GLOBAL DEBT FROM $300 TRILLION TO $2 QUADRILLION IN NEXT 5-10 YEARS
June 16, 2021
By Egon von Greyerz
The coming 5-10 years are likely to see asset prices decline by at least 90% in real terms. Yes stocks, bonds and property prices will in coming years collapse. But that’s not enough, the whole structure of society will also fall. There will be no or negligible pensions, there will be no social security system and the standard of medical care will fall dramatically.
So is this another sensational prediction by a Cassandra or Doom and Gloom know-it-all?
100 YEARS OF A FALSE AND CORRUPT HOCUS POCUS SYSTEM
Hardly, it is just the consequences of 100 years of a false monetary system based on corrupt principles, fake money and unlimited credit, only backed by inflated asset prices in a vicious cycle of self-destruction.
All actions have consequences but the creators of our current Hocus Pocus monetary system never worried about the negative effects. And why should they since they for over 100 years have been the major beneficiaries of the Hocus Pocus system they created on Jekyll Island.
The current monetary system was created on Jekyll Island in November 1910 by some influential and disingenuous bankers backed by a couple of duplicitous influential politicians. They were guided by Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s motto – “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.”
It was a genial system that allowed them to control not just the US financial system but eventually also the global financial system as the US dollar became the reserve currency of the world.
The system was based on unlimited debt and fiat money creation. Politicians quickly learned that there was an unlimited source of money that they could tap in order to buy votes.
WIN-WIN FOR THE BANKERS
What a beautiful system! Politicians have access to all the money they need to please the people whilst the bankers both issue and control the money. A real win-win for the bankers with unlimited financial benefits and power by total control of the politicians and the financial system in one fell swoop.
It is only with this ingenious Hocus Pocus scheme that the politicians have been able to increase the US federal debt every single year for 90 years without a financial collapse. And at the same time the scheme has allowed the politicians to stay in power without the system going bankrupt.
Obviously the politicians are only given the illusion by the bankers that they are actually in power. The bankers constantly make the politicians insecure by letting the opposing party win regularly. The bankers know that fear and insecurity combined with financial power give them perfect control of the politicians.
US debt to GDP is now at 135%, the highest in history and above the WW II level. The average debt to GDP since 1790 is 35% so the current level is 100 percentage points above that. In the next few years, I would expect the ratio to go substantially above 200% in a banana republic fashion.
For the sake of good order, let me confirm that there were two years in the 1940s and three in the 1950s when the debt actually didn’t increase. But they were the only exceptions. Don’t be fooled by the Clinton surpluses that actually never happened. Debt continued to increase in the late 1990s and the claimed surpluses were only achieved by moving deficits to debt thus creating the illusion of surpluses. It seems that there are neither honest bankers nor politicians.
WHY WARNING SIGNALS DON’T WORK
So the above Hocus Pocus scheme explains why a country can run deficits for 90+ years. The conventional red warning signals of deficits and debts leading to economic collapse are temporarily not functioning. Almost 100 years of disequilibrium, with the conventional laws of nature such as supply and demand seem set aside, seems longer than possible.
Thus for a period, manipulation, deceit and the will of the people to be fooled can be stronger than the natural laws of nature. The warning signals can therefore be ignored as the momentum of debt and deceit, by its sheer force, can drive the system forward. That is, until the whole Hocus Pocus scheme dissolves itself by the pure weight of the falsities.
All this has happened many times before, for example during the Roman Empire when it took 100 years between 180AD and 280AD for the Silver Denarius to lose 100% of its value and silver content.
So there are always CONSEQUENCES as history proves!
CURRENCY DEBASEMENT TO ZERO NEXT
And history gives us a good indication where we currently are in the cycle. If we take the creation of the Fed in 1913 as the start of the current monetary system and Nixon’s seminal decision to close the gold window in 1971, as the beginning of the end, we are now at the end of the end game.
We could easily point to the economic, political and social decadence as clear evidence of the coming global collapse. But the easiest method for measuring where we are is obviously the debasement of the currencies.
As I frequently stress, all currencies have lost 97- 99% in purchasing power since 1971 and around 85% since 2000.
The final fall of 1-3% since 1971 to reach a ZERO value for the fiat currencies is likely to take place in the next 5-10 years. But remember that this is a 1-3% fall means 100% from today.
TOTAL CATASTROPHE OF THE CURRENCY SYSTEM INVOLVED
So the destruction of money is now accelerating in parallel with the deficit and debt expansion. This is the typical course of events for the end game.
As the currencies collapse, debt explodes.
Ludwig von Mises described this process as follows:
It took the world 2000 years to take global debt from virtually $0 to just under $100 trillion. Most of that $100 trillion was obviously since 1971.
And in the last 21 years debt has trebled from $100 trillion to $300 trillion.
Presidents and Prime Ministers can stand on their soap boxes and tell their people about all their good intentions.
But we mustn’t believe one word of what they say. Because they have forgotten one simple little fact – HISTORY.
Because history would teach them some critical lessons, if their arrogance permitted them to look. They would learn as they reach the end game that global debt of $300 trillion will in the next circa 5 years grow to not just $500 trillion but quadrillions as the financial system reveals its true problems. This will happen as gross derivates of $1.5 quadrillion turn into debt when counterparties fail. As this happens, banks will also need to be propped up to the tune of $100s of trillions together with most sovereign debt as bond markets collapse and interest rates surge. So total global debt in the next 4-9 years is likely to exceed $2 quadrillion.
BROKEN RECORD
I have written articles, normally weekly, about the world economy, wealth preservation and gold & silver for around 20 years.
I seldom get direct criticism from readers about my articles. The good thing is that no one is of course forced to read them so people can instead vote with your feet.
Some people complain that my message is the same every week. Others enjoy having the message reinforced weekly. Obviously, it is never exactly the same but variations on a theme.
Still, the ones who point out that my message sounds like a broken record are not totally wrong. I would obviously say that it is not a broken record but a record in a constant loop with the same consistent message every time.
From the time I started writing regularly 20 years ago, I have not changed the drift one iota. The piece might be played slightly differently each time but the tenor never changes.
So readers could in essence read the same article over and over again since my message has been consistent for the last 20 years. And it will not change before the cycle has terminated in “final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved”
The big problem this time is that we are talking about the global system and not just one currency or nation. Because the debt catastrophe today involves both East and West as well as all developing nations. Thus the length and depth of the coming fall is likely to be greater than any time in history.
TESTED PRINCIPLES NEVER CHANGE
Since the essence of my writings is based on principles tested for 1000s of years, they will not change. And as my readers know, the thrust of my message is what every politician and leader should have learnt by now. Sadly they will never learn since they always believe that things are different today.
The message is incredibly simple. Every empire and every country carry within them the seeds of their own destruction. Cycles are infallible, whether they are political, historic, economic or cycles of nature like climate.
Still most leaders believe they can manipulate not only economic cycles but even climate cycles. What they don’t realise, is that in the end the laws of nature will always win.
Going back to empires, like the Persian, Roman, Mongol, Ottoman or British they thrive due to the treasures, commodities or cheap labour they gain access to. The American empire was not based on land grab but on financial and military dominance.
Once empires reach a certain size, they become fat and inefficient. Political and military struggles lead to corruption and living above your means. The only way to manage short term is then to print money and thus debase the currency. As the currency collapses, so do the military and political structures. As the currency approaches zero a hyperinflationary depression normally follows.
The above is obviously a simplified potted version of the economic cycle but very typical. Still, it has major implications for the measures investors must take.
WEALTH PRESERVATION & PRECIOUS METALS
As we reach the end of a major economic cycle, protecting wealth is critical. When stocks, bonds, property and currencies collapse, physical gold and some silver is the best insurance against a failed system.
History tells us that precious metals is the ultimate method of wealth preservation in order to financially survive what is coming. Remember that you don’t have to be wealthy to save in gold and silver. One gramme of gold is $60 and one ounce of silver is $30. So virtually everyone can afford such important insurance for themselves and their family.
Whether gold reaches my long standing target of $10,000 in today’s money and silver above $600, or much higher in hyperinflationary terms, is irrelevant. Much more important is the protection that it will give investors against the destruction of money and asset prices.
But your most important wealth is not material. In periods of crisis the most important values that we must hold dear are family and friends, as well as free treasures such as nature, books and music.
Orwellian ‘guidelines,’ not laws, are now dictating permitted speech and acceptable behavior
Small liberties doled out to us in exchange for our compliance should never be acceptable. Now is the time to reassert our God-given dignity and promote a culture of true liberty rooted in faith, courage, and adherence to the truth. Wed Jun 16, 2021 – 1:39 pm EST
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
June 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – When swashbuckling pirate Captain Barbossa in Disney’s 2003 Pirates of the Caribbean said that the Pirates’ Code was “more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules,” he meant what most people mean by “guidelines:” an informal set of recommendations that a person may choose to obey or disobey at will.
Definitions include: “A practice that allows leeway in its interpretation” from the Law Dictionary, or this useful description: “guidelines are general recommendations; they’re not mandatory or required,” from policy management company PowerDMS.
But that is not the way guidelines have come to be used in 2021.
Today, many guidelines have the force of law and the power to oust undesirables from public discourse and even the public square. Those who run afoul of the accepted orthodoxies of the ascendent zeitgeist risk having their public platforms and places of business or worship shut down.
The systematic shutting down of those challenging the mainstream narrative
It is a reality reminiscent of George Orwell’s increasingly prophetic dystopian novel 1984, in which laws have been abolished but failure to comply with the expectations of the “Party” warrants immediate punishment, with violators often disappearing from and being written out of society.
Today, social media users and creators frequently find themselves warned, censored, and banned for violating a communications platform’s “Community Guidelines,” an ever-shifting milieu of internally-determined policies which must be accepted upfront for permission to use the service. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
According to the American Bar Association, “Every time you visit a website to read the news, use a social media account, or buy a pair of shoes, you are binding yourself to online contractual terms. Courts routinely uphold those terms when a website user is required to click an ‘I agree’ button signifying assent to those terms, and often uphold them, even in the absence of a click, when the terms are ‘reasonably communicated’ to the user by use of a hyperlink labeled ‘Terms of Use.’”
Social media companies’ “Terms of Service” (or “Use), which are usually hefty documents written in incomprehensible legalese, require that users abide by the service’s “Community Guidelines” in order to get and maintain access to the platforms.
Even if a conscientious user reads every document before agreeing to it, the terms are often subject to change at any time at the discretion of the company.
As the American Bar Association further notes: “some businesses that operate online attempt to reserve the right to change their online terms at any time, without giving any notice to the user of the site… Other sites and services warn that their terms have changed or are about to change, but simply direct users to the new terms without marking or explaining changes.”
Twitter’s Terms of Service says the company revises its terms “from time to time.”
“We will try to notify you of material revisions,” the contract reads, adding that “by continuing to access or use the Services after those revisions become effective, you agree to be bound by the revised Terms.”
In effect, social media companies like Twitter are empowered to take whatever action they feel is politically or financially expedient, controlling the flow of information while modifying or interpreting their guidelines to fit their own interests. Content creators who break no laws are vulnerable to finding their businesses demonetized or shut down completely by social media platforms whose policies and guidelines are controlled by an elite few without the input of their users, some of whom depend upon the platforms for their livelihoods, and many of whom rely upon them for news and information.
In this stifling atmosphere, social media users can never be assured that their content will not suddenly be determined unacceptable, or that they themselves won’t be kicked to the digital curb.
Big Tech ‘guidelines’ used to shut-down Hunter Biden story and control the political discourse during the 2020 US election
In October 2020, social media oligarchs caused a firestorm of controversy among conservatives when they flexed their power over the flow of information by throttling the New York Post’s blockbuster story about the contents of a laptop allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s scandal-ridden son Hunter just before the 2020 election.
Facebook claimed that the Post’s story was “potential misinformation,” couching its blatant censorship by saying it was simply temporarily reducing the distribution of the article pending review by a so-called “third party fact-checker” in accordance with its policies outlined in its measures to “protect the 2020 election.”
Twitter joined Facebook in burying the story, disabling the New York Post’s original tweets linking to their Hunter Biden coverage, then blocking users from tweeting the story, even via private message, adding an error message that warned Twitter users that the links were “potentially harmful.” — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Say ‘No’ to COVID ‘Vaccine Passports’!
198,572 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 200,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
The social media giant claimed that the New York Post’s story had violated their “hacked material policy” which bans “Unauthorized access or interception, or access that exceeds authorization… to a computer, network or electronic device, including breaches or intrusions,” a complaint which ironically granted credence to the Post’s allegation that the laptop was Hunter Biden’s and not Russian disinformation.
Twitter’s authenticity in using the excuse is additionally suspect. The company has allowed other stories containing potentially “hacked” materials to proliferate on its platform, including President Trump’s tax returns as released by the New York Times in September 2020.
“Censor first, ask questions later,” remarked the New York Post’s editorial board. “It’s an outrageous attitude for two of the most powerful platforms in the United States to take.”
After receiving substantial blowback from conservatives, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey issued a quasi-apology for Twitter’s actions, saying: “Our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we’re blocking: unacceptable.”
However, Dorsey did not acknowledge that the outrage wasn’t because of a lack of “context,” but rather because the social media company apparently saw fit to act as the arbiter of truth and moderator of nationwide political discourse in the midst of an election. Even after Dorsey’s statement, Twitter still did not immediately allow the article to be shared or reactivate the New York Post’s account until two weeks after it killed the story on its platform.
“Our policies are living documents,” the company said in a tweet after allowing the New York Post to tweet again. “We’re willing to update and adjust them when we encounter new scenarios or receive important feedback from the public.”
But the ease with which media platforms’ Community Guidelines can be changed and reinterpreted for political purposes is worrisome. This same malleability facilitated the January ban of then-sitting-President Donald Trump from nearly every social media platform, from Facebook to SnapChat, for allegedly “inciting an insurrection.”
Meanwhile, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, remains an active member of Twitter despite frequent inflammatory tweets including one calling Israel a “savage, Wolf-like Zionist enemy” and another claiming that the “preparedness” and “display of power” of Palestinian youths and Jihadists would cause the weakening of the “malicious Zionist regime.”
COVID-19 ‘laws’ used to destroy freedom
Censorship and control of information through the selective enforcement of “guidelines” has certainly been evident in the cases of the Hunter Biden story, the 2020 presidential election, and the Capitol riot on January 6 2021, but the crack-down on freedom of speech is perhaps no better exemplified than in the case of permitted and prohibited speech regarding COVID-19.
Earlier last year, as “lock-down,” “mask-mandate,” and “social-distancing” suddenly became part of the familiar lexicon, social media companies acted swiftly to include so-called COVID-19 “misinformation” in their Community Guidelines lists of verboten topics.
Users were, and still are, forbidden to state views which contradict the WHO and the CDC, to argue against the efficacy of masking and social-distancing, or to suggest alternatives for COVID-19 treatment which do not involve hastily produced vaccines from massive pharmaceutical companies, even as top health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci have repeatedly flip-flopped in their own recommendations.
Censoring, suspending, banning, and slapping warning labels on any user or news outlets that questions the approved narrative about the coronavirus has come to be expected. Mentioning forbidden words like “hydroxychloroquine” or “ivermectin,” may be enough to get one’s Facebook account deactivated, while using social media to communicate about an anti-lockdown protest led to the physical arrest of a pregnant woman in Australia last year.
Such harsh penalties are particularly galling considering Facebook’s recent reversal of its policy to squelch posts which suggested that the coronavirus originated in a Wuhan laboratory. After the lab-leak theory picked up support from the mainstream media following President Trump’s ouster, Facebook graciously decided it would now permit users to consider that possibility.
But social media is not alone in wielding its “guidelines” as a cudgel to shut down politically-incorrect ideas and control behavior. Over the past year citizens have watched in horror as churches have been locked up, businesses have been shut down, and ordinary individuals have faced arrest for breaching the CDC’s contrived “guidelines” on COVID-19 measures like masking, social distancing, and attending business, social, and religious venues.
The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and other bureaucratic functionaries of the government have made ample use of the same strategy used by social media execs, issuing reams of “guidelines” about coronavirus response since March 2020.
These guidelines, which have undergone no bicameral legislative process, have not been voted on, and have not been submitted to judicial review, but have been imposed by states and local governments around the U.S. and the rest of the world under perpetually expanding “states of emergency” in which executive power circumvents the legislature and “health guidance” becomes the law of the land.
Public health guidelines have been used as the rationale for police to threaten a Dallas mother with trespassing charges for attending Mass without wearing a mask, harass orthodox Jews in New York for having a funeral for their rabbi, and for an airline to kick a family of five off a flight because their 2-year-old failed to consistently wear a mask.
Each one of the rights outlined in the First Amendment has seen unprecedented suppression. Freedom to speak about COVID-19, to peacefully protest infringements of personal freedom, or to attend church amid crippling restrictions have been crushed under the boot of the new authoritarian health dictatorship.
In a post on the University of Kent’s Law School blog referencing Orwell’s 1984, the author observes:
One compelling aspect of the novel is how “crime” and thus, “law” are perceived. First, law does not exist at all in totalitarian Oceania. Nothing can be illegal as laws do not exist anymore. Yet, if Winston is caught writing his thoughts down in his diary, he could be executed or given 25 years of forced labor. The Thought Police has unlimited power to enforce the Party’s views and ideologies and if anything goes against these ideologies or is not in line with the Party’s views, they are classed as illegal.
Small liberties in exchange for our compliance should never be acceptable
Unlike 1984, in our present moment the social media and public health guidelines exist alongside real laws. Although the radical left would like to abolish the police and prisons and “dismantle the systems of oppression,” as of yet the traditional legislative authority remains.
This, indeed, is a good thing. Traditional laws, which are subject to the checks and balances of legitimate government, are a safeguard against the tyranny of the fluctuating opinions and interests of corporate and bureaucratic elites. In response to the past year’s colossal infringements on personal liberty, some governors and lawmakers have now finally begun to implement laws and pass executive orders curtailing the government’s emergency powers, limiting the power of social media giants, ensuring the integrity of future elections, outlawing vaccine passports, banning boys from playing girls’ sports, and prohibiting critical race theory in schools.
Moving forward it is important to remember what we have been through. “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it,” Orwell observed, and we should not assume that those in power today are any different.
Small liberties doled out to us in exchange for our compliance should never be acceptable. Now is the time to reassert our God-given dignity and promote a culture of true liberty rooted in faith, courage, and adherence to the truth.
The past year and a half have showed us what we have to lose. Now we ought to focus on what we can gain by taking back control of our political institutions in order to regain our freedom and secure it for future generations.
Germany bans killing chick embryos because they feel pain, but still allows abortion of humans
In Germany, killing chick embryos will be illegal, while unborn human babies are still being ripped from their mothers’ wombs and murdered. Wed Jun 16, 2021 – 2:25 pm EST
BERLIN, June 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The German legislature recently passed a law forbidding the killing of six-day old chick embryos since they are “sensitive to pain,” as well as the killing chicks because of their sex. Meanwhile, human babies are legally tortured and murdered in the womb in Germany and most other countries in the world through abortion.
In 2020, German Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner initiated a bill banning the killing of male chicks. This would affect 45 million male chicks that are killed yearly in German laying hen farming, since male chicks cannot lay eggs or produce enough meat quickly enough to be fattened and slaughtered.
German legislators have decided that, beginning in 2022, killing male chicks will be forbidden since chick embryos are “sensitive to pain from the seventh day.” Therefore, farms will be required to use methods to determine the sex of the chicks before they hatch so they can be removed from the brood.
Furthermore, beginning in 2024, methods will need to be used to determine the sex of the chick embryo at an even earlier age so that they can be eliminated while in a less developed stage, thereby ensuring that the chick embryos do not feel any pain. Klöckner said that with the approval of this law, “We are pioneers worldwide.”
The German Animal Welfare Association expressed joy at this suggestion, but criticized that this two-stage ban will not actually prohibit the killing of pain-sensitive chick embryos until 2024.
David Engels, Chair for Roman History at the University of Brussels, tweeted sarcastically, “When the chicken embryo enjoys more [protection of life] than the human embryo, you know you’ve arrived at the best Europe ever.” SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
In Germany, unborn human babies can be killed through abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks after conception, when the mother is at the end of her first trimester. For other reasons, abortions are allowed even later during pregnancy.
At eight to nine weeks, unborn babies have developed eyelids, and hair has begun to appear. By the ninth and tenth weeks, the baby can do somersaults, jump, squint against light, frown, and swallow. Around weeks 11 and 12, the baby’s anatomy becomes clearly male or female. The face has a definite form and unique characteristics, and taste buds have emerged. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
1,040,596 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1,050,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Evidence shows that unborn babies can feel sensations beginning at 12 weeks. Abortions at this time result in excruciating pain for the babies as they are ripped from their mothers’ wombs.
The proposed « Abrahamic Family House, » which equates Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, is « closely followed » by Pope Francis. Wed Jun 16, 2021 – 2:53 pm EST
Virtual image of the proposed Abrahamic Family House complex e-architect / YouTube
June 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The “Abrahamic Family House,” a juxtaposition of three places of worship on Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi – one Muslim, one Jewish and one Christian – will open in 2022, according to a release from Higher Committee of Human Fraternity echoed by the Abu Dhabi Government Media Office and by Vatican News, the Vatican’s own media service run by the Dicastery for Communication.
The “Abrahamic Family House” is an architectural complex in which the three so-called “Abrahamic” religions, or (abusively), the “religions of the Book” born of God’s promise to Abraham, are presented side by side in places of worship of equal proportions, set in a triangle around a “common ground,” a garden where believers can meet and enter into “dialogue” with each other.
The projected interfaith complex presents itself as an embodiment of the Abu Dhabi Document on Human Fraternity signed by Pope Francis and Imam Al-Tayeb of the Sunni Al-Azhar University of Cairo, and the “Higher Committee for Human Fraternity” to which the joint declaration gave birth, and has been “endorsed” and is being “closely followed” both by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam.
Together with photos of the construction site, which show the foundations of the three religious buildings while one of them appears to be nearing completion, the release revealed the names officially chosen for the three religious buildings.
The synagogue will bear the name of Moses Ben Maimon Synagogue, named after a 12th-century Sephardic rabbi who is commonly compared to the Muslim thinker Averroes, born in Cordoba as Maimon was. Both are touted as innovators who sought to reconcile faith and reason, and presented as having adopted this “modern” point of view before the Catholic philosophers such as Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Averroes was rejected in his time as a heretic by the Islamic community. Maimon, under the persecution of the Christians and the Jews by the Muslim occupiers of Al Andaluz, was forced to flee his home town with his family, possibly after a forced conversion to Islam, and went on to Egypt where he would write abundantly, opposing the literal interpretation of the Talmud and seeking to conciliate Judaism and philosophy. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
The mosque will receive the name of Imam Al-Tayeb himself, presumably as a homage to his implication in the whole project. In a recent, syrupy book by Mohammad Abdulsalam, a close collaborator of Al-Tayeb at Al-Azhar University and the man who played a major role in the development of the Document and the Higher Committee, the Grand Imam is presented as an eminent scholar of Islam endowed with all possible qualities, including, of course, an unsurpassable “humbleness” that makes him reject any kind of flattery.
In The Pope and the Grand Imam: A Thorny Path: A Testimony to the Birth of the Human Fraternity Document, Abdulsalam presents his master, page after page as “a man of the greatest honor and integrity, and of noble birth.” One of the book’s major conclusions is that “no one system or doctrine should claim to be superior to any other system or doctrine.”
This does not really square with the fundamental idea of Islam that holds that all individuals are originally Islamic and should return to this “true faith” if they are not yet Muslims, with hellfire promised to all those who resist. Nor does it agree with rational thought in that it holds that different, contradictory ideas or doctrines should be at the same level and therefore in a way simultaneously true – unless if dogma and tenets of different faiths are seen as mere cultural differences in a world where dogma is seen as the ultimate evil: this is the Masonic viewpoint.
It should be added that in Islam, the concept of Taqiyya allows for a precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious beliefs and practice in countries where Islam is not dominant, while working for the expansion of the Ummah – the Islamic community.
Abdusalam’s book also explains that “Today, men of faith are facing a new reality with voices that call for atheism as a way of life, denying the values that bring communities together, breaking the unity of the family, promoting immoral sexual behavior, and fomenting racism and hatred.”
While cooperation in favor of natural law is a legitimate endeavor, the problem remains of fostering religious confusion and relativism by putting different and in fact incompatible religions on the same plane as is being done in the “Abrahamic Family House.” This was also the mindset of the Abu Dhabi Document that said:
The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.
This is a faulty presentation of religious freedom, which is properly defined as meaning that none should be prevented from embracing the true faith, and none should be constrained to embrace it, by creating a confusion between culture and belief. It shows God as positively willing false religions when Our Lord, who is the Truth and the Way, instead commanded His disciples to go forth and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For Islam, at any rate, the mere mention of God, of the Holy Trinity, in such a way, is blasphemous.
As to the Christian church in the Saadiyat Island project, it was not clear at the beginning of the plans whether it would be generically “Christian,” so to speak, or Catholic. With the unveiling of its name, the “Saint Francis Church,” underscored on the Human Fraternity website with architect’s impressions of the interior of the finished building showing an obviously Catholic nun, plus the close implication of the Vatican which is amply represented in the Higher Committee for Human Fraternity, appears as a Catholic church.
Why Saint Francis? Many Islamic media repeat the same line: The three places of worship have been named after Dr Ahmed Al Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al Azhar; Pope Francis, Head of the Catholic Church; and Moses Ben Maimon, 12th century Jewish philosopher.” This rather hasty canonization of Pope Francis is probably due to ignorance on the part of the Emirati press regarding Catholic facts and vocabulary.
While the name “Francis” was certainly chosen to honor the present Pope, it in reality refers to Saint Francis of Assisi, whose evangelic zeal and love of nature are often invoked in a somewhat twisted way to turn him into the model not only of “green” ecologism, but of inter-religious dialogue, because at Damiette, in 1219, he went to speak with the sultan, head of the Muslim enemy of the Crusade.
Contemporary accounts described the meeting as fraught with danger, with Francis facing the Islamic chief “as Christ facing Pilate.” It was only in later centuries that the scene was turned into the amiable dialogue of mutually respectful representatives of different religions.
The Abrahamic Family House project has the support of the United Arab Emirates. Launched in 2019, it has now reached 20 percent completion and is expected to be inaugurated next year together with a cultural center, the fourth main construction on the site.
Vatican News comments: “As such, the complex innovatively recounts the history and builds bridges between human civilizations and heavenly messages. (…) Besides the 3 places of worship, the site includes a cultural center that aims to encourage people to exemplify human fraternity and solidarity within a community that cherishes the values of mutual respect and peaceful coexistence, while the unique character of each faith is preserved.”
The Emirati press gave its own commentary:
The design is characterized by an iconic geometric architecture of three cubes that evokes the features of traditional architecture and preserves its uniqueness.
The structures will represent the unified commonality and mutual coexistence between the three religions while evoking the traditional architecture and retaining the individualism of each of the three faiths. […]
In addition, the complex will offer a variety of daily programmes and activities and will host international conferences and world summits that promote harmonious coexistence within communities.
For more gobbledygook, the forhumanfraternity.org website offered these enthusiastic, if obscure comments from prize-winning African architect Sir David Adjaye:
We were led towards these powerful plutonic forms with a clear geometry, three cubes sitting on a plinth – though not aligned, they each have different orientations. The story then starts to become apparent through the power of the silhouette, unified with commonality and the articulation of the three forms. These structures represent a safe space, each volume illustrated with colonnades, screens and vaults to represent the sacred nature.
Our discovery continued with the common ground, the public space in-between, where the difference connects. I saw the garden as a powerful metaphor, this safe space where community, connection and civility combine – this space exists between the three chambers, the three faiths. The podium allows you to interact with each space, there’s no preventative threshold, and this way you dissolve the perceptions of not being included and encourage the celebration of this collective history and collective identity.
And this is only a start. The Higher Committee for Human Fraternity hopes to expand in the future, as its website signals to the rest of the world:
Today, we are religious leaders representing Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Tomorrow, we hope to represent many more –those seeking to bring peace through mutual understanding. We aspire to have an impact at a global scale–and we soon will be sharing that emerging purpose and vision with influential and prominent leaders from different religions, organizations, governments and more
The Francis effect: LGBT-promoting bishops come out publicly
Fourteen U.S. bishops, one of them a cardinal, have added their names to a public statement in support of young people who identify as LGBT. Wed Jun 16, 2021 – 3:47 pm EST
June 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — June is the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, but our radically anti-Christian culture has dubbed it “Pride Month.” A month to take pride in an activity, not in persons. It’s not pride about love, it’s pride about sexual activity. It is pride in replacing God-ordained marriage between one man and one woman with a counterfeit. Listen, no one is condemning loving relationships between two men or two women. When it turns sexual — that’s what this is all about. God has only approved of one exercise of the sexual powers, namely inside the marital union. https://rumble.com/embed/vg0lkv/?pub=7phg5
So why are Catholics focusing on homosexuality right now and not on masturbation or polygamy or bestiality? Um, it’s not us. The culture is pushing “pride” month, the culture is ramming this down the throats of children, not even respecting religious freedom.
So in this episode we’re going to take a look at the latest insanity going on in America and the church around homosexuality. We’ve got a list for you of the most homosexuality-promoting bishops in America — one of them caught on video doing a “pride” blessing — Joe Biden’s latest moves to push the LGBT agenda across the globe, and children’s shows selling it to toddlers. We’re also featuring the best prelates and laity standing up to fight for the truth despite the cost.
In the last decade we have gone a long way toward total societal rejection of marriage as God ordained it. Homosexual so-called “marriage” is legal in most of the world, and in the U.S. 70% now support homosexual “marriage,” according to the latest poll.
President Joe Biden, who claims to be Catholic, formally recognized LGBTQ “Pride Month.” The Biden proclamation dared to mention Our Lord in the traditional manner of giving the date while at the same time encouraging Americans to celebrate sin: After telling Americans to “wave their flags of pride high” proclaiming June LGBTQ “Pride Month,” Biden used the traditional rendering of the date as “this first day of June, in the year of or Lord two thousand twenty-one.”
In a fact sheet for “Pride Month” put out by the Biden administration, they note that they have been pushing homosexuality around the world, also ensuring U.S. embassies around the world were flying the “Pride” flag. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
And this new Biden diktat spared no exceptions, apparently including the U.S. embassy at the Vatican.
Tweeting a photo of the “Pride” flag hanging from the balcony of its building in Rome, the representative of the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican wrote, “The U.S. Embassy to the Holy See celebrates #PrideMonth with the Pride flag on display during the month of June. The United States respects the dignity and equality of LGBTQI+ people. LGBTQI+ rights are human rights.”
And what comes of such huge government pressure to promote the LGBT agenda? The pushing of it on children. There are at least 13 children’s TV shows pushing the LGBT agenda on children.
Homosexual activist group GLAAD has spent years lobbying Hollywood studios to increase the representation of LGBTQ characters in various programing. The major TV networks, including Nickelodeon, PBS, Cartoon Network, and others, have joined that effort. Now nearly every TV series, animated or live-action, has added gay characters. The 13 TV shows and characters pushing the LGBTQ agenda include:
ScoobyDoo (Warner Bros/Cartoon Network)
She-Ra and the Princess of Power (Dreamworks Animation)
Spongebob Squarepants (Nickelodeon)
Ducktales (Disney)
My Little Pony (Discovery Family)
Arthur (PBS)
Adventure Time (Cartoon Network)
Andi Mack (Disney Channel)
The Loud House (Nickelodeon)
Clarence (Cartoon Network)
Steven Universe (Cartoon Network)
Blue’s Clues (Nickelodeon)
Star vs the Forces of Evil (Disney XD)
And we’re not talking about just a subtle promotion with characters in the background. Have a look at the classic children’s cartoon Blue’s Clues featuring a drag queen “Pride parade” sing-along.
That show featured Nina West, a popular drag queen in the role of the cartoon drag queen leading all the other ‘queer’ animals in song. “This family has two mommies. They love each other so proudly and they all go marching in … the … big parade,” the lyrics go.
The “Blues Clues” creators took pains with this one, every variation of queer flag is represented and paraded around by little animals. A hijab-wearing owl is shown proudly waving the rainbow flag.
If you look closely you’ll notice the Black Lives Matter power fist symbol depicted on the microphone of the drag queen character.
And it’s not only children’s TV shows that are targeting your children with the LGBT agenda. Children’s cereals in the grocery store are in on it too. In an article on LifeSite by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, you’ll learn that Kellogg’s has a special cereal box out for “Pride Month” called ‘Together with Pride.” The cereal is made of rainbow, heart-shaped pieces, tastes like fruit and is covered in edible glitter. Kelloggs is donating $3 from every box purchased to the extreme LGBT group GLAAD which is out to recruit and confuse your children.
But in reality, how can you blame the secular culture for doing what they are doing when the Church has allowed the confusion and even encouraged it? From Pope Francis on down, in the last eight years there has been utter confusion on the teaching of the Church on these matters. From Pope Francis’ ‘who am I to judge’ to his recent comments on video supportive of homosexual civil unions — he has left confusion. His support last week for German Cardinal Reinhard Marx is another example. The Pope refused to accept Marx’s resignation last week despite the fact that Cardinal Marx led the way on the German church blessing homosexual unions in direct contravention to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith saying that could never be done.
And have a look at the damage that this confusion unleashes. Just this month, the U.S.A.’s best-known homosexuality-promoting priest Fr. James Martin, the same Fr. Martin asked by the Pope to sit as a consultor on the Vatican Council for Social Communications, the same Fr. Martin whom the Pope asked to speak at the Vatican’s World Meeting of Families, the same Fr. Martin that the Pope met with in a private audience with photos and videos so all the world could see, encouraged Catholics to celebrate homosexual “Pride” month.
And if that’s not bad enough, watch this sitting U.S. bishop give a homosexual blessing. Lexington, Kentucky, Bishop John Stowe joined a virtual “Pride Blessing” event in early June. The event was hosted by the heretical pro-LGBT organization Dignity USA.
Unfortunately, Bishop Stowe is only the tip of the iceberg. And I hate to say it, but one of the best things about Pope Francis is that dissidents in the Church are outing themselves. Those who under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI remained quiet and hidden are now out of the closet with their LGBT support. Fourteen U.S. Catholic bishops, one of them a cardinal, have added their names to a public statement in partnership with a pro-homosexual advocacy group — the Tyler Clementi Foundation — in support of young people identifying themselves as LGBT, telling them that “God is on your side.” It is actually a gift to be able to know who these bishops are that betray the faith, and so here is the list:
Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin — Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey
Archbishop John C. Wester — Archbishop of Santa Fe, New Mexico
Bishop Steven Biegler — Bishop of Cheyenne, Wyoming
Bishop Robert McElroy — Bishop of San Diego, California
Bishop John P. Dolan — Auxiliary Bishop of San Diego, California
Bishop Joseph R. Kopacz — Bishop of Jackson, Mississippi
Bishop Alberto Rojas — Bishop of San Bernardino, California
Bishop Oscar A. Solis — Bishop of Salt Lake City, Utah
Bishop John Stowe — Bishop of Lexington, Kentucky
Bishop Anthony B. Taylor — Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas
Bishop Edward Weisenburger — Bishop of Tuckson, Arizona
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton (Retd) — Archdiocese of Detroit, Michigan
Bishop Denis Madden (Retd) — Archdiocese of Baltimore, Maryland
Bishop Ricardo Ramirez (Retd) — Diocese of La Cruces, New Mexico
Of course, it is not U.S. bishops only. It’s only there where we found such a handy listing. If we look to Canada, Bishop Douglas Crosby of Hamilton, Ontario, has gone so far as to support gay pride flags being flown at Catholic schools. More than that, Bishop Crosby has also forbidden local parish priests from opposing the matter from the pulpit.
These are not loving, caring bishops. They are cowards who love the adulation of the world more than they care for the souls of the faithful. If they were shepherds after Christ’s own Sacred Heart, they would lovingly call all those tempted with sexual sin of any kind, including temptations to homosexual activity, to appeal to Christ for help to avoid temptation and remain chaste despite them. They would not be popular for it, they would likely be misunderstood and perhaps even called haters and bigots, but they would be followers of Christ the good shepherd Who laid down His life for His sheep. Christ counseled the leaders in the Church that when they see that the worlds hates them, to know that it hated Him first.
But this agenda is not only aimed at our adult children, it is pursuing our little children, too. A teacher in a Catholic school tried to do a full indoctrination of grade 1 children — that’s 5-year-olds!
Go check out the full story about this atrocity at LifeSite for more. However, I want you to notice a few things. This grade 1 teacher in the Toronto Ontario Catholic school board is indoctrinating Catholic children against the Catholic faith — blatantly — and he is not stopped by the cardinal archbishop of Toronto, Thomas Collins. Notice he has placed a sacrilegious image of Our Lady of Czestochowa with a rainbow halo in the background under the cross.
This teacher revealed in a June 1 tweet the kind of pro-homosexual conversations he has with his students.
This morning in my Gr. 1 classroom waiting for the live stream
S: I know what Pride means.
Me: Tell us.
S: It means others who are lesbian, who are gay.
Me: Very good! It also means us. Some of our students in this classroom, some of our family members, are lesbian or gay.
These are our children being brainwashed. Being presented with a false Catholicism in a Catholic school which can lead our children to the loss of eternal life, and the Cardinal refuses to act? This is why we must act.
And some are doing just that.
Courageous priests have spoken out publicly. Fr. Mark Goring reacted to Catholic schools flying the gay pride flag.
But I wanted to show you courage from laymen.
One Toronto Catholic school board trustee, Mike del Grande, tried to defend Catholic teaching in school board meetings, and for that was found in breach of the board code of conduct. He is fighting it in court, and we have a LifeFunder to support him. Two other Catholic school board trustees have publicly resigned in protest of the decision of their Catholic board to fly the gay pride flag. We must stand up and demand of our bishops that they adhere to the one true faith, and support these courageous Catholics who are taking a stand.
In Washington, D.C., last week several individuals who lived a homosexual lifestyle gave public testimony about the possibility of change and finding happiness in Christ.
And finally, a teacher in Virginia gave a public testimony he knew may cost him his job. But he did it anyway.
Tanner Cross testified at a school board hearing and was suspended for defending his faith and God-ordained sexuality.
We must stand up for our children. We can do it, and often we can have a major impact. Remember a few weeks ago, when the bishop of La Crosse said publicly he was removing our beloved Fr. James Altman from his parish? We held a fundraiser looking for $100,000, and raised over $300,000 for him. We had over 90,000 sign a petition and delivered it to the diocese. I encouraged you to call the diocese, and the phones were busy all week. Today, Fr. Altman is still at the parish saying Mass. We can stand up. It’s time. It’s for our children’s future, for our faith, and in honor of Christ and His Sacred Heart which we celebrate this month of June.
The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show’s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog.
It is also available in audio format on platforms such as Spotify, Soundcloud, and Acast. We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well. To subscribe to the audio version on various channels, visit the Acast webpage here.
We’ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode. Please sign up now by clicking here. You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel, and you’ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content
In new interview, Abp. Viganò discusses ‘failure’ of Vatican II, Novus Ordo Mass
The next Pope will have to restore all the liturgical books and banish from Catholic churches their unseemly parody, in whose realization notorious modernists and heretics collaborated. Tue Jun 15, 2021 – 4:27 pm EST
Archbishop Viganò prays the rosary at the 2017 Rome March for Life Claire Chretien / LifeSiteNews
June 15, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Archbishop Viganò has given a new interview, this time to Abbé Claude Barthe, a French expert of the liturgy and a great supporter of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum allowing the traditional Latin Mass to flourish in the Church. The interview dwells on liturgical questions, the Second Vatican Council, as well as the Society of St. Pius X.
Abbé Barthe, who authored numerous books on the traditional liturgy of the Church, had a year ago entered into a supportive, public discussion with Archbishop Viganò after the latter had started publicly to criticize the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath. This new interview is a sort of a follow-up of that discussion, and these two clergymen also differ on some points. As Abbé Barthe puts it, Viganò “agreed to answer our questions on the theme of the new liturgy and in a rather astonishing way (astonishing even to ourselves as he goes after a process of the ‘reform of the reform’, a process which we support).” Barthe adds that he is “very glad to offer our readers this interview, as we believe it serves the debate and promotes reflection.” He presents the interview in the journal Res Novae in French, Italian, and English.
The English translation of this new interview has been made by Diane Montagna for Arouca Press. Arouca Press is soon going to publish a book edited by me with Archbishop Viganò’s criticisms of the Council, the liturgical reform, as well as the message of Fatima. The book will also include the responses of other clergymen and laymen to his criticisms of the Council.
As our readers will see, Archbishop Viganò once more finds strong words of criticism of the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965) as well as the Novus Ordo Mass (promulgated in 1969). He states that “we must be very clear that the Second Vatican Council was conceived as a revolutionary event.” He goes on to say that “if Vatican II was a revolutionary act, both in the way it was conducted and in the documents it promulgated, it is logical and legitimate to think that its liturgy is also affected by this ideological approach.”
When commenting on Pope Benedict XVI’s attempts at restoring the traditional liturgy (which was effectively suppressed after 1969) and the movement referred to above by Abbé Barthe as the “reform of the reform”, Viganò concludes that these attempts were defective:
I believe that behind these attempts, which seem to be motivated by pious intentions, lies a fact that none of these prelates [Pope Benedict and Cardinal Robert Sarah] dare confess: the failure of the Council and even more so of its liturgy. Returning to the ancient rite and definitively archiving the squalor of the Novus Ordo would require great humility, because those who would like to save it from shipwreck today were yesterday among the most enthusiastic supporters of the liturgical reform, and of Vatican II with it. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
That is to say, Archbishop Viganò rejects the idea of the “reform of the reform” (further making changes to existing rites), but rather proposes a return to the old liturgy and its faith.
In another field of the liturgical debate, the archbishop also adds new comments, that is to say about the first grave changes of the liturgy made under Pope Pius XII by Annibale Bugnini: the change of the rite of Holy Week in 1955. “Archbishop Annibale Bugnini,” Viganò writes, “was one of the collaborators in the drafting of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratuspromulgated during the pontificate of Pius XII. The serious deformations of the new Missal are in nuce [essentially] contained in the rite of Holy Week, demonstrating that the demolition plan had already begun.”
Last, but not least, the Italian prelate also comments on the situation of the Society of St. Pius X with regard to its relationship with the Vatican. Unlike with the Franciscans of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who had been more and more inclined to embrace the traditional liturgy and whose order has been essentially destroyed by Pope Francis, the SSPX still has a certain institutional independence from the Vatican. For Viganò, this seems to be a positive thing in light of the current papacy:
With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence. Let us not forget that the Society has assets and resources that guarantee sustenance and security for its members. At a time when the Vatican is experiencing a serious financial crisis, those assets are certainly enticing to many, as we have seen in other cases, starting with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and the persecution of Father Mannelli.
Full interview with Archbishop Viganò
Father Claude Barthe: Your Excellency, you have sometimes spoken of “revolutionary actions” in connection with the creation of the new liturgy after the Second Vatican Council. Could you clarify your thoughts on this matter?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: First of all, we must be very clear that the Second Vatican Council was conceived as a revolutionary event. Obviously, I am not referring to the good intentions of those who collaborated in the drafting of the preparatory schemas. I am talking instead about the innovators who rejected those schemas together with the condemnation of Communism that the Council should have pronounced, as a large part of the world’s episcopate desired. Now, if Vatican II was a revolutionary act, both in the way it was conducted and in the documents it promulgated, it is logical and legitimate to think that its liturgy is also affected by this ideological approach, especially if we bear in mind that it is the chief means by which the faithful and clergy are catechized. It is no coincidence that Luther and the other Protestant and Anglican heretics used the liturgy as their main method to spread their errors among the faithful.
Having said that, our legitimate suspicion is also confirmed when we consider who the architects of that liturgy were: prelates often suspected of belonging to Freemasonry who were notoriously progressive and who, with the Liturgical Movement of the 1920s and 1930s, had already begun to suggest more than questionable ideas and spread practices that were influenced by archaeologism, which was later condemned by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei. The versus populum altar was not an invention of Vatican II but of the liturgists who made it practically obligatory at the Council, after having introduced it decades earlier as an exception under the pretext of a supposed return to antiquity. The same can be said for the so-called “Gothic chasuble” in the forms that preceded the Council, especially in France. It became a sort of poncho that was passed off after the Council as a recovery of the original form but was, in fact, a historical and liturgical forgery. By these examples, I wish to highlight that well before Vatican II there were revolutionary forces infiltrating the Church that were ready to make definitive those innovations that were introduced ad experimentum and had become the practice, especially in countries historically less inclined to adapt to romanitas.
Once we understand that the liturgy is the expression of a specific doctrinal approach — which with the Novus Ordo also became ideological — and that the liturgists who conceived it were imbued with this approach, we must analyze the conciliar corpus liturgicum to find confirmation of its revolutionary nature. Beyond the texts and ceremonial rubrics, what makes the reformed rite unequivocally revolutionary is that it was made malleable to the celebrant and the community, on the basis of an adaptability completely unknown to the Roman mens liturgica. The arbitrariness of the innovations is an integral part of the reformed liturgy, whose liturgical books — beginning with Paul VI’s Missale Romanum — are thought of as a rough draft, a canvas at the mercy of more or less talented actors seeking public acclaim. The applause of the faithful, introduced albeit abusively with the Novus Ordo, is the expression of a consensus that is an essential part of a rite that has become a spectacle. On the other hand, in ancient societies theater has always had a liturgical connotation, and it is significant that the conciliar church wanted to exhume this pagan vision by inverting it, that is, by giving a theatrical connotation to the liturgical rite.
Anyone who thinks that the Editio typica in Latin corresponds to the rite that should have been celebrated after the Council sins in naivety as well as in ignorance: nothing in that liturgical book was really intended for daily use by priests, beginning with the pitiful graphic layout, which was clearly neglected precisely because of the awareness that practically no one would ever celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin. The same papal ceremonies in which the Missale Romanum of Paul VI was used derogated from the rubrics by introducing readings in the vernacular, ceremonies not foreseen, and roles reserved to clerics carried out by laymen and even women. This, in my view, confirms the revolutionary soul of the Council and of the rite inspired by it.
Father Claude Barthe: The liturgical reform, which began in 1964 and produced a new missal in 1969, may seem more radical than its programmatic document, the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Do you think that Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium betrayed Vatican II, as some say, or that it developed it, as others suggest?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was one of the collaborators in the drafting of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus promulgated during the pontificate of Pius XII. The serious deformations of the new Missal are in nuce [essentially] contained in the rite of Holy Week, demonstrating that the demolition plan had already begun. There is therefore no betrayal of the Council, so much so that none of its architects ever considered the liturgical reform inconsistent with the mens of Sacrosanctum Concilium. A careful study of the genesis of the Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus allows us to understand that the innovators’ demands were only partially accepted but were re-proposed with Montini’s Novus Ordo.
However, it must be clearly said that, unlike all the other Ecumenical Councils, this Council deliberately used its authority to sanction a systematic betrayal of faith and morals, pursued through pastoral, disciplinary and liturgical means. The transitional Missals between the 1962 rubrics and the 1970 Editio typica, and the one that immediately followed — the Editio typicaaltera of 1975 — show how the process was carried out in small steps, accustoming clergy and faithful to the provisional nature of the rite, to continuous innovation, and to the progressive loss of many elements that initially made the Novus Ordo closer to the last Missale Romanum of John XXIII. I am thinking, for example, of the recitation submissa voce of the Roman Canon in Latin, with its sacrificial Offertory and the Veni Sanctificator, which in the course of adaptation led to the recitation of the Roman Canon aloud, with its Talmudic Offertory and the suppression of the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
Those who prepared the conciliar documents to have them approved by the Council Fathers acted with the same malice that the drafters of the liturgical reform adopted, knowing that they would interpret ambiguous texts in a Catholic way, while those who were to disseminate and utilize them would interpret them in every sense except that. — Article continues below Petition — PRAYER PLEDGE: Join faithful Germans in prayer to STOP homosexual « blessings » and plunge into schism
10,751 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 12,500! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
In fact, this concept is confirmed in everyday practice. Have you ever seen a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo with the altar facing East, entirely in Latin, wearing the fiddleback (Roman) chasuble and distributing Communion at the Communion rail, without this arousing the ire of his Ordinary and confreres, even though, strictly speaking, this way of celebrating would be perfectly legitimate? Those who have tried — certainly in good faith — have been treated worse than those who habitually celebrate the Tridentine Mass. This demonstrates that the continuity hoped for in the Council’s hermeneutic does not exist, and that the break with the pre-conciliar Church is the norm to which one must conform, to the satisfaction of conservatives.
Lastly, I would like to point out that this awareness of the doctrinal incompatibility of the ancient rite with the ideology of Vatican II is claimed by self-styled theologians and progressive intellectuals, for whom the “Extraordinary Form” of the rite can be tolerated as long as the entire theological framework that it implies is not adopted. This is why the liturgy of the Summorum Pontificum communities is tolerated, provided that in preaching and catechesis one is careful not to criticize Vatican II or the new Mass.
Father Claude Barthe: Among the criticisms often made of the new Ordo Missæ, which do you consider to be the most important?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The most well-founded criticism lies in having wanted to invent a liturgy for one’s own use and consumption, abandoning the bi-millennial rite that began with the Apostles and harmoniously developed through the centuries. The reformed liturgy — as any competent scholar knows — is the result of an ideological compromise between the Catholic lex orandi and the heretical demands of Protestants and Lutherans. Since the Church’s faith is expressed in public worship, it was essential that the liturgy adapt to the new way of believing, weakening or denying those truths that were considered “uncomfortable” for the pursuit of ecumenical dialogue.
A reform that simply wanted to prune certain rites that modern sensibilities could no longer understand could easily have avoided the slavish repetition of what Luther did at the time of the pseudo-reformation and Cranmer did after the Anglican schism: the mere fact of having adopted the innovations with which the heretics rejected certain points of Catholic dogma is an unquestionable demonstration of the Pastors’ subordination to the consensus of those outside the Church, to the detriment of the flock the Lord entrusted to them. Imagine what one of the martyrs of Calvinism, or of the fury of King James, would have thought in seeing popes, cardinals and bishops using a table in place of the altar that cost them their lives; and what respect a heretic might have for the hated Roman Babylon, which is all caught up in awkwardly mimicking what the “reformers” had done four centuries earlier, although perhaps in a more dignified manner. Let us not forget that Luther’s liturgical heresies were conveyed by Bach chorales, while the celebrations of the conciliar Church are accompanied by compositions of unprecedented ugliness. The liturgical breakdown has revealed a doctrinal breakdown, humiliating the Holy Church out of a mere eagerness to please the mentality of the world.
Father Claude Barthe: How can we explain the failure of Benedict XVI, Cardinal Sarah, and others who have advocated a gradual “liturgical revival” by (e.g.) celebrating the Mass towards the Lord, reintroducing the Offertory prayers, and distributing Holy Communion on the tongue?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: If a Vatican official were to give orders to decorate the Sala Nervi in the Paul VI Audience Hall with stucco and frescoes, replacing the hideous sculpture of the Resurrection with a baroque perspective, he would be considered an eccentric, especially when St Peter’s Basilica is just a stone’s throw away. The same thing applies, in my opinion, to attempts to make the reformed liturgy presentable by means of objectively useless window-dressing: what is the point of celebrating the Novus Ordo towards the East, changing the Offertory and distributing Communion on the tongue, when the Tridentine Mass has always provided for this?
This “liturgical revival” starts from the same erroneous presuppositions that animated the conciliar reform: modifying the liturgy at will, now distorting the venerable ancient rite to modernize it, now dressing up the reformed rite to make it look like what it is not and does not want to be. In the first case, we would be forcing a queen to wear clogs and dress in rags, in the second we would have the commoner wearing a royal tiara over ruffled hair or sitting on a throne in a straw hat.
I believe that behind these attempts, which seem to be motivated by pious intentions, lies a fact that none of these prelates dare confess: the failure of the Council and even more so of its liturgy. Returning to the ancient rite and definitively archiving the squalor of the Novus Ordo would require great humility, because those who would like to save it from shipwreck today were yesterday among the most enthusiastic supporters of the liturgical reform, and of Vatican II with it.
I ask myself: if Paul VI had no problem recklessly abolishing the Tridentine liturgy between one day and the next, replacing it with cobbled-together excerpts from the Book of Common Prayer, and imposing this new rite despite the protests of clergy and laity, why exactly should we today use any more consideration in restoring the ancient Roman Rite to its place of honor, by prohibiting the celebration of the Novus Ordo? Why such delicacy of mind today, and such ruthless iconoclastic fury yesterday? And why this cosmetic surgery, if not to hold together the last conciliatory frill by giving it the appearance of what it did not intend to be?
The next Pope will have to restore all the liturgical books previous to the conciliar reform and banish from Catholic churches its unseemly parody, in whose realization notorious modernists and heretics collaborated.
Father Claude Barthe: In a 2013 interview with the Jesuit magazines, Pope Francis cited the liturgical reform as an exemplary fruit of the Council (“Vatican II was a reinterpretation of the Gospel in the light of contemporary culture”), and yet Bergoglio does favors for the Society of St Pius X. Is he interested in the liturgical question?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: I do not believe that Bergoglio has any interest in the liturgy tout court, and a fortiori in the Tridentine liturgy, which is as alien to him and disliked as anything remotely reminiscent of Catholicism. His approach is political: he tolerates the Ecclesia Dei communities because they keep the conservatives out of the parishes, and at the same time he maintains control over them, forcing them to limit their dissent solely to the liturgical level, while ensuring their fidelity to the conciliar ideology.
With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence. Let us not forget that the Society has assets and resources that guarantee sustenance and security for its members. At a time when the Vatican is experiencing a serious financial crisis, those assets are certainly enticing to many, as we have seen in other cases, starting with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and the persecution of Father Mannelli.
Father Claude Barthe: Do you think that the protective status (dependence on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and not on the Congregation for Religious) desired by Joseph Ratzinger before and after his accession to the papacy for societies of apostolic life which practice the traditional Mass is in danger today?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The canonical position of the Ecclesia Dei communities has always been at risk. Their survival is linked to their at least implicit acceptance of the conciliar doctrine and liturgical reform. Those who do not conform, by criticizing Vatican II or refusing to celebrate or attend the reformed rite, ipso facto put themselves in a position of being expelled. The superiors of these societies of apostolic life themselves end up being the overseers of their clerics, who are strongly advised to refrain from criticism and to give tangible signs of alignment from time to time, for example, by taking part in celebrations in the “Ordinary Form.” Paradoxically, a diocesan parish priest has greater freedom of speech in doctrinal matters than a member of one of these institutes.
It should be said that, according to the mindset of those in power in the Vatican today, the liturgical eccentricities of some communities, far from encouraging the rediscovery of the traditional rite, give it an elitist aspect and confine it to the “small ancient world” to which the proponents of the Bergoglian church have every interest in relegating it. Making the celebration of the Catholic Mass “normal”—according to the dictates of the motu proprioSummorum Pontificum — without “liturgical reservations” and dedicated spaces, would give the impression that it is really possible for any faithful to attend Mass without any other title of belonging than being a Catholic. On the contrary, this Kafkaesque bureaucratic castle forces all conservatives into an enclosure, obliging them to follow the rules of confinement and to demand nothing more than what the sovereign grace deigns to grant them, almost always with the ill-concealed opposition of the diocesan bishop.
Bergoglio’s actions are now clearly exposed: his latest encyclical theorizes about heterodox doctrines and a scandalous subservience to the dominant ideology, which is profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-human. From this perspective, questions about the liturgical sensitivity of this or that institute seem to me frankly negligible: not because the liturgy is not important, but because once one is willing to remain silent on the doctrinal front, the complex ceremonies of the Pontifical end up being reduced to a manifestation of aestheticism that poses no real danger to the magic circle of Santa Marta.
Father Claude Barthe: Do the ban on individual Masses in St. Peter’s, the three-day inspection of the Congregation for Divine Worship by Archbishop Maniago, and the fact that the Constitution on the reform of the Curia, Prædicate Evangelium, is said to strengthen the powers of oversight for the Congregation for Divine Worship, give rise to fears of a new virulence of the reform? Or does Francis have little interest in this liturgical problem?
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The ban on celebrating private Masses in St. Peter’s, despite the choral protest of many faithful and some prelates against a real abuse by the Secretariat of State, continues in force and is as an unprecedented scandal. It is a trial balloon to test the ground and study the reactions of prelates, clergy and laity who, for the moment, are limited to the mere, very composed and in some cases embarrassing verbal lamentation. As I have already had occasion to state, I believe that this ban is nothing more than an attempt to give legal semblance to a practice that is now consolidated and universal, which also confirms the doctrinal error that underlies it; namely, the primacy of the community dimension of the “Eucharist” understood as a convivial banquet, to the detriment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated privately. But here we are touching on Vatican II, which none of the Cardinals who spoke out on the ban on Masses in St. Peter’s dares to question in the slightest, even though it is clearly at the origin of the Secretariat of State’s illegitimate prohibition.
As far as the supervisory powers of the Congregation for Divine Worship are concerned, in themselves they could also be considered in a positive sense, since liturgical matters are strictly within the competence of the Holy See. However, we would be sinning in naivety and lack of foresight if we did not take into account the fact that any norm promulgated by the innovators will be used by them to obtain unconfessed aims, often opposite to those stated.
New Gallup poll isn’t the ‘gotcha’ abortion supporters think it is. Here’s why.
Gallup’s poll is marked by carefully worded questions which tend to poll poorly and thus not provide an accurate result regarding pro-life views in America. Mon Jun 14, 2021 – 1:00 pm EST
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
June 14, 2021 (Live Action) – This morning, Gallup released an extensive amount of new polling data on sanctity of life issues. This is one of the first national surveys on abortion that has taken place since the start of the Biden administration. Overall, attitudes on sanctity of issues have remained stable. The Gallup poll found at that 47 percent of Americans identify as “pro-life” while 49 percent identify as “pro-choice.” This finding is very consistent with recent Gallup surveys. Of the six Gallup polls taken since 2016, pro-life sentiment averaged 47 percent.
The mainstream media will likely spin a few of the findings from this recent Gallup poll to argue that there has been a decrease in pro-life sentiment. However, pro-lifers should not be misled.
‘Morally acceptable’ sentiment is largely unchanged
First, it is true that this survey finds that percentage of Americans who think abortion is “morally acceptable” reached an all-time high. However, while the survey found that 47 percent of Americans think abortion is “morally acceptable,” this is only a 3-percentage-point gain from the most recent Gallup survey in 2020. Furthermore, there was only a 1-percentage-point decline in those finding abortion “morally wrong.”
Roe v. Wade and support for pro-life laws hinges on poll wording
SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
Second, the poll found that 32 percent of people want the Roe v. Wade decision overturned while 58 percent do not. However, this Gallup poll suffers from the same two problems as nearly every other poll on the Roe v. Wade decision.
First, it does not make it clear that Roe v. Wade effectively legalized abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy — a position supported by a small percentage of Americans. Second, it also does not make it clear that overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion outright, but would instead send the issue back to the states.
This Gallup poll purportedly shows that there are low levels of support for various pro-life laws. Specifically, only 41 percent favor a ban on abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy and only 38 percent favor a ban on abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. However, the wording of these questions is poor for pro-lifers.
Previous polls which showed strong support for pro-life laws often made it clear that there are exceptions for the life of the mother. Similarly, other survey questions which showed strong public support for gestational age limits used the phrase “generally illegal.” These Gallup polling questions did not do this.
Gallup instead used the phrase “ban on abortion,” which tends to poll poorly.
Long-term pro-life gains are evident
Media coverage on abortion surveys often focuses on short-term fluctuations in public opinion. However, it is important to note that Gallup surveys consistently show long-term durable gains in pro-life sentiment during the past 25 years. In September 1995, only 33 percent of Americans identified as “pro-life.” Similarly, another Gallup poll conducted in July of 1996 found that only 36 percent of respondents identified as “pro-life.” — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Urge U.S. Bishops to publicly excommunicate Joe Biden (and other pro-abortion politicians)
23,275 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 25,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Pro-life issues will be very salient this year. As pro-lifers work to defend the Hyde Amendment and Mississippi’s 15-week abortion limit, we should move forward with confidence. Our educational efforts have paid off and will doubtless continue to do so in the future.
Michael J. New is a Research Associate at The Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America and an Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New
Catholic leaders, thinkers to expose Great Apostasy at free online conference next week
Those interested in watching the event online can register for free, but should do so as soon as possible, as attendance slots are limited. Tue Jun 15, 2021 – 11:42 am EST
June 15, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Nine of the foremost public voices in the ongoing battle for the soul of the Catholic Church will be gathering June 24–26 for a free online conference exploring whether the scores of Catholics abandoning the Church worldwide is a sign of the coming of the Great Apostasy foretold in the Bible.
“Glorious church architecture has been reduced to profane structures better resembling gymnasiums; sacred art has been discarded in favor of misshapen and grotesque impressions; chant and hymns have been replaced by guitars and tambourines; middle-aged women in leotards dance in place of altar boys; and the Sacred Liturgy, changing its attention from God to Man, has made Sacrifice into a meal,” write the organizers of the International Conference on the Great Apostasy.
“And now? The voice of Peter more closely resembles Judas as Mass attendance is discouraged, the Sacraments are denied to the Faithful, and parishes across the globe are being shuttered and sold.” SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
The conference will feature nine sessions headed by nine hand-picked Catholic experts on history, prophecy, theology, and current events, including LifeSiteNews’s own co-founder and editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen. Other speakers include Thomistic theologian and LifeSiteNews columnist Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Fr. James Altman of Saint James the Less parish in La Crosse, Wisconsin, The Catholic Current host Father Robert McTeigue SJ, author and teacher of church and world history Dr. Edmund Mazza, Catholicism.org publisher Brother Andre Marie, Creative Minority Report co-founder Patrick Archbold, Lepanto Institute founder and president Michael Hichborn, and author and public speaker Desmond Birch.
The event offers informed and insightful exploration of some of the most pressing concerns facing the faithful today, including why the Vatican has “sold out the Church in China” and is “working so closely with population control enthusiasts at the United Nations,” as well as why Pope Francis is “calling for a ‘New World Order’ and a humanistic brotherhood of mankind.”
Ultimately, the conference will equip attendees to understand what the Great Apostasy actually is and how to recognize it, from the historical events that set the stage for it, to what to expect during the Great Apostasy and how it relates to the current inner turmoil of the Church.
Those interested in watching the event online can register for free by clicking here, but should do so as soon as possible, as attendance slots are limited. about:blank
EXCLUSIVE: Pope Francis, the Biden family, and the U.S. bishops’ struggle over the abortion
Shouldn’t a woman ‘be able to make the judgment that her husbands genes shouldn’t be carried into a new generation of rapists?’ Hunter Biden said in a text message on abortion obtained by LifeSiteNews. Tue Jun 15, 2021 – 4:21 pm EST
June 15, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Today, rumor had it that Pope Francis and President Joe Biden were to meet in Rome. This rumor came up in the midst of a heated debate in the U.S. about the question of whether or not the U.S. bishops — who are going to meet tomorrow — should issue a statement banning pro-abortion politicians from Holy Communion.
Just last night, CNA reported that Pope Francis, in light of that heated debate, chose not to invite Biden to a Holy Mass celebrated by him, which could have entailed Biden receiving Holy Communion. But this, too, turned out to be a rumor, as it now seems.
But the Pope’s personal views in this matter of Communion for President Biden are fairly clear. Cardinal Luis Ladaria, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith appointed by Francis, wrote a June 7 letter to the head of the U.S. bishops, Archbishop José H. Gomez, asking him to hold back on issuing such a statement now, favoring the idea that “unity” among the U.S. bishops here is more important than the statement itself. It was a political letter to begin with.
But then, just the other day, Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J., one of Pope Francis’ closest advisors and editor of the Vatican-controlled magazine Civiltà Cattolica, explained regarding the Vatican’s intervention in the U.S., “The concern in the Vatican is not to use access to the Eucharist as a political weapon.”
That is to say: The current Vatican under Francis argues that priests and bishops should give Biden Holy Communion, even though he is actively promoting the killing of the unborn. Arguments of faith do not seem to apply here.
But in light of this seeming ideological alignment between Francis and Biden, let us consider what Hunter Biden thinks of abortion. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
Jack Maxey, whom LifeSite — and prominently, LifeSite’s editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen — repeatedly has interviewed, kindly researched for LifeSite the Hunter Biden Laptop with regard to the abortion issue. We recall here that the Daily Mail has been able to receive confirmation by experts that this laptop is authentic. Maxey provided us with Hunter Biden’s recording and message that give proof to that Hunter Biden himself is in favor of abortion.
First of all, there is a recording from Hunter Biden’s laptop in which he speaks of the pressure he feels from many people who ask him for help and support. He then mentions a woman whom he calls “Daniela” and who constantly asks him for money which she needs for “a place to stay, a job, and an apartment, and a plane ticket, and rent, and travel money for my boyfriend who is a felon who needs to go into a rehab, and an abortion. It is always life-threatening sh…”
But worst of all, Maxey found a message from Hunter Biden in which he clearly defends the right to an abortion, even from the point of view of a father. He wrote, with repeated misspelling: “And if a man has the right to veto an abortion doesn’t t also have been the right to force an abortion.” That is to say, he thinks a father should have a right to “force an abortion.”
He continued: “If a woman feels she is not equipped to raise a child and was raped by her husband and chooses an abortion should t she be able to make the judgment that her husbands genes shouldn’t be carried into a new generation of rapists.”
Photo: Jack Maxey
Next to his obviously strange view of eugenics (passing on “bad” genes), it is clear that Hunter Biden supports abortion for different reasons.
But another aspect of that same message is provocative. A man who has fathered a child voluntarily or involuntarily, he wrote, “should be required to shoulder exactly half of all the work and emotion that raising a child requires.”
As the Daily Mail has only recently revealed, Hunter Biden does take no care at all of the child he has fathered in 2018. First, he had claimed he did not know the mother’s name — Lunden Roberts — and denied being the father. But even now, after having been forced to pay child support, he does not make any efforts to see his child.
“Lunden’s lawyer Clint Lancaster says the president’s son is still failing to take responsibility,” the Daily Mail wrote. “‘He has only taken financial responsibility when the court forced him to do it,’ Lancaster told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. ‘Mr. Biden hasn’t taken responsibility for this child until he parents her.’”
Nevertheless, President Biden, according to his own public statement, says: “I’m proud of my son.”
Not only is Biden proud of his son, he is also an active promoter of abortion. This is what makes him not eligible to receive Holy Communion, and this is not a political issue, contrary to what Fr. Spadaro claims. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Urge U.S. Bishops to publicly excommunicate Joe Biden (and other pro-abortion politicians)
23,256 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 25,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Jack Maxey, the former co-host of Steve Bannon’s War Room, who is an expert on the Hunter Biden laptop and its scandalous contents, comments on this Spadaro quote: “It is Pope Francis who has politicized the Eucharist. The Faith is the only thing that matters, the catechism is the only thing that matters. Nobody who supports abortion merits the Eucharist. A child going to catechism class knows that.” Applying this principle to Biden, Maxey added: “When you look at it through the lens of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then Biden does not merit the Holy Eucharist.”
“But if you look at it through the lens of someone who has co-opted his faith and his soul to the Communist Chinese, just as Joe Biden, then everything is political,” as Maxey, who himself is a Catholic, added.
That is to say, through a political lens, such a decision would look different, because it has to suit political purposes, which means it has to protect President Biden.
Jack Maxey sees here also a parallel to the pachamama worship that Pope Francis had performed during the 2019 Amazon Synod in Rome. In both cases, the U.S. researcher and journalist says, there was a “rejection of fundamental Church teaching. Just think of Our Lady of Fatima. Don’t you think Our Lady is offended when the image of pachamama is displayed in our churches?”
But in light of Pope Francis’s intervention in U.S. episcopal affairs, one might very well also ask where his much-appraised principle of synodality and locality is being respected? Should Pope Francis not respect the local debates in the U.S., just as he insists he does with the discussions that are taking place in the Amazon region with regard to married priests and female deacons?
The U.S. bishops will meet tomorrow to discuss the matter of Communion for pro-abortion politicians. May they come to a decision in the Faith, and not to an inadequate and a specious political decision
medias-presse.info: Le Great Reset : Le dernier grand mensonge, par Mgr Carlo Maria Viganò
medias-presse.info Le Great Reset : Le dernier grand mensonge, par Mgr Carlo Maria Viganò par Fabien Laurent Le Great Reset : Le dernier grand mensonge Lazare, veni foras! Jn 11, 43 Ce premier Festival de la Philosophie [1] est dédié à Mgr Antonio Livi, dont nous gardons tous un souvenir ému et reconnaissant, tant pour son témoignage de foi que pour sa rare érudition dans les disciplines théologiques. Le savant prélat romain m’est uni de manière particulière par son chemin de « conversion » à la Tradition, qui l’a conduit, quelques années avant moi, à la célébration assidue de la vénérable Liturgie apostolique, en parfaite cohérence avec la doctrine qu’il connaissait parfaitement. Tous deux, nous nous sommes retrouvés à redécouvrir les trésors de la Messe de notre Ordination, avec la consolation de redécouvrir aussi notre Sacerdoce dans sa plénitude. Si nous voulons nous souvenir dignement de Monseigneur Livi aujourd’hui, je pense que nous ne pouvons pas passer sous silence l’École du « Bon Sens » dont il a été l’initiateur et qui, en ce moment, représente une occasion d’approfondir notre compréhension de la réalité actuelle : les grands bouleversements de cette dernière année, la soi-disant pandémie et, plus généralement, la crise dans laquelle se trouvent le monde et l’Église. Le manque de « bon sens » chez les individus a en grande partie rendu possible cet assaut contre Dieu, contre l’Église et contre le genre humain que représente le Great Reset et l’idéologie qu’il exprime. L’irrationalité, l’abdication de la raison, l’annihilation du jugement critique et la négation de l’évidence sont le véritable virus pandémique de notre temps, qui dans la rébellion contre Dieu manifeste un délire d’omnipotence et dans la folie collective révèle la juste némésis de ce misérable défi. Saint Paul nous exhorte à une foi rationnelle, rationabile obsequium (Rm 12,1), dans laquelle la foi et la raison, comme deux ailes, nous font monter vers la contemplation de la Vérité, c’est-à-dire de Dieu lui-même. Ainsi, l’avertissement de l’Apôtre implique également une saine distance par rapport à la pensée du monde : nolite conformari huic sæculo (Rm 12, 2), un avertissement que nous nous sentons partager de manière particulière aujourd’hui, face à la folie du monde. Je vous remercie donc tous, en particulier le cher professeur Francesco Lamendola, l’organisateur de la conférence, Andrea Comett, les éminents orateurs – parmi lesquels je vois beaucoup de visages amicaux – et les modérateurs. Si vous avez déjà eu l’occasion d’écouter mon discours du 15 mai dernier à la Confédération des Triarii, vous remarquerez qu’il s’agissait d’une version abrégée de ce que je m’apprête à développer plus amplement. J’espère que la vidéo de ce discours sera soumise à la même censure de la part de YouTube, car la précédente, après sa suppression, a été diffusée et vue par encore plus de personnes, grâce au tollé suscité à juste titre par le bâillon des grands médias. Un précédent important Lorsque Staline a décidé en 1932 d’éliminer des millions d’Ukrainiens dans le cadre du génocide de l’Holodomor, il a planifié une famine comme un outil d’ingénierie sociale permettant de nationaliser les terres agricoles et d’allouer ensuite les bénéfices à l’industrie. Staline écrivit : « Pour éliminer les koulaks en tant que classe, la politique de limitation et d’élimination de groupes isolés de koulaks ne suffit pas ; […] il faut briser la résistance de cette classe par une bataille ouverte et la priver des sources économiques de son existence et de son développement » (Josef Staline, Questioni di leninismo, Rome, 1945). Staline fait alors saisir le blé, les betteraves, les pommes de terre, les légumes et toute sorte de nourriture ; il interdit toute forme de commerce – cela vous rappelle quelque chose ? – et confisca les ressources financières des Ukrainiens. Les enfants fuyant les campagnes sont arrêtés et déportés dans des fermes collectives appelées « kolkhozes » et dans des orphelinats, où ils meurent de malnutrition. Le Comité central interdit les déplacements – une sorte de confinement ante litteram – et accuse ceux qui dénoncent le massacre des Ukrainiens d’être l’ennemi du peuple. Les négateurs de l’Holodomor – en utilisant le terme dans son sens propre – soutiennent que le génocide de 1932-1933 en Ukraine soviétique n’a jamais eu lieu ou qu’il s’est produit sans préméditation. La censure du régime a contribué à cacher une tragédie qui est aujourd’hui reconnue par de nombreux pays comme un crime contre l’humanité et qui, à l’analyse de sa méthode et de son objectif, était aussi un exemple de Great Reset. Si un Ukrainien s’était demandé comment il était possible que le gouvernement russe, confronté à une famine, n’ait pas aidé la population en envoyant de la nourriture mais ait plutôt interdit toute activité commerciale et tout mouvement, aggravant ainsi la situation, il aurait commis la même erreur que beaucoup aujourd’hui qui, en présence d’une prétendue pandémie, se demandent pourquoi les gouvernements ont préventivement sapé la santé publique, affaibli les plans nationaux de pandémie, interdit des traitements efficaces et administré des traitements nocifs, voire mortels, et forcent maintenant les citoyens – en utilisant le chantage des confinements perpétuels, des ordres de rester à la maison et des pass sanitaires inconstitutionnels – à se soumettre à des vaccins qui non seulement ne garantissent aucune immunité, mais entraînent de graves effets secondaires à court et à long terme, tout en contribuant à la propagation de formes plus résistantes du virus. Changer de point de vue Chercher une quelconque logique dans ce que nous disent les grands médias, nos gouvernants, les virologues et les soi-disant « experts » est un défi ardu qui disparaît comme par enchantement et se transforme en rationalité la plus cynique si nous avons seulement l’honnêteté intellectuelle de renverser notre point de vue. Nous devrions donc renoncer au postulat réconfortant qui nous dit que nos dirigeants agissent pour notre bien, et plus généralement à l’idée que nos interlocuteurs sont honnêtes, sincères et animés de bons principes. Croyez-moi, je comprends qu’il serait plus facile de se complaire dans l’illusion que « tout ira bien » et que cette pandémie est vraiment une énorme catastrophe à laquelle aucun d’entre nous n’était préparé. Il est beaucoup plus facile de penser que les dirigeants du monde doivent être jugés avec une indulgence reconnaissante, en leur pardonnant des erreurs que n’importe qui dans la même position aurait pu faire dans la lutte contre « l’ennemi invisible ». Il est réconfortant de croire que les multinationales pharmaceutiques et les agences sanitaires internationales n’ont rien d’autre à cœur que notre bien, et qu’elles ne pourraient jamais distribuer, uniquement pour des calculs économiques, des médicaments expérimentaux qui finiront par nous rendre tous malades chroniques ou par nous exterminer. Et il est incroyablement difficile et psychologiquement épuisant de faire face à la lutte domestique quotidienne que nous devons endurer avec nos parents et amis, nos connaissances et nos collègues de travail, simplement parce que nous considérons que le récit [officiel] de la Covid est absurde. Être considérés comme des « théoriciens du complot » ou des « négationnistes » et faire l’objet de pitié, de mépris ou de condamnation sociale est un sort ingrat, surtout lorsque les personnes qui croient au mensonge mondial nous sont chères. Et il est encore plus ingrat de se sentir discriminé et ostracisé même au sein de notre communauté ecclésiale, d’autant plus quand on voit l’aplatissement idéologique au récit dominant de la part des évêques et des plus hauts échelons de la Hiérarchie. La réalité est bien différente, et ne pas vouloir l’accepter nous fait tomber dans cette dissonance cognitive que la psychologie sociale a largement étudiée. La réalité n’est pas seulement différente, elle est aussi diamétralement opposée à ce que l’on nous dit, et il vaudra mieux pour nous que nous voulions la comprendre, la reconnaître, l’affronter et la combattre de toutes nos forces. Aussi parce que le modus operandi avec lequel des affaires similaires ont été menées au cours de l’histoire est sensiblement le même. Mettons-nous à la place des partisans du Great Reset. Partons du point de vue de ceux qui ont organisé ce complot plutôt que de ceux qui le subissent sans le savoir. Si nous nous mettons à la place d’un Bill Gates, d’un George Soros ou d’un Klaus Schwab, il ne sera pas difficile de comprendre que si nous déclarons sans vergogne que nous avons décidé de décimer la population mondiale au moyen d’un sérum génétique, il est fort probable que nous n’obtiendrons pas le consentement des masses ni le soutien des institutions, car faire connaître notre plan criminel provoquerait une révolte et surtout dévoilerait nos cartes. En réalité, nous avons même déclaré nos plans à plusieurs reprises ; nous les avons inscrits dans les actes de nos congrès ; nous les avons réitérés dans des interviews et des réunions institutionnelles ; nous les avons même fait graver sur les Georgia Guidestones. Peut-être l’aveu de ce dessein criminel a-t-il semblé trop effronté, et ceux qui se sont sentis menacés ont préféré regarder ailleurs, blâmant plutôt ceux qui ont tiré la sonnette d’alarme, ignorés comme Laocoon [2]. Et c’est ainsi que nous décidons de raconter la « belle fable » de l’engagement mondial, de l’éco-durabilité, de l’inclusivité, de la résilience face à un virus que nous avons probablement créé nous-mêmes dans un laboratoire de Wuhan financé par nous, en le présentant comme une pandémie mortelle qui nécessite la prise de mesures immédiates justifiées par l’urgence sanitaire. Et comme il ne peut pas vraiment y avoir d’urgence puisqu’il s’agit simplement d’un syndrome grippal, d’un coronavirus presque normal, comme cela se produit toutes les autres années, nous devons demander aux fonctionnaires de l’OMS – une entité financée presque entièrement par nous et par notre alliée la dictature communiste chinoise – de donner des directives interdisant les traitements, créant un nombre élevé de décès imputables à la Covid, et conduisant les patients à la mort en leur imposant une ventilation forcée. Il est évident que les laboratoires pharmaceutiques, dont nous sommes actionnaires à travers le fonds d’investissement Black Rock, ont tout intérêt à produire des vaccins sans la période d’expérimentation habituelle, car en même temps que l’on interdit les traitements, on peut aussi déroger aux lois protégeant la santé publique et autoriser la distribution expérimentale des vaccins – ou plutôt des sérums génétiques. Et pour sceller le pactum sceleris avec le régime chinois, on fait pleuvoir des commandes de masques, de tests sur écouvillons, de ventilateurs et de fournitures médicales, même si l’on sait qu’ils sont inutiles et ne respectent pas les normes sanitaires. Pendant ce temps, nos « experts » – qui sont presque toujours d’anciens employés ou dont nous sponsorisons les instituts et les cabinets de conseil – sèment la panique dans les médias avec des projections et des prévisions aussi absurdes que terrifiantes, tandis que les journalistes et les animateurs de télévision se prostituent à leur nouveau patron, renonçant à l’éthique professionnelle et à leur devoir de respecter la vérité à tout prix. Mais nous savons bien que l’argent et la célébrité peuvent facilement acheter la collaboration flagorneuse et le silence complice de beaucoup, surtout s’ils nous doivent leur position, si nous sommes actionnaires des journaux pour lesquels ils travaillent ou les principaux acheteurs de leurs espaces publicitaires. Dans le même temps, nous veillons à ce que des fonds publics soient alloués pour financer les médias, évidemment avec l’attente implicite qu’ils promeuvent le récit officiel et censurent toute voix dissidente. Les soins de santé sont également entre nos mains, et ce depuis des années ! Nous avons progressivement détruit le système de santé publique, en utilisant notre personnel dans les gouvernements nationaux, dans l’Union européenne et dans les organisations internationales ; et après l’avoir détruit, nous avons déploré son inefficacité et recommandé qu’il soit remplacé par des soins de santé privés, dont nous sommes actionnaires. Ce qui reste de la santé publique est néanmoins établi sur un modèle commercial qui place le profit avant la prestation de services, et de toute façon c’est toujours l’État qui rembourse les dettes des entreprises de santé. Nous savons bien que les profits à tirer de la pandémie sont très tentants pour beaucoup, au point de rester silencieux face à des hospitalisations inutiles ou qui conduiront même à la mort du patient à cause des traitements que nous avons mentionnés au lieu de lui donner des soins à domicile. Trois mille euros par jour pour un lit de soins intensifs pour un patient Covid légitime ainsi l’alarme sociale, car ces lits sont peu nombreux – nous avons vu leur nombre réduit ces dernières années grâce à des politiciens complaisants – et pour les augmenter en pleine urgence pandémique, l’État dépense des sommes exorbitantes sans appels d’offres. Si nous parvenons ensuite à faire croire, par des tests sur écouvillons, qu’un pourcentage très élevé de la population est positif au virus, nous garantirons la persistance de l’état d’urgence, et avec lui les mesures de verrouillage et de confinement qui détruisent l’économie. Et c’est exactement ce que nous voulons : anéantir les petites entreprises, en obligeant la population à acheter en ligne tout ce qu’elle ne peut plus acheter dans le magasin familial local, en faisant de l’argent même sur le dos de la pizzeria ou du restaurant qui, pour survivre, est obligé de recourir à des sociétés de livraison dont nous nous sommes assurés d’être actionnaires. Enfin, pour que cet assaut soit complet, nous augmentons l’immigration clandestine grâce à nos fondations et ONG « humanitaires », augmentant ainsi la criminalité, détournant les fonds des citoyens qui sont plutôt destinés à faire face aux coûts de l’immigration, et faisant que l’Europe soit envahie par des vagues de musulmans qui réclament des droits. Leur présence nous permet de briser inexorablement le tissu social et religieux des nations, au nom de l’« accueil » et en faisant appel au sentiment de culpabilité, au danger du racisme et à la rhétorique de la bienveillance que nous avons même réussi à faire accepter à l’Église catholique. Évidemment, la déstabilisation sociale que nous avons créée nous permet de promulguer des lois contre la discrimination et la haine raciale, en réprimant la dissidence de ceux qui se sentent envahis et menacés. Enfin, grâce à la dette de l’État due à la pandémie et à l’urgence sociale que nous avons artificiellement créée, nous sommes en mesure d’imposer le versement de fonds du Fonds monétaire international, de la Banque centrale européenne et de l’Union européenne, en mettant la population dans le nœud de la dette et en la contraignant à investir ces fonds selon des critères et des « conditionnalités » qui ne servent qu’à rendre encore plus irréversible la transformation de la société, de la communauté technologique et de l’« économie verte » : c’est le Great Reset. Nous avons d’abord réussi à créer la peur d’un « ennemi invisible » et à faire taire les voix discordantes des scientifiques, des intellectuels et des simples citoyens ; ensuite, nous avons réussi à faire croire que le salut du monde dépendait des vaccins ; maintenant, nous sommes en mesure de faire chanter des milliards d’êtres humains, à qui l’on dira que s’ils veulent revenir à une certaine forme d’assouplissement des restrictions imposées, ils devront accepter le « pass sanitaire » pour voyager à l’étranger, aller au stade ou faire du shopping. La pression que nous avons exercée sur les masses est telle que beaucoup accepteront ces formes de contrôle. Bientôt, ils tendront la main pour se faire implanter une puce sous-cutanée qui nous permettra de mener notre plan à son terme. Tout cela est désormais une réalité : aussi bien le passeport vaccinal, qui ne sera pas nécessairement limité à Covid, que les paiements électroniques en lieu et place de l’argent liquide. « Personne ne pouvait acheter ou vendre sans avoir la marque » (Ap 13,17). Ainsi, il suffira d’appuyer sur un bouton pour radier une personne de la vie sociale – et c’est nous qui l’appuierons. Et comme une insulte à la civilisation que nous détestons, nous forçons les masses à se nourrir de cafards et de larves, en vantant leurs propriétés nutritionnelles et leur faible impact sur l’environnement, tandis que nous nous réservons les viandes de choix. Nous leur demandons de renoncer à la propriété privée en échange du revenu universel, avec lequel ils peuvent nous payer la location de leur logement de 30 mètres carrés, évidemment sans émissions. Nous les envoyons se promener sur des scooters électriques fabriqués en Chine tandis que nous roulons dans des voitures de luxe polluantes, que nous nous promenons sur des yachts coûteux et que nous voyageons en hélicoptère. Et pendant que des quinquagénaires licenciés se font embaucher comme livreurs, nous recevons des milliards de dividendes de nos entreprises basées dans des paradis fiscaux. Nous avons atteint un tel niveau d’asservissement des masses que nous n’avons aucune raison de craindre une quelconque révolte, qui de toute façon serait réprimée à coups de matraque, dans le silence des médias et de notre alliée la gauche. Même si la farce de la pandémie n’a pas les effets escomptés en raison d’événements imprévus, nous avons déjà préparé la prochaine étape : l’urgence climatique comme prétexte pour imposer la « transition écologique » et le « développement durable ». Ou alors, on déclenchera un énième conflit au Moyen-Orient afin de provoquer des attentats terroristes dans nos villes et de semer la panique dans la population. Et si ces méthodes éprouvées ne réussissent pas, nous pourrons inventer – pourquoi pas ? – une attaque extraterrestre, à propos de laquelle certains de nos amis commencent à ouvrir la fameuse fenêtre d’Overton : quoi de mieux qu’un extra-terrestre comme « ennemi invisible » pour alimenter la peur collective, après des décennies de films dans lesquels on montre des invasions de créatures venues de l’espace ? D’autre part, les masses croient tout ce que les médias grand public leur racontent – comme nous l’avons vu ces derniers mois – aussi absurde et irrationnel que cela puisse être. Si vous le voyez à la télévision, cela doit être vrai ! Le modus operandi du Great Reset Et maintenant, cessant de nous mettre à la place de Gates et Soros, observons toute l’opération de l’extérieur, en cherchant à identifier les éléments récurrents. Le premier, comme je l’ai dit précédemment, est le caractère inavouable du dessein criminel de l’élite et la nécessité de le dissimuler sous des idéaux acceptables. Le deuxième est la création d’une situation d’urgence – dans le passé, il pouvait s’agir d’une guerre armée, aujourd’hui d’une guerre bactériologique ou d’un conflit financier – qui rend inévitable le recours aux solutions que l’élite a préparées et planifiées. Le troisième élément consiste en la solution apparente qui permet la mise en œuvre de ces « réformes » et limitations des libertés individuelles qui, en temps normal, seraient inacceptables et illégitimes. Cela divisera la société en interne, créant de nouveaux ennemis du peuple et le détournant des véritables architectes du conflit. Si nous pensons à l’attaque du 11 septembre 2001, nous comprenons que le modus operandi est essentiellement le même, comme cela s’est également produit avec la guerre du Golfe ou la guerre civile libyenne. La menace terroriste a été utilisée comme une prophase, c’est-à-dire comme une cause apparente, comme un faux prétexte pour autoriser des investissements dans l’industrie militaire, le renforcement des contrôles sur la population, des bouleversements politiques, et pour s’approprier les ressources énergétiques en Irak et en Libye et empêcher l’indépendance économique des nations des anciennes colonies françaises d’Afrique occidentale et centrale. La déstabilisation ainsi réalisée a alimenté le plan de substitution ethnique en Europe et a en même temps privé l’Afrique des jeunes générations qui auraient pu la rendre prospère et autonome. Il a également frappé les communautés catholiques des anciennes colonies en alimentant le fanatisme islamique, condition préalable à des conflits sanglants, et exporte maintenant ces conflits vers une Europe déchristianisée qui assiste inerte à l’incendie quotidien de ses églises, tandis qu’une jeune Suédoise irascible est utilisée par le système comme prédicatrice apocalyptique du changement climatique et du réchauffement de la planète. À la base de ce modus operandi, il y a toujours un mensonge, qui sert à cacher les véritables intentions de l’élite et nous fait accepter comme inévitables ces changements qui, dans des conditions de relative normalité, auraient entraîné des révoltes difficiles à étouffer. La culpabilisation des dissidents, la criminalisation de ceux qui n’acceptent pas de se soumettre au vaccin, la psychiatrisation des « négateurs » ou des « théoriciens du complot » prennent forme ces derniers mois avec la formation de camps de détention, l’interdiction de voyager sans contrôle sanitaire et surtout grâce au martèlement médiatique. La diffusion de la technologie 5G, qui dans de nombreux pays est passée inaperçue en raison des confinements, permettra de suivre la population au moyen d’« apps » ou d’une puce sous-cutanée en connexion constante avec internet. Le Great Reset a de nombreux précédents Le mensonge est donc la marque constante des architectes des différents Great Resets des derniers siècles. La pseudo-réforme protestante a été un Great Reset, qui a frappé l’unité de foi de l’Europe, créant une déchirure dont les conséquences désastreuses sont encore visibles aujourd’hui. La Révolution française a été un Great Reset, tout comme le Risorgimento italien, ainsi que la Révolution russe. Les deux guerres mondiales ont été des Great Resets, tout comme la révolution industrielle, la révolution de 1968 et la chute du mur de Berlin. A chaque fois, si vous remarquez, la raison apparente de ces révolutions n’a jamais correspondu à la vraie. La vente d’indulgences comme prétexte à la révolte de Luther suscita la convoitise des princes allemands pour les biens des monastères et des diocèses et obtint la propagation de l’hérésie dans le monde entier et l’affaiblissement de la papauté, première défense de la chrétienté. En France, la pauvreté du peuple fut un prétexte pour la suppression de la Monarchie et l’établissement d’une République maçonnique et anti-chrétienne. La division des États italiens et l’aspiration à un idéal d’unité nationale furent le prétexte à la destruction des royaumes et des duchés et à l’annexion des États pontificaux au Royaume d’Italie, dont la monarchie était soumise aux Loges et fut à son tour annulée par elles dès que la tâche fut accomplie. L’oppression des paysans russes fut le prétexte à l’élimination du tsar et à l’instauration de la dictature communiste. La revendication des nationalités individuelles a été le prétexte de la Première Guerre mondiale afin de détruire l’Empire austro-hongrois et de perpétuer les conflits ethniques. Lors de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, le nazisme – d’abord financé puis combattu – a été un prétexte pour coloniser l’Europe et la soumettre économiquement et culturellement au capitalisme libéral américain et au communisme russe, l’affaiblissant ainsi. La condition des ouvriers a été le prétexte pour les exploiter dans les usines et nourrir le Moloch du capitalisme moderne. Le désir de liberté des jeunes a été le prétexte pour corrompre leur intelligence et leur volonté, pour briser la famille traditionnelle avec le divorce, annuler la maternité avec les contraceptifs et l’avortement, et frapper le concept même d’autorité. La fin du bloc soviétique et de ses pays satellites a été le prétexte pour répandre le capitalisme libéral et le consumérisme et corrompre moralement un peuple épuisé par soixante-dix ans de dictature communiste, dont l’opposition farouche au Nouvel Ordre Mondial est la raison des attaques récentes et continues contre le président Poutine. Le Great Reset concerne également l’Église Dans cette longue série de Great Resets organisées par la même élite de conspirateurs, même l’Église catholique n’a pas réussi à y échapper. Elle aussi, avec Vatican II, a vu une plus grande compréhension de la liturgie par le peuple donnée comme prétexte pour détruire la messe apostolique, annuler la langue sacrée et profaner les rites. Et le désir d’unité avec les hérétiques et les schismatiques a été le prétexte pour inaugurer l’œcuménisme conciliaire, qui a jeté les bases idéologiques de l’apostasie actuelle. La démocratisation de l’Église, au nom d’une prétendue plus grande participation des laïcs, n’a servi que de prétexte pour miner progressivement le pouvoir papal et parlementer le pouvoir des évêques, qui sont aujourd’hui réduits à de simples exécutants des décisions des Conférences épiscopales. Les mensonges des différents Great Resets Comme toutes les escroqueries, celles qui sont ourdies par le diable et ses serviteurs reposent sur de fausses promesses qui ne seront jamais tenues, en échange desquelles nous renonçons à un certain bien qui ne nous sera jamais restitué. En Eden, la perspective de devenir comme des dieux a conduit à la perte de l’amitié avec Dieu et à l’exclusion du salut éternel, que seul le Sacrifice rédempteur de Notre Seigneur a pu réparer. La révolution contre les monarchies catholiques a été obtenue par la promesse faite aux classes inférieures, qui n’a jamais été tenue, de leur offrir la prospérité et un allègement fiscal. Ceux qui ont cru à cette tromperie ont vu leur monde s’effondrer et se sont retrouvés beaucoup plus opprimés qu’avant. La révolution industrielle a été acceptée parce qu’elle promettait de nouveaux emplois dans les usines, mais ceux qui ont quitté la campagne ou le magasin familial se sont retrouvés exploités à la chaîne, arrachés aux rythmes traditionnels du village et entassés dans les mornes périphéries des grandes métropoles. Avec la pandémie, on nous a dit peu à peu que l’isolement, le confinement, les masques, les couvre-feux, les « messes en direct », l’enseignement à distance, le « travail à distance », les fonds de relance, les vaccins, les « pass sanitaires » nous permettraient de sortir de l’urgence et, croyant à ce mensonge, nous avons renoncé aux droits et aux modes de vie dont on nous avait prévenu qu’ils ne reviendraient jamais : « Rien ne sera plus jamais comme avant. » La « nouvelle normalité » nous sera encore présentée comme une concession qui nous obligera à accepter la privation de libertés que nous tenions pour acquises, et en conséquence, nous ferons des compromis sans comprendre l’absurdité de notre conformité et l’obscénité des exigences de ceux qui nous commandent, nous donnant des ordres si absurdes qu’ils exigent véritablement une abdication totale de la raison et de la dignité. À chaque pas, il y a un nouveau tour de vis et un pas de plus vers l’abîme : si nous ne nous arrêtons pas dans cette course au suicide collectif, nous ne reviendrons jamais en arrière. Le mensonge, donc. Un mensonge que nous trouvons également dénoncé dans l’Écriture Sainte : si le Serpent avait dit à Adam et Ève qu’en mangeant le fruit de l’arbre ils perdraient la vie immortelle et tous les dons que Dieu leur avait accordés, nous serions encore en Éden. Mais que pouvons-nous attendre de celui qui est « meurtrier dès le commencement », « menteur et père du mensonge » (Jn 8, 44). N’est-ce pas grâce au mensonge et au faux témoignage que Notre Seigneur a été condamné, accusé par le Sanhédrin d’avoir dit aux gens de ne pas payer l’impôt à César ? N’est-ce pas par la tromperie et le chantage que les Grands Prêtres ont poussé Pilate à faire crucifier le Fils de Dieu, menaçant Pilate de se dresser contre l’empereur romain s’il le déclarait innocent ? Le Great Reset est la dernière étape avant le Nouvel Ordre Mondial. Il est de notre devoir de révéler la supercherie de ce Great Reset, car il continue tous les autres assauts qui, au cours de l’histoire, ont tenté d’annuler l’œuvre de la Rédemption et d’établir la tyrannie de l’Antéchrist. Car c’est en réalité l’intention des architectes du Great Reset. Le Nouvel Ordre Mondial – un nom qui fait significativement écho au Novus Ordo conciliaire – renverse le cosmos divin pour répandre un chaos infernal, dans lequel tout ce que la civilisation a laborieusement construit au cours des millénaires sous l’inspiration de la Grâce est renversé et perverti, corrompu et annulé. Chacun d’entre nous doit comprendre que ce qui se passe n’est pas le fruit d’une malheureuse suite de hasards, mais correspond plutôt à un plan diabolique – dans le sens où le Malin est derrière tout cela – qui, au fil des siècles, poursuit un seul et unique objectif : détruire l’œuvre de la Création, annuler la Rédemption, annuler toute trace de Bien sur la terre. Et pour y parvenir, l’étape finale est l’établissement d’une synarchie où le commandement est assuré par quelques tyrans sans visage, assoiffés de pouvoir, livrés au culte de la mort et du péché, à la haine de la Vie, de la Vertu et de la Beauté, parce qu’en elles brille la grandeur de ce Dieu contre lequel ils crient encore leur infernal « non serviam ». Les membres de cette secte maudite ne sont pas seulement Bill Gates, George Soros ou Klaus Schwab, mais aussi ceux qui, depuis des siècles, complotent dans l’ombre pour renverser le Royaume du Christ : les Rothschild, les Rockefeller, les Warburg, et ceux qui, aujourd’hui, se sont alliés au plus haut niveau de l’Église, en utilisant l’autorité morale du Pape et des Évêques pour convaincre les fidèles de se faire vacciner. La corruption de l’autorité est la prémisse nécessaire du Great Reset. Outre la prise de conscience du mensonge criminel de l’ensemble du système, nous devons également prendre acte de la corruption de l’autorité et de l’échec du modèle social, politique et religieux né de la Révolution. La démocratie moderne s’est révélée être, une fois de plus, une tromperie par laquelle on a voulu évincer le Christ-Roi de sa seigneurie sur les individus et sur les sociétés, sous le prétexte apparent de donner au peuple un pouvoir qui a été en fait usurpé par une élite antichrétienne et antichristique. Quand on affirme que l’autorité ne vient pas de Dieu mais qu’elle réside dans le peuple ; quand la Religion n’est pas considérée comme un principe transcendant surnaturel mais comme un sentimentalisme immanent amorphe ou une variante de l’anthropologie ; quand la morale perd son lien avec la Loi éternelle inscrite par Dieu dans la nature humaine et s’adapte aux modes, rien n’empêche les gouvernants comme les gouvernés d’être malhonnêtes et de poursuivre simplement leurs intérêts particuliers, car il n’y a plus de bien et de mal, de récompense et de punition, de paradis et d’enfer. Tout repose alors sur une conception pervertie de la liberté corrompue en licence : on peut trahir, voler, tuer, mentir sans hésitation, sans cette crainte de Dieu qui, en d’autres temps, était capable de freiner notre inclination au mal : sinon par amour du Créateur et du Rédempteur, du moins par crainte du châtiment que notre conduite mauvaise entraînerait inexorablement. Nous nous trouvons face à une classe politique sans idéaux, dans laquelle le bonum commune a d’abord été remplacé par des programmes politiques qu’ils utilisaient pour obtenir le consentement, et aujourd’hui par la simple soumission de ceux qui nous gouvernent aux intérêts qui les font élire, les paient et exigent leur obéissance absolue aux exigences du Nouvel Ordre Mondial. Nous en sommes arrivés au point où même le vote, autrefois exalté comme la plus haute expression de la démocratie, est considéré comme une fioriture gênante, à n’accorder que si les responsables sont certains de pouvoir le faire plier en leur faveur, et lorsqu’il est exprimé autrement, il peut être modifié ou ignoré : la fraude électorale colossale des élections présidentielles américaines en est un exemple frappant. Mais si les politiciens et les dirigeants mondiaux sont soumis à l’élite mondialiste et ne poursuivent pas le bien des citoyens, le contrat social échoue, et l’autorité dont ils se croient dotés est perdue, puisqu’elle n’a pas de ratification, ni d’En Haut – puisque le principe surnaturel et le lien d’autorité ont été annulés – ni d’en bas. Et ce n’est rien d’autre qu’une dictature infâme et une tyrannie odieuse – une tyrannie qui ne peut être renversée en faisant appel aux principes révolutionnaires qui l’ont déterminée, mais en revenant à reconnaître qu’« il n’y a d’autorité que de Dieu » (Rm 13, 1), et que la « laïcité » de l’État est un blasphème, puisqu’elle nie les droits souverains du Créateur et Rédempteur sur ceux qu’Il a créés et rachetés. Une crise de l’autorité qui concerne aussi la Hiérarchie Cette autorité qui, depuis la Révolution française, a été usurpée au Seigneur et attribuée à la volonté populaire, était restée intacte dans une certaine mesure au sein de l’Église. Jusqu’à il y a soixante ans, elle proclamait la royauté du Christ non seulement sur ses sujets, sur les sociétés et les nations, mais surtout sur elle-même, reconnaissant Notre Seigneur comme la Tête du Corps mystique et le Pape comme son Vicaire sur terre. Vatican II a déplacé la Royauté du Christ vers une clé eschatologique, et l’Église s’est ainsi retrouvée victime de cette même déception démocratique dans laquelle les sociétés civiles étaient tombées près de deux siècles plus tôt. En affaiblissant la doctrine du péché, en rendant unique la moralité de chaque situation et en reconnaissant la légitimité de l’erreur et des fausses religions, l’Église catholique s’est détrônée de ses propres mains, se réduisant à devoir mendier l’approbation et la légitimation des puissants de ce monde, aux ordres desquels elle s’est soumise. Ce n’est pas un hasard si Bergoglio a archivé parmi les titres du passé celui de « Vicaire du Christ » : si l’Église est remplacée par une ONG qui prêche la « théologie verte », promeut le capitalisme inclusif des Rothschild et organise des conférences sur les vaccins avec Anthony Fauci, celui qui la préside n’exerce pas l’autorité au nom du Christ mais finit par être une marionnette complice dans les mains du marionnettiste : Celui qui usurpe sur terre mon lieu, mon lieu, mon lieu qui est vacant de la présence du Fils de Dieu,a fait de ma sépulture un cloaque de sang et de puanteur ; pour cela le pervers qui tomba du Ciel, en bas se plaît[3]. Dans cette crise de l’autorité – qui concerne aussi bien le pouvoir temporel que le pouvoir spirituel – une grande responsabilité doit être attribuée aux soi-disant modérés, qui apparaissent comme la cinquième colonne volontaire ou involontaire au sein du corps social. Parmi eux, il faut compter la quasi-totalité des représentants des oppositions parlementaires des différentes nations – l’opposition italienne en premier lieu – et les partis dits de centre-droit. Même ceux qui critiquent les règles illégitimes et anticonstitutionnelles promulguées par les gouvernements actuels sous le prétexte de la pandémie ne remettent pas le moins du monde en question les bases idéologiques du capitalisme de marché qui a aujourd’hui fusionné avec le communisme dans une alliance qui aurait été inconcevable en d’autres temps. Et ils ne remettent pas en cause ces bases parce qu’ils sont d’accord avec elles. L’erreur des « modérés » La même erreur de déplorer les effets sans reconnaître et combattre les causes est commise par les catholiques conservateurs, qui tout en comprenant l’apostasie des dirigeants de la Hiérarchie sous le règne de Bergoglio, n’osent pas admettre que s’ils en sont venus à rendre un culte idolâtre à la Pachamama, cela a été rendu possible grâce à Dignitatis Humanæ, que le sabbat d’Astana est l’application cohérente de Nostra Ætate, et que le chemin synodal allemand – c’est-à-dire la déclaration de schisme sans sa condamnation officielle par le Saint-Siège – est la conclusion logique de Gaudium et Spes. Et il n’est pas nécessaire de démontrer que les documents conciliaires ne sont rien d’autre que la traduction des principes révolutionnaires et maçonniques dans le contexte ecclésial. Nous savons cependant que le mensonge est l’emblème du diable, le signe distinctif de ses serviteurs, la marque des ennemis de Dieu et de l’Église. Dieu est Vérité ; le Verbe de Dieu est vrai, et Lui-même est Dieu. Dire la vérité, la crier sur les toits et dévoiler la tromperie est une œuvre sacrée, et aucun catholique – ni aucune personne ayant conservé une once de décence et d’honneur – ne peut se soustraire à ce devoir. La réponse des bons Chacun de nous a été désiré, pensé et créé pour rendre gloire à Dieu et pour faire partie d’un grand dessein de la Providence. De toute éternité, le Seigneur nous a appelés à participer avec Lui à l’œuvre de la Rédemption, à coopérer au salut des âmes et au triomphe du Bien. Chacun de nous a aujourd’hui la possibilité de choisir de se ranger du côté du Christ ou contre le Christ, de lutter pour la cause du bien ou de se rendre complice des ouvriers d’iniquité. La victoire de Dieu est certaine, aussi certaine que la récompense qui attend ceux qui font le choix d’entrer sur le champ de bataille aux côtés du Roi des rois ; et la défaite de ceux qui servent l’Ennemi est également certaine, tout comme leur damnation éternelle. Voulez-vous perdre le bien suprême qui a été préparé pour vous, uniquement pour avoir une vie tranquille et ne pas vous distinguer de la foule, par lâcheté et par respect humain, en échangeant l’éternité contre un bien apparent et éphémère ? Je vous exhorte à être des témoins du Christ, des champions courageux de la Vérité et du Bien : sur les bancs du Parlement, dans les services hospitaliers, sur les chaises des écoles et des universités, depuis l’autel et la chaire, au travail, au bureau, au magasin, en famille, dans vos engagements quotidiens et, oui, même dans les douleurs et les épreuves. Soyez les dignes héritiers des saints qui vous ont précédés, en vous souvenant que vous devrez répondre de votre silence, de votre complicité et de votre coopération avec le mal : si vous pouvez échapper à la condamnation des hommes, vous ne pourrez pas échapper au jugement de Dieu ; tout comme vous serez récompensés pour le bien que vous aurez fait et dont vous aurez rendu témoignage. Cette génération rebelle et apostate peut être combattue avec la contribution de tous : du médecin qui dénonce enfin les traitements nocifs imposés par les protocoles criminels au policier qui refuse d’appliquer des règles illégitimes ; du parlementaire qui vote contre les lois injustes au magistrat qui ouvre un dossier pour crimes contre l’humanité ; du professeur qui apprend aux étudiants à penser par eux-mêmes au journaliste qui révèle les tromperies et les conflits d’intérêts des puissants ; du père qui défend ses enfants contre la fureur vaccinale au fils qui protège son parent âgé sans l’abandonner dans une maison de retraite ; du citoyen qui revendique le droit aux libertés naturelles à l’artisan et au restaurateur qui n’acceptent pas l’oppression de ceux qui les empêchent d’ouvrir leur commerce ; du grand-père qui avertit ses petits-enfants des dangers de la dictature au jeune qui ne se laisse pas séduire par les modes et les influenceurs. Rendons au Christ Roi la Couronne qui lui a été arrachée par la Révolution. Et quand cette farce se sera effondrée – car elle s’effondrera inexorablement, et elle s’effondrera bientôt – engagez-vous tous, avec un zèle renouvelé, pour que la Couronne que ses ennemis lui ont arrachée soit rendue à Notre Roi. Faites régner Notre Seigneur dans vos âmes, dans vos familles, dans vos communautés, dans la Nation, dans le travail, dans l’éducation, dans les lois et les tribunaux, dans les arts, dans l’information, dans tous les domaines de la vie privée et publique. Que notre très sainte Mère et Reine, Marie Très Sainte, qui nous a maintes fois avertis des dangers et des châtiments qui attendent le monde s’il ne se convertit pas et ne fait pas pénitence. Que Jésus-Christ règne dans la Sainte Église, chassant les indignes, les fornicateurs et les mercenaires. Ce n’est que là où le Christ règne qu’il y a la paix et la concorde véritables : pax Christi in regno Christi. À Lui, le commencement et la fin de toutes choses, l’Alpha et l’Oméga, que chacun de nous et la famille humaine élèvent une prière confiante et fervente, lui demandant de nous conserver dans sa grâce, de nous fortifier dans la vertu et de faire de nous des témoins courageux de l’Évangile, afin que nous puissions ainsi atteindre la béatitude éternelle au Ciel. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archevêque 30 Mai 2021 – In Festo Ss.mæ Trinitatis [1] — http://www.accademianuovaitalia.it/index.php/home/comunicati-stampa/10145-evento-di-venezia-2021 Video: https://youtu.be/0jMgMwF36A8 [2] — Laocoon, le prêtre d’Apollon, avertit les Troyens de « se méfier des Grecs porteurs de cadeaux » lorsqu’ils veulent accepter le cheval de Troie. [3] — Quelli ch’usurpa in terra il luogo mio, — il luogo mio, il luogo mio, che vaca — ne la presenza del Figliuol di Dio, — fatt’ha del cimitero mio cloaca — del sangue e de la puzza; onde ’l perverso — che cadde di qua sù, là giù si placa. [Dante, Divine Comédie, le Paradis XXVII, 22 et sq.
.png)
By Calvin Freiburger
naufrage/sauvetage 