for us to know just what is a justifiable military target in “strategic (not just tactical) information warfare,” much less to form and enforce the fully proper and specific information-warfare “rules of engagement.” What are the fitting rules of engagement in “the biological realm,” and how is that defined? How would you set just limits to such subtle and intimately intrusive forms of subversive “total warfare,” especially in the psycho-biological realm? For sure, there are no merely technical solutions to spiritual and moral problems. And, this does pose a spiritual and moral problem. Do we agree? But, to what extent will the predominant culture and intellectual premises of scientific materialism, or naturalism, help us in discerning and sustaining moral proportion and just limits? To what extent are these materialist (naturalist) premises self-refuting and self-sabotaging? And, if so, then what?
The Future Forms of Warfare
General J.F.C. Fuller, hardly a sentimentalist, will help us, I believe, to explore these trenchant and effectively ineluctable questions and deeper moral and spiritual issues.viii This British leader and deep thinker was both a combatant field commander (in World War I) and a strategic-minded military historian of great candor and acuity. It is noteworthy that the recent, altogether unsettling book by the already cited two PLA Air Force Senior Colonels, Unrestricted Warfare, itself quite frequently cited a few of General Fuller’s brilliant works, somewhat surprisingly and even ironically, given Fuller’s intense, long-standing, and indefatigable opposition to “mass,” neo-tribal, “no-limit,” and “total warfare” in all of its frenzied insanity, fevered evil, and intimately destructive aftermath, especially upon the life of humane civilization and its spiritually nourishing culture. On these matters, Fuller is always fiery and eloquentand convincing, like his friend, B.H Liddell Hart.ix General Fuller, were he alive today, would certainly oppose the new forms of potential (or actual) biological warfare, especially against seeds, crops, and other agricultural targets, and subtler forms of economic warfare against civilians and their children.x
My own reflections may be fittingly understood, in part, as an extension, therefore, of one of General Fuller’s last books, and some say his best, entitled The Conduct of War, 1789-1961: A Study of the Impact of the French, Industrial, and Russian Revolutions on War and Its Conduct (1961).
In light of Fuller’s cumulative sub-title, we may further ask, in our present context, what will be the combined impact of the new molecular-biology and “bio-tech” revolutions upon the conduct of future forms of warfare, to include psychological warfare and the subtle or deceptive use of psychotropic, neurotropic, psycho-pharmacological methods, and other “behavior-control” weapons?xi That is to say, the chronic (latent and long-range), as well as immediate traumatic, use of “weapon systems without firepower.”xii Some forty years before his 1961 book, The Conduct of War, then-Colonel J.F.C. Fuller himself had foreseen the probable resort to such insidious “weapon systems without firepower,” and he saw far beyond the mere primitive use of chemical agents on the battlefields of World War I.
Almost as if he anticipated a kind of strategic and subversive, indirect psycho-cultural and psycho-linguistic warfare, Colonel Fuller, near the end of his 1920 book, Tanks in the Great War, 1914-1918, farsightedly said:
This [overtly coercive mechanical or chemical] method of imposing the will of one man on another may in its turn be replaced by a purely psychological warfare, wherein weapons are not even used or battlefields sought or loss of life or limb aimed at; but, in place, the corruption of human reason, the dimming of the human intellect, and the disintegration of the moral and spiritual life of one nation by the influence of the will of another is accomplished.xiii
Thus, even before he wrote brilliantly on the strategy, psychology, and psycho-political methods of “Soviet Revolutionary Warfare” (Chapter XI of The Conduct of War, 1789-1961), he grasped the deeper dialectical subversions (and inversion) of language and human reason (logos), and the consequences of such manipulation of human hebetude and the dimming of targeted and “drugged minds” so as to produce a kind of narco-democracy or narco-socialization and “servile state”! Today, subtle psycho-biological manipulations, as well as pharmacological methods, may likewise effectively produce “the disintegration of the moral and spiritual life of [a] nation.” Howso? Or, is my contention chimerical?
In 1961, the same year that General Fuller published his The Conduct of War, 1789-1961, Aldous Huxley somewhat seemed to support, not just to prophesy, what he called the coming “pharmacological revolution,” which is now so obvious in the spreading and deepening “narco-democracies” of the West, and, perhaps, even the West’s incipient “therapeutic collectivisms” and “narco-socialisms,” or Goethe’s feared servile (and putatively therapeutic) “Hospital State.” In a Voice-of-America sponsored lecture at the California School of Medicine in San Francisco, Aldous Huxley, himself the user and promoter of mescaline and other psychedelic drugs, and the revolutionary author of The Doors of Perception, said:
There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak; producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties be taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebelby propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.xiv
Part of what Aldous Huxley calls “the Final Revolution” will, I think, now likely (or very soon) include the bio-technological methods that derive from the scientific revolution in molecular biology, in consilience with cybernetics and cyberculture, and the growing field of neuroscience, for examplexv. Timothy Leary, fellow psychedelic-drug experimenter and friend of Aldous Huxley, is reported to have said, just before his death: “Drugs are good, but electrons are better.”xvi Leary’s last two books were revealingly entitled Chaos and Cyberculture (1994) and Surfing the Conscious Nets (1995).
More recently, but on the analogous theme of “targeting the human mind,” the former military-intelligence officer, Ralph Peters, also a foreign-area specialist on Central Asia, said the following about forms of future warfare and the “inevitable weapons”:
The greatest opportunity for us and the greatest danger to us, will come from the development of behavior-control weapons by the middle decades of the next [i.e., 21st] century, if not sooner. On the one hand, these will be the weapons most horrible to our civilization, but we will be unable to prevent their development. In their perfected form, they will permanently alter the perceptions and beliefs of men and women. Depending on the technological forms they take [bio-and-neuro-technologies included], defending against them may prove to be the greatest challenge we have ever faced. On the other hand, they offer the first [sic] opportunity to pacify humankind without violence.xvii
But, would not such “tranquilizing” weapons be a further extension of “the drug culture”?
Speaking of these “postmodern weapons” and their “behavior-control mechanisms,” Peters elaborates:
But this discussion is about a more rarefiedand ultimately more frighteninglevel of manipulation. Weor our enemies, should we fail to act [sic]will develop behavior-control weapons that change the mind without invading the body.xviii
Psycho-tropic weapons will be used, in “the battle for the mind.”
He adds:
Imagine another weapon that targets specific nodes, or simply processes, in the brain. The insidious feature of such weapons is that the victim not only doesn’t know what hit him but doesn’t realize he has been hit by anything at all. He simply [for example] loses the desire to fight, suddenly regarding us amiably and cooperatively.xix
And there are other effects, as well, that could be attained by minor manipulations with endothelin, enkephalin, substance P, or other regulatory neuropeptides, which are small, but potent structures of amino acids, and are very diffusively consequential, as we shall soon see, in greater detail.
Although Peters does not go far enough in this investigative direction, he does see that “the dark side is that such weapons could permanently alter the perceptions of individuals and entire cultures [sic]” and that, “in the hands of a dictator or mass marketeer, they would be monstrous.”xx Furthermore, many, he says, will argue that it is “more humane to kill an individual than to interfere with his or her free will,” xxi and he adds:
Were we able to control the future fully, we might decline to develop them [these psycho-tropic weapons]. But these weapons are coming with certainty. If there is any technology that we must first master [sic] and then prohibit [sic], it is the means to alter human thought. Otherwise, Armageddon may arrive not with a rain of fire but with a quiet suggestion [which, for example, “compacts a lifetime’s worth of carefully tailored signals into a microsecond broadcast”].xxii
Ralph Peters then modestly imagines how a future historian will look back on this final chapter of his book on the “inevitable weapons” and “laugh at the naiveté and crudity with which [he has] envisioned them,” especially since he expects “some form of broadcast device,” especially “given the current developments in fields as diverse as neurobiology, anthropology, sonics, communications, digital engineering, marketing, and complexity studies.”xxiii In other words, Peters sees his own “consilience” of applied advanced research, but which is less “genetic” than my own view.
Nevertheless, Ralph Peters emphatically affirms the coming of psycho-tropic and neuro-tropic weapons, as follows:
The only thing of which I am certain is that the [21st] century’s revolution in weaponry will involve forms of behavior control and mental intrusion. Attacking the human body has been a sloppy and inefficient means of making war. Attacking the mind [or neurophysiology of the brain] may prove the culmination of military history.xxiv
Peters’ words are shocking. He often resorts to the “argument by hyperbole”! But, he is well-informed and sobering in what he says, especially in an unclassified context.
Much of the current attention to biological-warfare issues has accentuated, however, the threat of strategic mass agents, either micro-organisms like viral (and very contagious) smallpox, bacterial (but non-contagious) anthrax, and pneumonic plague; or biological toxins (botulinum, neuro-tropic sarafotoxin, tabtoxin, ricin, and the like) which are to be used for large contaminations, incapacitating human seizures, or strategically targeted and panic-producing assassinations.
Nonetheless, the new weaponizations that are derivable from several fields of advanced modern science, and their applications in unexpected combinations, are much more disconcerting and refractory. All too likely is what the socio-biologist (and scientific materialist), E. O. Wilson, calls “consilience,” and a dangerous and irreversible consilience, to be sure, one that has a “multiplier effect,” even exponentially so.
It would be very illuminating of the current state of knowledge and research to read, for example, the 1995 book, Psychopharmacology. The Four Generations of Progressxxv, especially Chapter 43, entitled “General Overview of Neuropeptides.” The chapter deals with such things as: the functional role of peptides; peptides and neuropharmacology; primary sensory neurons (like Substance P); enkephalin (and immunoreactive neurons); neurotensin, neurotensin systems; and mental disorders that occur when neurotensin is inordinately concentrated; endothelin; neuropeptide hormones as neurotropic factors; peptides and the limbic system; neurotransmitters and neuro-modulators (regulatory peptides); dynorphin and dopomine, as well as neurotensin, enkephalin, and endothelin, and the effects of their subtle manipulation. This Chapter updates our understanding of “the development of the neuropeptide field”; and contains an excellent bibliography for further research, especially on “the trophic effects of peptides” and the “new peptides” recently discovered.
Moreover, an article in the 1999 Journal of Applied Toxicology begins, as follows:
New biotechnology will provide the possibility to produce compounds of natural origin in large quantities, including toxins and bioregulators [i.e., biologically active, regulatory neuropeptides, for example]. Many of these compounds exceed the toxic effects of the traditional chemical warfare agents…. The aim of the study was to determine the acute toxicity and the effects on respiration of Substance P, a possible future warfare agent… when the substance was inhaled as an aerosol…. Substance P is a tachykinin and a biologically active neuropeptide…. The peptide is both a neurotransmitter and a neuromodulator, and is active at all levels in the nervous system.xxvi
The article concludes, as follows:
In summary Substance P in combination with thiorphin administered as an aerosol is extremely toxic and highly potent, with detrimental effects on respiration. The acute inhalation toxicity of Substance P was 100-1000 times higher than the traditional nerve agents Sarin, Soman, and VX. The mortality rate was strongly dose dependent. If Substance P is dispersed as a warfare agent it could, at extremely low concentrations, result in incapacitation among humans.xxvii
As another representative development of research into peptides and how they do, or could be made to, cause heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases (hypertension, cerebral vasospasm, and pulmonary hypertension), the interested inquirer should read the essay, “Pathophysiology of Endothelin in the Cardiovascular System.”xxviii Endothelin was identified only in 1988, and is “a 21-amino acid peptide…a potent vasoconstrictor and pressor substance.”xxix
Given that sarafotoxin is similar in effect to the above-mentioned peptide, endothelin, and is among the most toxic substances known, we should also consider the dangers of bio-toxins. Given that toxins are non-replicating (non-contagious) agents of biological origin, but, rather, potent poisons derivative from the micro-organisms themselves, another article, from a valuable research newsletter, would also be very worthwhile examining in detail: namely, Murray G. Hamilton’s article, entitled “Toxins: The Emerging Threat”, which is to be found in the Applied Science and Analysis (ASA) Newsletter of 1998 (26 June, Issue Number 66).xxx This essay is very thorough and very unsettling, partly because he gives a realistic scenario of how easily bio-toxins are inserted, how difficult they are to detect, and how extensive and destructive are their effects. Botulinum toxin and sarafotoxin, he says, constitute “some of the most exquisitely lethal poisons known,” and, “in some cases up to 100,000 times more toxic than nerve agents.”xxxi Dr. Hamilton’s whole essay and analysis deserve a close and reflective reading, to include his charts and analytical tables.
A last reference is to another dangerous and easily made bio-toxin, called tabtoxin, which is a plant toxin, i.e., derived from a plant. Easily bio-engineered, tabtoxin behaves exactly like a poisonous chemical, causing multiple seizures in human beings, but it will not cause any new or exotic disease. The woman who was the former, at least titular, head of the Iraqi biological warfare program surprisingly did her doctoral dissertation in plant pathology, and specifically on tabtoxinxxxii, at the distinguished British agricultural University of East Anglia. Why would she have had such special interests? What is the Iraqi anti-crop (and anti-soil) biological warfare program? What is its “human incapacitation” program?
Furthermore, we may ask, to what extent will our own predominant culture of scientific materialism (and naturalism or secular humanism) be adequate to limit and guide and benignly re-direct any inchoate and growing genetics-based military-technical revolution; or any more strategically inclusive, doctrinal and organizational expansion of this technology into a true “revolution in military affairs” (RMA), both at home, as well as abroad? Let us first resort to some eloquent and highly intelligent British thinkers concerned with this matter of moment to man.
It would seem that, on its own intellectual premises, scientific materialism is gravely inadequate and even self-sabotaging. Whyso? Howso?
As the philosophic scholar and famed British statesman, Sir Arthur Balfour (author of the “Balfour Declaration” about the future of Palestine after World War I) said in his profound book, The Foundations of Belief (1894), concerning the inherent contradictions of Materialism (mechanical and dialectical), and of mere Naturalism (and Atheism):
On the naturalistic hypothesis the whole premises of knowledge are clearly due to the blind operation of material causes, and in the last resort to these alone. On that hypothesis we no more possess free reason than we possess free will. As all our volitions are the inevitable product of forces which are quite alien to morality, so all our conclusions are the inevitable product of forces which are quite alien to reason.xxxiii
Developing Arthur Balfour’s argument, the British scientist, Sir Arthur Eddington, further showed how vain it was to try to escape the skeptical consequences of Materialism by the introduction of “dynamic” Hegelian-Marxist Dialectics. Materialists cannot honestly or validly escape from the skeptical (and self-sabotaging) consequences of their Creedfrom the irrational effects that derive from their beliefs and from their fideistic hypotheses.
In another keen-minded book, The Revolt Against Reason (1951), Sir Arnold Lunn further sharpens the argument against self-sabotaging Materialism and Naturalism:
“Naturalism,” which is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as “a view of the world which excludes the supernatural or spiritual,” provides the scientian [i.e., the ideologue of reductive scientism] with no justification for the first article in the creed of the true science: “I believe that truth is to be preferred to falsehood.” Theism, on the other hand, far from being in conflict with science, is required as a working hypothesis without which science has no justification. This view had, indeed, been put forward as early as 1894 by Mr. Arthur Balfour, who wrote as follows [in his The Foundations of Belief]: “Theism, then, whether or not it can in the strict meaning be described as proved by science, is a principle, which science, for a double reason, requires for its own completion. The ordered system of phenomena asks for a cause; our knowledge of that system is inexplicable unless we assume [i.e., presuppose] for it a rational author.”xxxiv
Twenty-five years later, Arthur Eddington, as was said above, developed Mr. Balfour’s view that unaidedscience is impotent to justify its own existence or to vindicate its own criteria, or even to prove that truth should be preferred to falsehood.xxxv And unaided science refuses to consider final causes, teleology, purpose. The question, “what is nature for?” or “what is time for?” is considered “unscientific,” much less the question, “what is man for?”
Arnold Lunn develops the argument even further when he says that Materialism (and Naturalism) are not even any longer really defended,
for the essence of a valid defense is a clear statement of the strongest arguments of our opponent as a preliminary to their refutation. By this test materialism fails, for modern atheists make no attempt to meet the argument which deprives the materialists of any claim to consideration, the argument that if materialism be true, our thoughts are the mere by-product of material processes uninfluenced by reason. Hence, if materialism be right, our thoughts are determined by irrational processes and therefore the thoughts which lead to the conclusions that materialism is right have no relation to reason. The same argument invalidates Freudianism, behaviorism, and logical positivism. All that the prophets of these cults [of irrationality] have achieved is to provide their disciples with reasons [sic] for rejecting all philosophies, including Marxism, behaviorism, Freudianism, and logical positivism. The reluctance of modern materialists to face this basic criticism of all modern forms of materialism explains the revolution in their methods [i.e., to psychoanalyze the arguer when one cannot answer his argument; and to resort to resourcefuland sophisticalequivocation, deception, and “unrestricted warfare”]…. The thesis [that I, Arnold Lunn, propose]…is that the tragic bankruptcy of the modern world is the consequence of the revolt against reason.xxxvi
That is to say, the dialectical dissolution and subversion of Logos (Reason, Speech, Language, the Word, Verbum).
The Foundations of Materialism (or Naturalism): Some Reasonable Inferences
The reasonable, and, I think, the true conclusion from all of this perspicacious reasoning is that, on the basis of our predominant culture of scientific materialism, we shall not be able to have an adequate moral and strategic defense against the likely new forms of psycho-biological warfare. Nor shall we be effective against a deceptive and growing geneticsbased RMA, which will include a “revolution in non-military forms of warfare,” and other consequences of applied molecular biology.
The key question I would raise with you is: how do we prepare for the fact that the scientific revolution in molecular biology and its derivative bio-technologies will be further and fearsomely applied to the conduct of war, and maybe especially to new “non-military forms of warfare” in shocking and mentally dislocating combinations, and which may be very productive of strategic paralysis and deep spiritual despair? What effects will a eugenics culture of genetic engineering have on the young? Moreover, in a potentially hostile strategic culture of science and technology, such as in China, we will find that the Chinese are already very advanced in the bio-sciences and in bio-technologies, and less restrained in their experimentations. How might the deft and deceptive Chinese apply bio-technology against us in the form of grand-strategic or strategic indirect warfare? Or, if we embarrassed them over Taiwan, how might the PLA use what some now call “no-limit” or “unrestricted warfare” for a finite and well-focused end, but with unscrupulous means?
What if someone engineered diseases into seeds? What if the latency appeared in a diseased food supply or in a scarce, but permeating, water supply? Is there such a thing as a binary biological weapon? What if the whole agricultural infrastructure, to include agricultural logistics, were selectively and deftly targeted, or a country’s concentrated animal breedstock? What about economic and financial targets, in general, which are not usually “hardened,” but, rather, “soft targets,” like vaccines and blood supplies and other portions or sectors of the medical and public-health cultures? Could a foreign gene be inserted into crops and food through their seeds, against which implanted gene a designed follow-up virus, for example, would later be targeted, as it were, “like a heat-seeking missile-virus”? Or, is this binary combination unlikely and again chimerical? Finally, in this context, what if certain biological substances produced no traumatic effects, but, rather, gradual and chronic effects of disability, such as a weakened immune system or loss of vision or a personality-altering modification of one’s endocrine system or one’s autonomous nervous system, so that one is no longer intimately recognized by one’s friends or by the beloved?
How are we to discuss such fearsome matters without thereby bringing about what we are trying to ensure against, namely spiritual paralysis, futility, indifference, despair?
Facing the facts of history, many of which are now de-classified, I am convinced that the main strategic research objective of the large Soviet biological warfare system was to find immuno-suppresive or immuno-destructive, psycho-tropic and neuro-tropic methods of impact, manipulation, and control, and not just in their special “FLUTE” and “BONFIRE” programsxxxvii. As with their institutes of penal psychiatry, such as the Lubianka’s Serbienski Institute, the target was, again, the human mindxxxviii.
From Soft, Scientific (and Cybernetic) Materialism to Hard, Genetic Neo-Gnosticism
“Mind,” on the premises of Philosophic and Scientific Materialism, is reduced to the neuro-physiology of the brain and “matter-in-motion,” as is also for them the case, finally, in the fact of human “Consciousness.” New forms of materialism, however, are now being more subtly proposed which incorporate evidence from the ongoing scientific advances in molecular biology. For example, new philosophic defenses of materialism are now being based on the concept of “memes,” or “mental genes.” The “soft” environmentalist and psychological forms of materialism are once again making way, or making room, for “hard” genetics and eugenics, both negative eugenics (which removes what is putatively unfit or defective) and positive eugenics (which selects and engineers what is putatively superior). The “taboos” against hard genetics and eugenics are once again being removed in the cultures of progressive liberalism, as was earlier the case, for example, with Margaret Sanger in this country and with H. G. Wells and the Fabian Socialists in Britain.
I believe that there will be two great tests for the United States as a residually humane and virtuous cultural nation, and for our overextended military as an incipient strategic culture, namely, the tests of China and of the biologicalbiotechnical revolutionand probably both of them in active combination. China has a deceptive and deft strategic culture; a unique and unprecedented, longstanding cultural coherence, both at home and abroad among the Overseas Chinese; and a special (even irredentist) sense of Han Chinese racialcultural superiority. Moreover, setting just limits (or intrinsic prohibitions) to the subtle use of biological weapons in warfare, as well as in human fetal experimentation and genetic engineering, will not, I think, be accomplished on the basis of our predominant culture of scientific and philosophic materialism, nor on the purportedly “heroic” foundation of final human despair. We will need a fuller philosophy of nature, a more adequate philosophical cosmology that does not irrationally reject “purpose,” “teleology,” or “final causes.” And we shall need an intimate philosophy (or theology) of hope.
But, Bertrand Russell thought otherwise. As a modern philosophical materialist, and building upon the ancient thought of his vivid-souled poetic mentor, the Roman, Lucretius, and Lucretius’ philosophic poem, De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Reality), Russell would remove, and eloquently strives to remove, our sentimental illusions and to awaken us to the reality of final futility, cosmic purposelessness, and heroic hopelessness.
In his famous 1903 essay, “A Free Man’s Worship,” Lord Bertrand Russell begins with Mephistopheles’(Satan’s) narration to Dr. Faustus, in his study, of the history of the Creation. Himself plainly agreeing with this mocking and cruel narration of “Moloch’s” inhumane and malicious universe, Russell then says:
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Sciencepresents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end [telos, finis] they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs [i.e., Russell’s, too?], are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve and individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are [impersonally] destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system [cf., entropy versus evolution?]; and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruinsall these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand [sic]. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely [sic] built…. [for] we see, surrounding the narrow raft illumined by the flickering light of human comradeship, the dark ocean on whose rolling waves we toss for a brief hour; from the great night without, a chill blast breaks in upon our refuge; all the loneliness of humanity amid hostile forces is concentrated upon the individual soul, which must struggle alone, with what of courage it can command, against the whole weight of a universe that cares nothing for its hopes and fears.xxxix
Such an eloquent expression of purportedly heroic despair surpasses, I think, the vivid poetic prose of Nietzsche and the vivid force of the later atheistic Existentialists, as well as the earlier (and recurrent) Gnostics. Like the pessimistic Gnostics, who yearned for a release from the burden of matter and from the evil of the “Created” Material Universe, Bertrand Russell, also, despite his contrary protestations, does not see in fact that the world is (nor can it ever be) for man “a home;” but, rather, the world is a “trap” from which he must “escape,” a “servitude” which he must “transcend” and “transfigure,” lest he be consumed by “a spirit of fiery revolt, of fierce hatred” against the “impersonal” malice of “Power” and the imposed cruelties of “the religion of Moloch,” which, he thinks, requires, “in essence, the cringing submission of a slave.”
Like the historical and dualistic recurrent Gnostics (Manichaeans, Albigensians, and the like) and like the recurrent allure of Hermeticism and the Gnostic Temptation to secret knowledge (gnosis) and transformative (or “demiurgic”) Power, Russell’s own philosophy of serene but heroic final despair, and his own abiding and stirring sensibility to beauty and tragedy, are only, however, for a rare and specially cultivated elite. Like Lucretius’ world-view, it is not “democratic.”
I believe, moreover, that both “soft” and “hard” forms of the Gnostic propensity are vigorously reappearing in our own world. The “soft” forms of neo-Gnosticism are still to be found in psychology (as in C. G. Jung) and psycho-pharmacology, in “therapeutic education” and “social engineering.” The “hard” forms of neo-Gnosticism, however, are drawn more to cybernetics, genetics, and eugenics. Thus, an inchoate and growing genetics-based Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) must be understood, I think, in a larger intellectual, spiritual, and cultural context, as a part, at least, of that larger, dualistic, despairing neo-Gnostic world-view, which is such a recurrent temptation to the insurgent human mind, especially in a milieu of perceived “final futility” and “the corrosion of hopelessness.”xl
But, a temptation would not be a temptation if it were not attractive. Resentment or that special form of sentimental despair, called self-pity, is often attractive, but always self-sabotaging and destructive.
Like the world-view of Bertrand Russell, our predominant culture of scientific materialism, philosophical naturalism, and secular humanism (or atheism) are increasingly marked by subjectivism, sentimentalism, and anarchic syncretism, which often mask a deeper final despair and a pessimistic “escapist” Gnosticism, aided by the new technologies of its “demiurgic” cybernetic or genetic engineers. Against such likely “coercive utopians,” whose minds are often like H. G. Wells’ mind at the end of his “technological-utopian” life (which was, he despairingly admitted, “at the end of its tether”), a proper defense of man and human life will be very difficult. It will be very difficult, with human superficiality, to defend against genetics-based cultural and military revolutions, so destructive of the human mind.
Moreover, to the extent that the United States is increasingly perceived as a “rogue superpower” and as an “arrogant and intrusive hegemon” centrifugally impelled to “engagement and enlargement”more like an Empire than a Constitutional Republicwe shall also likely face many irregular and subversive forms of “asymmetrical’ and “unrestricted warfare” against us, to include “non-military forms of warfare” set in motion even on our homeland. It is very likely that subtle biological instrumentalities, in strategic indirect combinations, will be used against us, and our vulnerable “soft targets” will be especially subverted, hit or disrupted. Bio-technologies derived from the growing genetics-based revolutions in cultural, scientific, and military affairs may very well be used to dislocate, deceive, and paralyze our incipient and uncertain strategic culture and psychology, in the long-range “battle for the mind.” Nor will our predominant culture of scientific materialism adequately aid our uncertain strategic culture in its self-defense. Our cultural immune system will be subtly attacked, and maybe intractably subverted.
The Intimate and Ultimate Questions
What is man, finally? And what is man for? What is the purpose of it all?
To what extent will man become an engineered “cyborg” with technological “extensions” attached to him or implanted in him?
What will be the criteria and standards of just war in indirect genetics-based warfare, as well as cybernetic warfare, and other subtly unrestricted “non-military forms of warfare”?
What World-View will adequately guide and sustain us in the face of such deliberately ambiguous developments? What World-View will animate us in the sustained resistance to its unmistakable and subtler evils, lest we despair? Lest we be swamped in “the congealment of lovelessness,” as well as “the corrosion of hopelessness.”
Bertrand Russell’s contemporary, Maurice Baring, was also a classically educated man with a longer view of history and culture, and of the interior life of man. Major Maurice Baring was Air Marshal Trenchard’s special assistant during World War I. Baring, like J. F. C. Fuller, knew the horrors and the sorrows of war. He, too, has an especially poignant sense of the vulnerability of beauty, and of the precariousness of human lifeof its fragilitywhich thus made him, like Lord Russell, so sensitive to tragedy and to its ennobling catharsis. Maurice Baring, having lost many comrades and dear friends in combat, was, moreover, especially gifted in writing elegiac tributes to those who had fallen in war, to the beloved who were lost. In the following portion of one of his verse elegies, we may fittingly conclude this essay with a glimpse of Major Baring’s deeper World-View and sustaining Faith, in contradistinction to Bertrand Russell:
“All is the same. But all is not the same;
For he is dead.
The well-known cry: ‘Hurrah! I’ve won the game!’
The curly head,
The laughing eyes, the angry stammering speech,
The heart of gold:
All that is far away beyond our reach,
Beneath the mould.
He lies not here, but far away beyond
His native land;
Beneath the alien rose, the tropic frond,
The burning sand.
His life was like a February day,
Too warm too soon:
A foretaste of the spring that cannot stay
Beyond the noon.
As the swallows, when September pomps conceal
A frosty spell,
Fly low about the horses’ heads, and wheel,
To say farewell,
So he, at some sure summons in the wind,
Or sky, took wing,
And soared to the gold South. He stayed behind
When came the Spring.
They say we’ll meet again in some transfigured space,
Just as the French, Industrial, and Bolshevik Revolutions had grave implications on the conduct of war, especially on the qualitative, as well as quantitative, “totality” and the “mechanization of warfare,” so, too, will the scientific revolution in molecular biology and its applied “bio-technologies” conduce to the even more intrusive and fearsomely intimate “cyborganization of warfare,” whereby cybernetics and neural science will be conjoined to, or manipulative of, biological organisms in morally ambiguous or equivocal ways which will require our deeper discernments. Such a challenge will unmistakably take us to the foundations of existence and our sense of finality and of purpose. We must therefore consider how and why there is now developing a genetics-based Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), or, less inclusively, a “military-technical revolution,” both of which could be strategically and indirectly employed as a new form of “asymmetrical warfare”–such as “psycho-biological or psycho-cultural, strategic indirect warfare”–against the economies, psychologies, and cultures of sophisticated (or decadent) interdependent societies, and, especially against perceived “narco-democracies” and “rogue superpowers.” Spontaneous human superficiality will not be sufficient to discern or wisely counter such subtly indirect–chronic as well as traumatic–vulnerabilities, threats, or attacks (and infections) against unprotected “soft targets” such as seeds, vaccines, and the human embryo which could have many disproportionately adverse effects upon a whole culture and its way of life; to include the inordinate effects upon the “special technical operations” of our own “high-tech” Special Operations Forces, who have already themselves been insidiously prompted (or flattered) to become “bionic commandos” on the “cutting edge” of the approaching “Bio-tech Century.” Moreover, the self-sabotaging premises and inner logic of our preponderant culture of scientific materialism will be altogether insufficient to deal with such intimate matters at the heart of human life and its morally virtuous sustainability. A deeper criterion of adequacy is required. We must also adequately combat subtly subversive forms of soft cybernetic and hard genetic neo-Gnosticism and its coercive eugenics.
Therefore, this paper has examined the issue of an inchoate and growing genetics-based revolution in cultural, scientific, and military affairs, especially some of its strategic and moral implications, lest we be unprepared for what could so easily produce the solvents of cynicism and existential despair. For, both neo-Legalist autocratic Chinaxlii and unrestricted, genetics-based forms of non-military warfare–maybe in combination–will be our true tests, our true strategic and spiritual tests. And those who are religious among us might add another and subtler test of our fidelity: the attraction of hard, genetic neo-Gnosticism; the seductive allure of eugenics and cybernetic Hermeticism; the perennial Gnostic temptation to secret knowledge, illlusionary liberations, and despair, which are so Luciferian and anti-Incarnational.
i “Consilience” that is to say, an “interlocking of causal explanation across disciplines.” See the Neo-Enlightenment book by biologist (and socio-biologist) Edward O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), p. 325. See also pp. 8-13 (Chapter 2, “The Great Branches of Learning,” on “Consilience” as “the key to unification” and “The Consilience of Inductions.”
ii See Manfred Schedlowski, Psychoneuroimmunologie (Heidelberg/Berlin: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, 1996). This book contains an excellent bibliography, often containing English-language citations. However, the psychological doctrines which underlie most of this book are the doctrines of materialist behaviorism.
iii See Chinese Views of Future Warfare (ed. Michael Pillsbury)(Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1997), especially, “Nanotechnology Weapons on Future Battlefields” (pp. 413-420), by Major General Sun Bailin; and also “Dialectics of Defeating the Superior with the Inferior” (pp. 213-219), by Colonel Shen Kuigan.
iv See the CIAFBIS 183-page translation of Unrestricted Warfare: Assumptions on War and Tactics in the Age of Globalization (Beijing: PLA Publishing House, 1 February 1999), written by Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. CIA also later translated the title of the book as No-Limits Warfare: Ideas on War and Methods of War in the Globalization Era, which is a better title for that very strategic book.
v General Schoomaker’s phrase includes the especially difficult realm of “bio-terrorism,” as a form of strategic (not just tactical) psychological warfare, which the Special Operations Command is tasked to counter and to interdict, by resourceful pre-emptive initiatives.
vi See Lt. Colonel William B. Osborne, et. al., Information Operations: A New War-Fighting Capability (A Study Presented to Project Air Force 2025) 17 June 1996), especially Chapter 3“Technology Investigation.” Read the sections on “Computer Power,” “Intelligence Software,” “Intelligent Integration of Information,” but, most especially, the sections on “HumanComputer Interaction,” “Command Systems and Biotechnology,” “Charting the Brain,” and Chapter 4 “System Description” in sections entitled “Implanted Microscopic Chips”, “Why the Implanted Microscopic Chip?”, “Ethical and Public Relations Issues” (“We already are evolving [sic] toward technology implanting…. The civilian populace will likely accept implanted microscopic chips that allow military members to defend national interests.”). This entire study should be read, for many reasons, especially for the growing frigid mentality it reveals. At the beginning of Chapter 4, under the section entitled “Cyber Situation Components” (p. 1), one reads the following: “The Cyber Situation is the integration of the entire OODA Loop Cycle under the control of commanders, decision makers, and analysts. Supporting components include all-source information collectors, archival databases, the Information Integration Center (IIC), a microscopic chip implanted in the user’s brain, and a wide range of lethal and non-lethal weapons” (my emphasis added).
vii See John Harris, Wonderwoman and Superman: The Ethics of Human Biotechnology (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
viii He will help us to know what the situation is, why we should know more about it, why we should get out in front of it (by strategic and moral anticipations), and why the premises and culture of “democratic secular humanism” and “scientific materialism” are altogether insufficient to deal with the situation.
ix B. H. Liddell Hart was especially attentive to the long-range effects of the seductive and promiscuous resort to “guerrilla warfare” and the destructive illusion of pursuing “total military victory.” He was most concerned about the “moral handicaps to recovery” in the seeming peace that followed such subversive forms of irregular and total warfare. See the 1967, second edition of his book, Strategy, especially Chapter XXIII on “Guerrilla Warfare” and “Subversive Camouflaged Warfare.”
x See Major General J. F. C. Fuller, War and Western Civilization, 1832-1932: A Study of War as a Political Instrument and the Expression of Mass Democracy (London: Duckworth, 1932), especially pages 228, 230, and 234 (Chapter XII “The Changing Nature of War, 1914-1918”):Thus, referring to World War I and “the changing nature of war,” General Fuller, in 1932, prophetically and compassionately said: “As inundations of men, personnel warfare, had failed beyond hope of redemption, the General Staffs, still obsessed by the quantity complex, turned to matériel, seeing in shell fire a means of blasting a road to Paris or Berlin…. The attack by matériel failed ignominiously…. The enormous demands made for all types of munitions of war, however, revealed clearly to the eyes of the General Staffs the economic foundations of the war. So visible did these economic foundations become that it was not long before these Staffs realized that, if the food supply of the enemy be cutoff, the foundations of the hostile nation would be undermined and, with the loss of will to endure, its military forces would be paralysed…. Thus, in the World War, the matériel attack having failed, it at once gave way to plundering operationsattacks on trade in place of the devastation of crops. To introduce this most barbarous form of war, the first military problem that the Allied Powers had to solve was the circumvallation of the Central Powers; and the secondtheir surrender by starvation: This is an attack on the enemy’s civil stomach, not only on his men but on his women and children, not only on his soldiers, but on his sick and his poor. The economic attack is without question the most brutal of all forms of attack, because it does not only kill but cripple, and cripples more than one generation. Turning men women and children into starving animals, it is a direct blow against what is called civilization…. [Then, referring to “the theory of moral warfare” and “the weapons of the moral attack,” General Fuller resumes.] Throughout the history of war treachery has proved itself a powerful weapon…. In the World War treachery was attempted through propaganda, the contending newspapers raking dirt out of the gutters of their respective Fleet Streets and squirting it at their country’s enemies. All sense of justice was cast aside, the more outrageous the lie the more potent it was supposed to be…. yet no Government appeared to realize that the attack by lies besmirched its own future….” (J.F.C. Fuller, War and Western Civilization (London: Duckworth, 1932), pp. 228, 230, and 234.)
xi Although the author himself barely touches upon specific military topics and new forms of warfare, Jeremy Rifkin’s book, The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World (New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1998), is very illuminating about the unprecedented consequences and far-reaching scope of the biotech revolutions, and their dangerous intractability. Some of my scientist friends think that he exaggerates the dangers of agricultural “genetic” engineering and of “genetically modified food.” (Dr. Norm Schaad, a world-class plant pathologist, is one of them.)
xii In his 1967 book, The War We Are In (and in his other books), the former Trotskyite and keen strategist, James Burnham, very well understood and expressed how Soviet “Political Warfare” and “psycho-political” methods were a very effective (and economical) “weapon system without firepower.” See also his “Sticks, Stones, and Atoms,” or “The War We’re Not Prepared to Fight,” in Modern Guerrilla Warfare (ed. F. M. Osanka)(New York: Free Press, 1962), pp. 417-424.
xiii J.F.C. Fuller, Tanks in the Great War, 1914-1918 (London: John Murray, 1920), p. 320my emphasis is added to the original.
xiv See Jeffrey Steinberg’s article on new “synthetic drugs,” entitled “Pharmacological Revolution Sweeps Europe, America,” Executive Intelligence Review (Vol. 23, No. 30; 26 July 1996), pp. 32-34and their link with “computer-generated techno-music.”
xv See the fine British neuroscientist, Malcolm Dando’s book for the British Medical Association, entitled Biotechnology, Weapons, and Humanity (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1999), especially Chapter 4 on “Genetic Weapons.” See also Malcolm Dando’s 1996 book, A New Form of Warfare: The Rise of Non-Lethal Weapons, especially Chapter 8 “An Assault on the Brain?”and Chapter 5 “Lethal and Non-Lethal Chemical Agents.”
xvi See also David Jordan’s recent book, Drug Politics, Dirty Money, and Democracies (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999), especially Chapter 10 on “Cultural Underpinnings of Modern Drug Consumption.”
xvii Ralph Peters, Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph? (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1999), p. 207.
xxv Edited by Floyd E. Bloom and David Kupfer (New York: Raven Press, Ltd., 1995). Dr. Malcolm Dando generously shared this chapter and book with me, and so many of his own profound reflections and other valuable writings, when I visited him in England in the Summer (July) of 1999, at Bradford University in Yorkshire. Very much of my knowledge on the advances in neuroscience I owe to him, and much more, besides.
xxvi B.L. Koch, et. al., “Inhalation of Substance P and Thiorphin: Acute Toxicity and Effects on Respiration in Conscious Guinea Pigs,” Journal of Applied Toxicology (Vol. 19, 1999), pp. 19-23, quoting from p. 19.
xxviiIbid., p. 22my emphasis added. Professor Malcolm Dando generously gave me a copy of this significant article.
xxviii See T. Miyauchi and T. Masaki’s article in The Annual Review of Physiology (Vol. 61, 1999), pp. 391-415.
xxxii A good technical article on tabtoxin, given to me by my friend and colleague, Dr. Norm Schaad of the US Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service), is the article entitled “Genetics of Toxin Production and Resistance in Phytopathogenic Bacteria” by D. K. Willis and T. M. Barta et.al. in Experientia 47 (1991), pp. 765-771 of the Birkhäuser Verlag, CH-4010 Basel, Switzerland.
xxxiii See Arnold Lunn, The Science of World Revolution [also entitled, in England, Revolutionary Socialism: Its Theory and Practice] (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1938), pp. 335-336my emphasis added. The Chapter on “The Philosophic Basis of Marxist Communism” (Chapter 21) is very brilliant and profoundly discerning.
xxxiv Arnold Lunn, The Revolt from Reason (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1951), p. 85.
xxxvii See Ken Alibek’s Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the WorldTold From the Inside by the Man Who Ran It (New York: Random House, 1999); but, even more importantly, Ivan V. Domaradskij, Troublemaker (Moscow, 1995), 180 pp., especially his writing about “Plasmids” and his Plasmid Institute, as well as his “Plague Research.” In his Chapter entitled, “My Laboratory and the ‘Plasmid’ Programme,” Domaradskij defines a “plasmid” as follows: “Plasmids are extra-chromosomal genetic elements which play an important part in the physiology of bacteria and are extensively used in studies of genetic engineering” (p. 10, of the original text). It was Yury Ovchinnikov, a member of the Soviet Academy and personal friend of Leonid Brezhnev, who convinced Brezhnev to “de-criminalize” and overcome the false and cramping ideology of “Lysenkoism” (the dialectical-materialist anti-genetic biological theories of Trofim Lysenko), and to promote study of the Western Scientific revolution in molecular biology and genetics, so as to enable and facilitate the development of subtle biological weapons. This set of secret biological programs began shortly after President Nixon, in 1969, formally shut down the U.S. offensive biological warfare program.
xxxviii See also Robert Jay Lifton, “Thought Reform in Western Civilians in Chinese Communist Prisons” (Psychiatry, XIX (1956)), pp. 173 ff. See also, William Sargant, Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing, (1957, rev. ed. 1961) and the book by his colleague, Brigadier General John Rawlings Rees, M.D., Psychiatry Goes to War.
xxxix Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship” (1902) on pages 44-54 of his book, Mysticism and Logic (New York: Doubleday, 1957), pp. 45-46, and 52my emphasis added.
xl See the great works of Hans Jonas on Gnosticism and the Gnostic World-View. A good start would be his non-technical book, translated from German into English, entitled The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1stedition in 1958; 2nd revised edition in 1963). Jonas, in part sees Gnosticism as an existentialist philosophy of pessimism about the world, with an attempt at self-transcendence, often pantheism. For a more sympathetic view of Gnosticism and of how it was “repressed” by Orthodox Christianity, see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, (New York: Random House, 1979).
xli See Maurice Baring’s novel, entitled, C (which is the affectionate nickname of the book’s main character, Caryl). Baring’s character, Caryl, upon the death of his younger brother, Harry (Henry), wrote this farewell elegy. (London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1st ed. 1924; reprinted 1934), pp. 739-741. The poem is entitled I. M. H. [In Memoriam Henrici].
xlii See, especially, two excellent books by Professor Zhengyuan Fu, of the University of California (Irvine): (1) Autocratic Tradition and Chinese Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993); and (2) China’s Legalists: The Earliest Totalitarians and Their Art of Ruling (London, England: M. E. Sharpe, 1996).
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WITH THE United States HOLDING THE MOST ADVANCED CAPABILITIES IN NUCLEAR WARFARE, THE ENEMIES OF OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC AND OUR FREEDOMS DO NOT DARE TO CONFRONT US MILITARILY AND THEY MUST RESORT TO BIOLOGICAL WARFARE WHICH THEY HAVE A CHANCE OF WINNING. WITH THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC RED CHINA HAS BEGUN THE FIRST BIOLOGIC WORLD WAR.
Should Cuomo be Charged with Manslaughter for many of the 5,300 “Coronavirus Deaths in Nursing Homes… in New York”?
Is New York Governor Andrew Cuomo responsible for many of the 5,300 “coronavirus deaths in nursing homes and long-term care facilities… in New York”? WREN Radio says that Long Island nursing home nurse Elaine Mazzotta said that apparently Cuomo and his state officials are “totally irresponsible, [and] negligent” for “a state directive that requires nursing homes [to] take on new patients infected with COVID-19” which may have caused the deaths of many of the 5,300 elderly: “[A] state directive that requires nursing homes take on new patients infected with COVID-19 — an order they say accelerated outbreaks in facilities that are prime breeding grounds for infectious diseases.”
“’The way this has been handled by the state is totally irresponsible, negligent and stupid,’ said Elaine Mazzotta, a nurse whose mother died last month of suspected COVID-19 at a Long Island nursing home. ‘They knew better. They shouldn’t have sent these people into nursing homes.’”
“Of the nation’s more than 25,000 coronavirus deaths in nursing homes and long-term care facilities, more than a fifth of them — about 5,300 — are in New York, according to a count by The Associated Press, and the toll has been increasing by an average of 20 to 25 deaths a day for the past few weeks.” [https://wben.radio.com/articles/cuomo-criticized-over-highest-nursing-home-death-toll]
FindLaw’s team of legal writers and editors defines involuntary manslaughter as:
FindLaw’s give the following examples of involuntary manslaughter:
“For example, if the operator of a dangerous carnival ride fails to ensure that all passengers are strapped in and people die as a result, the operator could be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. A building manager who recklessly neglects to install smoke detectors before the occurrence of a deadly fire might be charged with involuntary manslaughter, too.” [https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html]
Should Cuomo and his state officials be charged with involuntary manslaughter for their “totally irresponsibl[ity],” in making “a state directive that requires nursing homes [to] take on new patients infected with COVID-19” which may have caused the deaths of many of the 5,300 elderly?
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The Constitution does not permit government infringement upon assembly, worship, travel or commerce
\\\
By Judge Andrew Napolitano
I have been taking some heat from friends and colleagues for my steadfast defense of personal liberties and my arguments that the U.S. Constitution – when interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of its words, and informed by history – does not permit the government to infringe upon personal freedoms, no matter the emergency or pandemic. For those who agree with me, worry not. We will persevere. For those who trust the government, worry a lot. You are not in good hands.
The purpose of the Constitution is to establish the government and to limit it. Some of the limitations are written in the Constitution itself. Most of the limitations that pertain to personal freedoms are found in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments.
These amendments were ratified to restrain the federal government from infringing upon personal liberties. Since the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and subsequent litigation, these amendments, for the most part, restrain the states as well. The courts have characterized these protected liberties as fundamental.
So, the rights to thought, speech, press, assembly, worship, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership, interstate commercial activities and fair treatment from government are plainly articulated or rationally inferred in the first eight amendments. The Ninth is a catchall, which declares that the enumeration of rights in the first eight shall not mean that there are no other rights that are fundamental, and the government shall not disparage those other rights. The Tenth reflects that the states have reserved powers to themselves.
The Ninth was especially important to its author, James Madison, because of his view that natural rights – known today as fundamental rights – are integral to each person, and they are too numerous to list. In the next century, the anti-slavery crusader Lysander Spooner would explain it thusly: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, – or by millions, calling themselves a government.”
Natural rights collectively constitute the moral ability and sovereign authority of every human being to make personal choices – free from government interference or government permission.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that government derives all its powers from the consent of the governed. And Madison understood the Ninth Amendment to declare that our personal choices are insulated from government interference so long as their exercise does not impair another’s rights.
From this, it follows that if governments interfere with our personal choices – and we have not consented to their power to interfere – the interference is invalid, unlawful and, because our personal choices are essentially protected from governmental interference by the Bill of Rights, unconstitutional.
Now, back to the present-day restraints during this pandemic.
The current interferences with the exercise of rights protected by the Bill of Rights devolve around travel, assembly, interstate commercial activities and the exercise of religious beliefs. These infringements have all come from state governors who claim the power to do so, and they raise three profound constitutional issues.The first is: Do governors have inherent power in an emergency to craft regulations that carry the force of law? The answer is no. The Guarantee Clause of the Constitution mandates a republican (lowercase “r”) form of government in the states. That means the separation of powers into three branches, each with a distinct function that cannot constitutionally be performed by either of the other two. Since only a representative legislature can write laws that carry criminal penalties and incur the use of force, the governor of a state cannot constitutionally write laws.
The second constitutional issue is: Can state legislatures delegate away to governors their law-making powers? Again, the answer is no because the separation of powers prevents one branch of government from ceding to another branch its core powers. The separation was crafted not to preserve the integrity of each branch but to assure the preservation of personal liberty by preventing the accumulation of too much power in any one branch. We are not talking about a state legislature delegating to a board of medical examiners in the executive branch the power to license physicians. We are talking about delegating away a core power – the authority to create crimes and craft punishments. Such a delegation would be an egregious violation of the Guarantee Clause.
The third constitutional issue is: Can a state legislature enact laws that interfere with personal liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, prescribe punishments for violations of those laws and authorize governors to use force to compel compliance? Again, the answer is no because all government in America is subordinate to the natural rights articulated in the Bill of Rights and embraced in the Ninth Amendment. We should rejoice that there is resistance to gubernatorial ignorance and arrogance that disregards the Bill of Rights. We need resistance to tyranny in order to stay free. Power unresisted continues to grow and to corrupt. History teaches that most people prefer the illusion of safety to the cacophony of liberty. The only reason we have civil liberties today is because generations of determined minorities – starting with the revolutionaries in the 1770s – have fought for them.
Today, we are governed by dangerous men and women. For they have taken away our ability to make personal choices, and they have used force to compel compliance. In doing that, they have not only violated their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, they also have committed the criminal acts of nullifying our rights. By using the powers of state governments to do this, they have made themselves candidates for federal criminal prosecutions when saner days return.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a regular contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of nine books on the U.S. Constitution
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IF YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS YOU CAN EASILY LOSE THEM. IF YOU DO NOT PROTEST THE VIOLATION OR USURPATION OF RIGHTS BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS YOU CAN EASILY LOSE THEM. IF YOU DO NOT PROTEST WHEN YOUR NEIGHBORS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS YOU CAN EASILY HAVE YOUR OWN RIGHTS VIOLATED AND PERHAPS NO ONE WILL OBJECT.
The tweet is incorrect. She was not arrested for violating lockdown, she was arrested for calling for citizens to stand up for her rights.
Even more, the police dishonestly attempt to block bystanders from filming the crime perpetrated by the police against the fundamental human rights of the mother and child.
These police are no better than the Gestapo.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on GOD HELP US!!! WHILE THE MOTHER CAN BE FAULTED FOR HAVING HER LITTLE CHILDREN WITH HER AS SHE DEMONSTRATED, THERE CAN BE NO EXCUSE FOR THE AUSTRALIAN POLICE ARRESTING THE MOTHER AND FORCIBLY TAKING HER TO THE POLICE STATION. HERE IN THE United States SIMILAR VIOLATIONS OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM RIGHTS ARE OCCURING MORE AND MORE
Here is a dictate from the Bishop of Little Rock, Most Rev. Anthony B. Taylor, dated 7 May 2002 to his flock about reception of Communion on the tongue during this COVID-1984 time.
We’ve seen Bp. Taylor before, in 2016, when he wanted to impose only versus populum celebration of Mass on the diocese. He appealed to the inexcusable mis-translation of GIRM 299, which had been patiently explained by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS). HERE
The Arkansan ecclesial document I cite below, of 7 May, is longer and covers various liturgical aspects. I’ve pulled this part out.
My emphases and comments.
[…]
Suspension of Communion on the tongue.
• While in ordinary circumstances people can demand[“demand” … Interesting word choice for people who prefer Communion on the tongue, isn’t it? It suggests that the person who wrote this doesn’t like those people.] that we accommodate their preference to receive Communion on the tongue and [NB:]there are those who cite pontifical and CDWDS documents to assert that not even a bishop can prevent this, [Okay, whoever you are who wrote this, you’ve now made this about (inter alios) me.] such provisions apply to normal times. It is my obligation as diocesan bishop to legislate in this matter for the duration of the pandemic due to legitimate public safety issues. • Those who attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form continue to receive Communion on the tongue because in the traditional Latin Mass reception on the hand is not an option. [He got it right!] The traditional Latin Mass is offered in 5 places in our diocese and attending the Latin Mass is an option for anyone who desires to receive the Eucharist on the tongue. [NB:]Priests may not initiate additional Latin Masses outside of these 5 locations [Ummm… Summorum Pontificum…. But look at that again and think about it.] — we are stretched beyond the limit in our effort to provide Mass for our people in English and Spanish in the Ordinary Form, which always takes precedence over Mass in the Extraordinary Form. [Ehem. LATIN takes always precedence over English and Spanish. As one of my canonist friends responded to me about this dictate: “‘Precedence?’ WOW! Again, one can only hope this is some clueless low level chancery functionary writing this.” Extraordinary does NOT necessarily mean “rare”. Extraordinary does NOT necessarily mean “the exception”. Moreover, the parameters for the employment of ExtraordinaryMinisters of Communion are actually laid out. They are usually violated, but they are in writing. There is no such precision for the “Extraordinary Form”. Remember: there had to be a special indult – after years of blatant violation of law – to allow the belief-corroding and now divisive practice of Communion in the hand. Yes, Communion in the hand is the divisive practice. The “ordinary” way to receive is on the tongue and the “extraordinary” way is in the hand. Doesn’t the “ordinary” way have “precedence”?] • If someone insists [There’s that snarky tone again.] on receiving the Eucharist on the tongue outside the traditional Latin Mass, you should tell them politely that in the interest of public safety and out of consideration for those who will receive after them, they can wait until after Mass and you will give them Communion on the tongue then. [After Mass. It’s a traditional practice for, for example, choirs. No problem. But choirs sing during Communion time, often in lofts. These people, on the other hand, aren’t busy and aren’t segregated in a loft. Speaking of segregated, given the tone above (“demand… insist”) this after Mass dictate smacks of separate seating in a different waiting room. A separate but not equal waiting room. Not at the end of Communion time during Mass. After Mass.]
[…]
I appreciate that the Bishop respected the integrity of Traditional Latin Mass rubrics, although he seems to fear an increase of numbers TLMs.
Catholics with traditional preferences are quite simply the most marginalized in the Church today.
Look. I think the Bishop of Little Rock’s Dictate is overly restrictive in this issue of Communion on the tongue. I’m not alone. So does the head of the USCCB’s Committee on Liturgy together with the panel of experts who collaborated with him.
According to – of all outlets – the Fishwrap, on 28 April 2020 (hence, over a week before the Little Rock Dictate), the head of the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship of the USCCB, Archbp. Leonard Blair, sent an interminable memo (“Guidelines on Sacraments and Pastoral Care – Working Group on Infectious Disease Protocols for Sacraments & Pastoral Care”) to all the US dioceses about opening up Masses. The Guidelines were prepared by the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington DC and sent out by the USCCB committee to the bishops. There are to be “phases”.
According to the USCCB Guidelines, during the first phrase, this USCCB memo says, Communion may be received on the tongue!
“We believe that, with the precautions listed here, it is possible to distribute on the tongue without unreasonable risk.”
“Opinions on this point are varied within the medical and scientific community: some believe Communion on the tongue involves an elevated and, in the light of all the circumstances, an unreasonable risk; others disagree,” they state. “If Communion on the tongue is provided, one could consider using hand sanitizer after each communicant who receives on the tongue.”
So, USCCB: take precautions, but go ahead and communicate people on the tongue.
Little Rock is being more severe than the Guidelines of the USCCB. I encourage you to look at the list of experts included in the Guidelines.
Let me try to be fair. Let’s imagine that Arkansan Catholics are in large numbers desirous of Communion on the tongue. Let’s imagine that Arkansan priests are supposed (unnecessarily) to sanitize their hands between each and every Communion on the tongue. Let’s imagine that repetitious sanitizing would so lengthen the time for Communion that even “Extraordinary” (there’s that word again) Ministers would be justified. Since we shouldn’t have so many “Extraordinary” Ministers of Communion – *cough* – because “Ordinary” Ministers are to be given preference – displace those people demanding to be accommodated until after Mass.
Nope. Not buying it. If that were the reason – time – the Dictate would have said so. After all, it justifies other things, such as trying to forbid more TLMs because of lack of priests.
All of that aside, there is a deeper reason why I chose to respond – from the other waiting room. After all, they involved (inter alios) me.
What rankles about the Little Rock Dictate is the contempt shown for people who prefer the Church’s traditional and, in fact, preferred way to receive Communion.
More and more often in these COVID-1984 days, as certain civil and ecclesial absolutists issue their fiats, we see an unattractive reality manifest itself. Apart from the desire to impose their will through ultra vires dictates, it is clear that some people in the big chairs don’t like the people who desire the things of which they disapprove.
It’s not just that the bosses don’t like the preferences, they don’t like the people who have them.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on BE ON YOUR GUARD!!! INSANITY KEEPS CROPPING UP AND IT’S MOST RECENT APPEARANCE IS IN THE DIOCESE OF Little Rock IN ARKANSAS
Hillary Clinton goes to a gifted-student primary school in New York to talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time.
One little boy puts up his hand. Hillary asks him what his name is. “Kenneth,” he says.
“And what is your question, Kenneth?” she asks.
“I have three questions,” he says. “First — whatever happened in Benghazi? “Second — why would you run for president if you are not capable of handling two e-mail accounts? “And, third — whatever happened to the missing six billion dollars while you were Secretary of State?”
Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Hillary says, “Okay, where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?”
A different boy — little Johnny — puts his hand up.
Hillary points to him and asks him what his name is. “Johnny,” he says.
“And what is your question, Johnny?” she asks.
“I have five questions,” he says.
“First — whatever happened in Benghazi? “Second — why would you run for president if you are not capable of handling two e-mail accounts? “Third — whatever happened to the missing six billion dollars while you were Secretary of State? “Fourth — why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? “And, fifth — where’s Kenneth?”
“Nobody has any illusion about Red determination to eliminate all religion.” – Shanghai Bishop James E. Walsh, Imprisoned by the CCP for 12 years (1958-70) for refusing to join the Patriotic Church.
ON MARCH 13, 2013, white smoke billowed out of the Sistine Chapel chimney, signaling a newly elected pontiff. Cheers erupted from the crowd in St. Peter’s Square, “Habemus Papa.” On that portentous spring evening, the huge Vatican campanone bell bellowed throughout the chilly Roman evening air. Emerging onto the loggia, sans papal stole, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J., the first Jesuit pontiff— the first Black Pope appeared before the multitude.
The stage was set for a new papacy.
Exit stage Left…. the Black Pope fades to Red.
On that March evening, the Church militant were unaware of the impending danger that would befall them. With the curious and startling resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, the foundation of the Catholic Church seemed to be teetering, the ground was shifting, something was afoot, but the change was intangible and amorphous.
Time would tell.
Seemingly, the tumultuous events surrounding the papal handover were eerily suggestive of the ominous words of Vladimir Lenin: “Sometimes, history needs a push.”
Jorge Bergoglio provided that historical push. His election would soon demonstrate that the Catholic Church was experiencing a titanic rupture, propelling the barque of Peter into treacherous waters, driven by dark forces, and engulfed by red skies. At the helm, Jorge Bergoglio, and his cadre of communist clerics and cohorts, steering the Catholic Church into the dark abyss of communism.
Communist Evo Morales gifting Francis with a Hammer and Sickle Crucifix.
Papal court of Communist sympathizers- Sorondo and McCarrick
Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, known as a flack for China with his outrageous and preposterous defense of Communist China as “the best implementer of Catholic social doctrine,” or praises of the Xi government “for observing the common good.” At an organ trafficking conference where China was a participant, Bishop Sorondo unctuously stated:
For the hideous truth of China’s Organ Trafficking Program, see the independent China Tribunal findings here.
Sorondo described the critics of the China-Vatican pact “as merely a loud minority.” Shockingly, he also praised the world’s biggest polluter, China for its “fight against poverty and pollution.”
Communist China Secret Deal: Papal Priority
June 2013
Only 3 months into his papacy, Francis dispatches the notorious serial sexual predator and alleged Communist operative, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick to initiate negotiations with the brutal Communist regime of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Despite the fact that Archbishop Carlo Mario Vigano personally informs Francis that McCarrick is a documented sexual predator. The Pope disregards Viagno’s warning and sends McCarrick to China to restart talks with the Chinese Communists on behalf of the Vatican.
Jeffrey Sachs, UN Special Advisor on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, papal consultant, who spoke at the Francis Vatican at least 30 times.
Francis’ Support of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals- the United Nations Communist Climate Manifesto
July 1, 2013
The following month, on July 1, 2013, United Nations official, Jeffrey Sachs, is honored by the Vatican with the prestigious lecture, Vatican Lectio Marginalis at Sorondo’s Pontifical Academy. Sachs will become a close collaborator of the Pope, a fixture at the Vatican, as he directs the papal climate change agenda in close conjunction with the UN and Paris Climate Treaty.
Obama knew that his secret plot would be safe with Francis and McCarrick, both of whom were anxious to legitimize and normalize relations with the Communist dictatorship. The Vatican cooperated with the Obama Administration to operate in total secrecy while they conducted covert shuttle diplomacy without the knowledge of Congress or the American people. Afterward, Raul Castro, the Communist leader, personally thanked Francis for his critical role in the negotiations. Francis visited Cuba and the Castro brothers in September of 2015.
“In September, the Vatican reached a provisional agreement with China that would allow the government a role in the appointment of new bishops; nevertheless, repression of the underground Catholic Church increased during the latter half of the year.”
The retired Cardinal of Hong Kong, Cardinal Joseph Zen, has called the deal a “suicide pact,”and “shameless surrender” and demands that the Vatican disclose the terms of the deal. The Vatican refuses to do so. Since the signing of the agreement, religious persecution in China has skyrocketed. The Vatican deal has undermined faithful Catholics in the Underground Church. As Zen lamented, “They are forced to go deeper underground.”
Francis Refuses to support the Hong Kong Freedom Protests
2019-Hong Kong Freedom March- For months, millions of Hong Kongers take to the streets to demand freedom and democracy and to protest the repressive Chinese Communist Party of mainland China. Yet the Vatican has repeatedly refused to support the marchers. Ironically, the leaders of the protests are largely Catholic and Christian young people who are demanding that the Communist party of President Xi Jinping respect Hong Kong law. Although many world leaders have expressed support for the protestors, Pope Francis refuses to express his support. One can only surmise that he doesn’t want to anger or jeopardize his communist partners in the secret Vatican deal. On April 18, 2020, the leaders of the marches were arrested by the CCP and the Vatican maintains its silence while world leaders protest the unlawful arrests.
Francis is Silent over the Brutal Persecution of Christians and Catholics by the CCP.
Francis Applauds China’s handling of the Corona Pandemic
2020-Among world leaders, Francis is an outlier and laughingstock for his comments which praised China’s “great commitment” to contain the coronavirus outbreak. The global community is nearly in unanimous agreement that Xi’s communist government’s engaged in secrecy and lies regarding the data and origin of the Coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. As a result, the Chinese greatly inhibited a coordinated and knowledgeable therapeutic response.
Francis has cast his lot with the Communists and red smoke enshrouds the Catholic Church. In the words of Cardinal Joseph Zen, Francis “delivered the Church into the hands of the enemy.” ______________
Elizabeth Yore is an international child rights attorney. She is a member of Save the Persecuted Christians Coalition.Published inFetzen Fliegen
Elizabeth Yore served on the Heartland Institute Delegation that traveled to the Vatican in April 2015 to urge Pope Francis to re-examine his reliance on UN population control proponents who promote climate change. She is an international child protection attorney who has investigated several cases of clergy sex abuse of children. She served as Special Counsel and Child Advocate to Oprah Winfrey. She is the former General Counsel of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and former General Counsel at National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
“We were all thinking this is a disease that kills old people, not kids,” said David Reich, president of Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. (Jeenah Moon/Reuters)
Paramedics bring home a woman with covid-19 who underwent an emergency C-section because she was gravely ill. After extensive care, including time on a ventilator, she was released from a hospital in Stamford, Conn., and she has a healthy newborn. (John Moore/Getty Images)
Communist Evo Morales gifting Francis with a Hammer and Sickle Crucifix.
Jeffrey Sachs, UN Special Advisor on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, papal consultant, who spoke at the Francis Vatican at least 30 times.
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.