| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 340 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 338 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
|
|
| Pfizer's COVID-19 Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells And Is Converted To DNA: Study |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-04-2022, 08:32 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
 |
Pfizer's COVID-19 Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells And Is Converted To DNA: Study
ZH | MAR 03, 2022
Authored by Meiling Lee via The Epoch Times [Emphasis mine.]
The messenger RNA (mRNA) from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA, according to Swedish researchers at Lund University.
The researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA.
The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA.
Reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus.
“In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro,” the researchers wrote in the study, published in Current Issues of Molecular Biology. “BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 [hours] after BNT162b2 exposure.”
BNT162b2 is another name for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that is marketed under the brand name Comirnaty.
The whole process occurred rapidly within six hours. The vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said would not happen.
“The genetic material delivered by mRNA vaccines never enters the nucleus of your cells,” the CDC said on its web page titled “Myths and Facts about COVID-19 Vaccines.”
This is the first time that researchers have shown in vitro or inside a petri dish how an mRNA vaccine is converted into DNA on a human liver cell line, and is what health experts and fact-checkers said for over a year couldn’t occur.
The CDC says that the “COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way,” claiming that all of the ingredients in both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines (administered in the United States) are discarded from the body once antibodies are produced. These vaccines deliver genetic material that instructs cells to begin making spike proteins found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 to produce an immune response.
Pfizer didn’t comment on the findings of the Swedish study and said only that its mRNA vaccine does not alter the human genome.
“Our COVID-19 vaccine does not alter the DNA sequence of a human cell,” a Pfizer spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “It only presents the body with the instructions to build immunity.”
More than 215 million or 64.9 percent of Americans are fully vaccinated as of Feb. 28, with 94 million having received a booster dose.
Autoimmune Disorders
The Swedish study also found spike proteins expressed on the surface of the liver cells that researchers say may be targeted by the immune system and possibly cause autoimmune hepatitis, as “there [have] been case reports on individuals who developed autoimmune hepatitis after BNT162b2 vaccination.”
The authors of the first reported case of a healthy 35-year-old female who developed autoimmune hepatitis a week after her first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine said that there is a possibility that “spike-directed antibodies induced by vaccination may also trigger autoimmune conditions in predisposed individuals” as it has been shown that “severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection are characterized by an autoinflammatory dysregulation that contributes to tissue damage,” which the virus’s spike protein appears to be responsible for.
Spike proteins may circulate in the body after an infection or injection with a COVID-19 vaccine. It was assumed that the vaccine’s spike protein would remain mostly at the injection site and last up to several weeks like other proteins produced in the body. But studies are showing that is not the case.
The Japanese regulatory agency’s biodistribution study (pdf) of the Pfizer vaccine showed that some of the mRNAs moved from the injection site and through the bloodstream, and were found in various organs such as the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries of rats 48 hours following injection.
In a different study, the spike proteins made in the body after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot have been found on tiny membrane vesicles called exosomes—that mediate cell-to-cell communication by transferring genetic materials to other cells—for at least four months after the second vaccine dose.
The persistence of the spike protein in the body “raises the prospect of sustained inflammation within and damage to organs which express the spike protein,” according to experts at Doctors for COVID Ethics, an organization consisting of physicians and scientists “seeking to uphold medical ethics, patient safety, and human rights in response to COVID-19.”
“As long as the spike protein can be detected on cell-derived membrane vesicles, the immune system will be attacking the cells that release these vesicles,” they said.
Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, wrote on Twitter that the Swedish study’s findings have “enormous implications of permanent chromosomal change and long-term constitutive spike synthesis driving the pathogenesis of a whole new genre of chronic disease.”
Whether the findings of the study will occur in living organisms or if the DNA converted from the vaccine’s mRNA will integrate with the cell’s genome is unknown. The authors said more investigations are needed, including in whole living organisms such as animals, to better understand the potential effects of the mRNA vaccine.
“At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination,” the authors said.
|
|
|
| Ukraine’s Catholic bishops ask Pope Francis to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-03-2022, 09:08 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Ukraine’s Catholic bishops ask Pope Francis to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The bishops hope that this will bring an end to the conflict in Ukraine.
![[Image: Fatima-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Fatima-810x500.jpg)
Archbishop Mokrzycki from Ukraine. Our Lady of Fatima statue and Pope Francis with Russian flag.
Wed Mar 2, 2022
LVIV, Ukraine (LifeSiteNews) – The Roman Catholic Bishops of Ukraine have asked Pope Francis to “consecrate” Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, “as requested by the Blessed Virgin in Fatima,” to bring an end to the current conflict.
In a short appeal released the morning of Ash Wednesday, March 2, the Roman Catholic Bishops in Ukraine addressed Pope Francis directly, urging him to complete the consecration of Russia as Our Lady of Fatima requested. Referencing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the bishops spoke of “these hours of immeasurable pain and terrible ordeal” and called for the consecration as a remedy for the conflict.
The statement reads:
Quote:Holy Father! In these hours of immeasurable pain and terrible ordeal for our people, we, the bishops of the Episcopal Conference of Ukraine, are spokesmen for the unceasing and heartfelt prayer, supported by our priests and consecrated persons, which comes to us from all Christian people that Your Holiness will consecrate our Motherland and Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Responding to this prayer, we humbly ask Your Holiness to publicly perform the act of consecration to the Sacred Immaculate Heart of Mary of Ukraine and Russia, as requested by the Blessed Virgin in Fatima.
May the Mother of God, Queen of Peace, accept our prayer: Regina pacis, ora pro nobis!
The Catholic bishops have also published a suggested act of consecration of Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart (full text below and pdf link here), which they encourage to be said privately and after Mass.
A growing number of Catholics and high-ranking prelates have been asking Pope Francis to perform the consecration in recent years. In 2017, the 100th anniversary of the year in which Our Lady called for the consecration to be made, Cardinal Raymond Burke made a number of public addresses calling for the consecration.
“Today, once again, we hear the call of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, in accord with her explicit instruction,” he said at the 2017 Rome Life Forum.
“It is evident that the consecration (of Russia) was not carried out in the manner requested by Our Lady,” he added in October 2017. “Recognizing the necessity of a total conversion from atheistic materialism and communism to Christ, the call of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart in accord with Her explicit instruction remains urgent.”
The cardinal doubled down in 2020, linking the global crisis caused through response to COVID-19 to the consecration not having occurred. “The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is more needed today than ever,” he said.
“When we witness how the evil of atheistic materialism, which has its roots in Russia, directs in a radical way the government of the People’s Republic of China, we recognize that the great evil of communism must be healed at its roots through the consecration of Russia, as Our Lady has directed,” Cardinal Burke continued.
The explicit consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart was asked for by Our Lady of Fatima. On her July 13, 1917 apparition, Our Lady told the three children of the vital importance of consecrating Russia to her Immaculate Heart:
Quote:When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the communion of reparation on the first Saturday’s.
If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace. If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.
Pope John Paul II made an “entrustment-consecration” of the world, including Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25, 1984, but he deliberately avoided making the explicit mention of Russia as Our Lady had requested.
German Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes confirmed in 2017 that John Paul II “held back [from mentioning] Russia explicitly because the Vatican diplomats had urgently asked him not to mention this country because otherwise political conflicts might perhaps arise.”
The late Father Gabriele Amorth, former chief exorcist of Rome, had already noted how the consecration had not been performed as requested, saying “a specific consecration has not yet been made.”
In light of the bloody conflict between Russia and Ukraine, along with the growing global unrest, LifeSiteNews has resurrected its petition for the Pope to consecrate Russia as Our Lady specifically requested.
Quote:Text of the Catholic Bishops’ of Ukraine’s consecration of Ukraine
Beloved Queen and Our Mother, Queen of the Holy Rosary, Help of Christians, Salvation of the human race, Victorious Virgin, here we humbly fall before You, that You may bring our sincere prayers to Almighty God in the Trinity.
We come in full confidence that we beg for mercy and protection for our Motherland in this dramatic time of war. Mother of Mercy, we ask this not for our merits, which we do not count on, but in view of the infinite goodness of Your Heart and the saving Blood of Christ, Your Son.
May the suffering and cries for help of so many people touch you. Have mercy on the wounded and victims of the shelling, orphans and widows, all those who were forced to leave their homes and seek refuge in safer places. Ask for mercy for those who gave their lives defending their neighbors and our Motherland.
O Immaculate Mother, ask God for the grace of conversion, and we especially ask for the conversion of Russia and all those who are blinded by hatred or thirst for power. Pray for us first of all those graces which can change human hearts in an instant, and which will prepare and bring such a coveted peace! Above all, bring us the gift of spiritual peace so that the Kingdom of God may grow in peace and harmony.
Queen of Peace, ask us for the grace of true reconciliation with God and with each other, so that we can give each other a hand of help and support.
The throne of wisdom, inspire all rulers to make wise decisions and strengthen the efforts of those who contribute to the end of war and peace.
Queen of the Apostles, ask for our pastors the gift of strong faith and zeal in the completion of the Sacraments, so that at this time we may all be united at the Eucharistic table and in zealous prayer.
Heal the sick, strengthen all medical staff and volunteers who care for the sick and wounded, ask for their spiritual and physical strength. Be healing for the sick, strengthening for the dying and fun for their loved ones.
Just as the Church and all mankind were consecrated to the Heart of Your Divine Son, and in Him we hope to become an inexhaustible source of victory and salvation for all, so we dedicate ourselves forever to You and to Your Immaculate Heart, our Mother and Queen, that Your love and care may ensure the victory of the Kingdom of God, and that our Ukraine and all nations reconciled among themselves and with God may bless and glorify You. Amen!
|
|
|
|
| Garabandal |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-02-2022, 12:13 PM - Forum: General Commentary
- Replies (5)
|
|
The following posts are imported from the old Catacombs site and republished here.
Dear friends,
There are few who would not agree that the issue of the visions at Garabandal has always been surrounded with controversy. I have heard good priests recommend it and just as many good priests advise against it, similar perhaps to how even some saints during the Great Western Schism were divided on which was the true pope when there were as many as three claimants to the papal throne.
After some research for my own benefit, it seems to me, in my humble opinion, that these 'visions' are not from Heaven. I will share some of the reasons for that conclusion here. But ultimately (and really, in the first place) these 'visions' have never once been approved by the local bishop of that diocese in which Garabandal has been located.
[NB: As established in the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the local bishop is the first and main authority in the judgement of the authenticity of apparition claims. Vatican approval is not required for an apparition to be considered authentic. After an episcopal approval, the Vatican may officially release a statement or give less explicit forms of approval such as a papal visit or crowning of the associated icon, a papal gift such as a golden rose, the approval of the construction of a basilica, the establishment of a feast day, or the canonization of the associated visionary.]
This is doubly significant because the 'visions' reportedly took place from 1961-1965, when arguably the bishops were not as widely infected with the modernism that was aggressively promoted in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council.
So to begin, I include some of the formal documentation of the local bishops against Garabandal, beginning with Cardinal Ottaviani's note supporting the decision of the local bishop of that time to not approve the 'visions.' These letters and short commentary are taken from here.
Not only did the Bishop in 1965 condemn Garabandal, but five bishops after him have condemned it. Even Rome had to come into the picture to aid the Bishop.
Quote:Quote:"The question having been closely examined and a decision having been reached by Your Excellency, the Sacred Congregation has come to the conclusion that there is no reason to intervene in this affair.
- Cardinal Ottaviani
Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Congregation for the Sacred Doctrine of the Faith wrote this letter to Archbishop Philip M. Hannan of New Orleans, Louisiana on April 21, 1970.
Quote:"Seal"
"This office has received you letter of April 1970 in which you expressed justifiable apprehension about the diffusion of the Garabandal movement in your Archdiocese and in which you asked for clear and reliable guidelines from the Holy See for dealing with this phenomenon.
"The Holy See share your perception about the manifest and increasing confusion due to the diffusion of this movement among the faithful and desires with this letter to clarify its position on the matter.
"This Sacred Congregation despite requests form various Bishops and faithful has always refused to define the supernatural character of the events of Garabandal. After the definitive negative judgment issued by the Curia of Santander this Sacred Congregation, after attentive examination of the proceedings forwarded to this office has often praised the prudence that characterized the method followed in the examination but has still decided to leave direct responsibility for the matter to the local Ordinary.
"The Holy see has always held that the conclusions and dispositions of the Bishop of Santander were sufficiently secure guidelines for the Christian people and indications for the Bishops to order to dissuade people from participating in pilgrimages and other acts of devotion that are based on claims connected with or founded on the presumed apparitions and messages of Garabandal. On March 10, 1996; this Sacred Congregation wrote a letter to this effect to the Bishop of Santander who had also asked for a more explicit declaration of the Holy See to the matter.
"However promoters of the Garabandal movement have tried to minimize the decisions and the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santander. THIS SACRED CONGREGATION WANTS IT TO BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE BISHOP OF SANTANDER HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE THE ONLY ONE WITH COMPLETE JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER AND THE HOLY SEE HAS NO INTENTION OF EXAMINING THIS QUESTION ANY FURTHER, since it holds that the examinations already carried out are sufficient as well as are the official declarations of the Bishop of Santander. There is no truth to the statement that the Holy See has named an Official Papal Private Investigator of Garabandal and affirmations attributed to the anonymous personage to the extent that the verification of the Garabandal apparitions lies completely in the hands of the Holy Father Pope Paul VI and other such expressions that aim at undermining the authority of the decisions of the Bishop of Santander are completely unfounded.
"In order to reply to certain doubts that you expressed in your letter this Sacred Congregation wishes to assert: that the Holy See has never approved even indirectly the Garabandal movement, that it has never encouraged or blessed Garabandal promoters or centers. Rather the Holy See deplores that fact that certain persons and Institutions persist in formatting the movement in obvious contradiction with the dispositions of ecclesiastical authority and thus disseminate confusion among the people especially among the simple and defenseless.
"From what has been said so far you will easily realize that though this Sacred Congregation certainly agrees with the contents of the note of May 10, 1969 (as published in various countries and especially in the French magazine LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIC September 21, 1966, n:1547 p. 821) It must say that it is inexact to attribute the part of the text that deals with the lack of supernatural character of the events of Garabandal of the Sacred Congregation which has always striven to abstain from any direct declaration on the question precisely because it did not consider it necessary to do so after the clear and express decisions of the Bishop of Santander. This is the genuine meaning of the letter written on January 21, 1970 by the Most Reverend Paul Phillippe, Secretary of this Sacred Congregation to the editor in chief of LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIQUE.
"In order to contribute further to your pastoral action in this matter, this office is enclosing other essential documents already published in other countries such as Spain: The two official notices of the Bishop of Santander, two letters of the Sacred Congregation to the same Bishop and a letter to the Apostolic Delegate to Mexico. This office hopes in this letter to have clarified a question that concerns not just your Archdiocese but also other dioceses.
"With sentiments of deepest esteem and cordial respect
"I am devotedly yours
signed: "Francis Cardinal Seper Prefect
also signed: "Paul Philippe , Secretary"
On October 11, 1996 the new bishop, Jose Vilaplana, again placed his prohibition on the alleged apparitions and said it is final:
Quote:"Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the alleged apparitions of Garabandal and especially for the answer about the position of the hierarchy of the Church concerning these apparitions.
I need to communicate that:
1. All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural validity for the apparitions.
2. In the month of December of 1977 Bishop Dal Val of Santander, in union with his predecessors, stated that in the six years of being bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.
3. The same bishop, Dal Val, let a few years go by to allow the confusion or fanaticism to settle down, and then he initiated a commission to examine the apparitions in more depth. The conclusion of the commission agreed with the findings of the previous bishops. That there was no supernatural validity to such apparitions.
4. At the time of the conclusions of the study, in 1991, I was installed bishop in the diocese. So during my visit to Rome, ad limina visit which happened in the same year, I presented to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the study and I asked for pastoral direction concerning this case.
5. On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me an answer saying that after examining the documentation, there was no need for direct intervention (by the Vatican) to take away the jurisdiction of the ordinary bishop of Santander in this case. Such a right belongs to the ordinary. Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding. In the same letter they suggested that if I find it necessary to publish a declaration, that I reconfirm that there was no supernatural validity in the alleged apparitions, and this will make a unanimous position with my predecessors.
6. Given that the declarations of my predecessors who studied the case have been clear and unanimous, I don’t find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would raise notoriety about something which happened so long ago. However, I find it necessary to rewrite this report as a direct answer to the people who ask for direction concerning this question, which is now final: I agree with [and] I accept the decision of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See.
7. In reference to the Eucharistic celebration in Garabandal, following the decision of my predecessors, I ruled that Masses can be celebrated only in the parish church and there will be no references to the alleged apparitions and visiting priests who want to say Mass must have approval from the pastor, who has my authorization. It’s my wish that this information is helpful to you.
My regards in Christ,
Jose Vilaplana
Bishop of Santander
Oct. 11, 1996
Never, has any apparition received so many [formal] condemnations as Garabandal.
Prophecy of Marie Julie Jahenny, Briton Stigmatist (1891): "During the time of the approach of the punishments announced at La Salette, an unlimited amount of false revelations will arise from Hell like a swarm of flies; a last attempt of Satan to choke and destroy the belief in the true revelations by false ones." Marie-Julie Jahenny is an approved mystic of the Church.
To be continued...
|
|
|
|
| World Economic Forum activist linked to Soros wants NATO to go to war with Russia |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-02-2022, 11:36 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
World Economic Forum activist linked to Soros wants NATO to go to war with Russia
'[World War 3] has already started,' said Daria Kaleniuk.
Tue Mar 1, 2022
WARSAW, Poland (LifeSiteNews) — A Ukrainian journalist who begged Boris Johnson to go to war against Russia has ties to Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum and George Soros-backed foundations.
On Tuesday morning, Ukrainian journalist Daria Kaleniuk made an emotional demand to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, asking him to instruct NATO to enter the war in Ukraine. After the event was praised in Western media, reports have surfaced showing that Kaleniuk is not just a journalist, but an activist who has ties to the World Economic Forum (WEF) and initiatives backed by leftist billionaire George Soros throughout Eastern Europe.
In the confrontation, Kaleniuk said NATO’s hesitancy regarding boots on the ground involvement in Ukraine is rooted in the fear that it would escalate the conflict to “World War 3,” but according to the activist, “[WW3] has already started.”
While her strong comments and emotional appeal to Johnson seemingly resonated with international media, Kaleniuk’s desire to bring the West into a foreign war in light of her deep ties to the globalist agenda’s has immediately caused suspicion.
Kaleniuk is currently featured on the WEF’s website as one its members. In 2019, the WEF included her among the list of many notable “Young Global Leaders” alongside prominent figures such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, French President Emmanuel Marcon, and American Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg.
The WEF is the organization behind the now-infamous “Great Reset,” a radical socialist plan designed by global elites to “reset” the world economy, and install a centralized, and heavily regulated totalitarian international system similar to that of China’s Social Credit System.
In fact, the WEF’s founder and chairman Klaus Schwab has consistently praised Chinese Communist President Xi Jinping, including a statement from this year in which he told the leader of China that his dictatorial regime has made “significant social and economic achievements” under his “inclusive” leadership. Schwab’s praise and reference to China as “inclusive” comes despite evidence that China is carrying out a genocide on its Uyghur Muslim population, is running a massive organ-harvesting program, and has been referred to by critics as the “nightmare of the world’s first truly totalitarian state.”
However, Kaleniuk’s globalist ties do not stop with the WEF. She is also the co-founder and executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, an entity described as “a powerful national organization that has shaped Ukraine’s anti-corruption legislation and efforts.”
The Anti-Corruption Action Center receives funding and partners with the International Renaissance Foundation, a subsidiary of radical left-wing globalist George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. According to the Open Society Foundations’ website, the International Renaissance Foundation “was established in Kyiv in April 1990” and is at “the forefront of the effort by George Soros … to use his fortune to assist the former Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe.”
The site goes on to explain that Soros’ foundation has funded Kaleniuk’s foundation in a combined effort to “return” “millions of dollars” to “the state,” and out of the hands of alleged criminal actors.
Through the calculated direction of his massive funds, Soros has intervened in the internal affairs of nations across the world. The U.K.’s Brexit pioneer Nigel Farage said in 2017 that Soros may be part of the biggest “international political collusion in history,” and Hollywood movie star James Woods has tweeted regarding Soros, “The degree to which this one Nazi collaborator has undermined the stability of Western democracies is virtually incalculable.”
In a statement on Saturday, Soros, much like Kaleniuk, called on all Western nation’s to get involved or remain involved in Ukraine, saying, “It is important that both the transatlantic alliance (the United States, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom) but also other nations do whatever is in their power to support Ukraine in its time of existential threat.”
|
|
|
|
| Globalist billionaire George Soros repudiates Putin, voices support for Ukrainian government |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-01-2022, 02:19 PM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Globalist billionaire George Soros repudiates Putin, voices support for Ukrainian government
Through the calculated direction of his massive funds, Soros has intervened in the internal affairs of nations across the world.
Tue Mar 1, 2022
(LifeSiteNews [adapted]) — Pro-abortion globalist billionaire George Soros has announced his support for the Ukrainian government and his repudiation of Russian President Vladimir Putin in a short statement on his personal website Saturday.
The leftist mega-donor, whose financial largess supporting Black Lives Matter “domestic terrorists” and efforts to defund the police have served to destabilize the United States, responded to the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine the following way:
Quote:I have witnessed Ukraine transform from a collapsing part of the Soviet Union to a liberal democracy and an open society. It has faced countless acts of Russian aggression, but has persisted. Brave Ukrainians are now on the frontline and risking their lives. The horrible images coming out of Ukraine remind me of war torn Budapest in 1944 and the siege of Sarajevo in 1993. It is important that both the transatlantic alliance (the United States, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom) but also other nations do whatever is in their power to support Ukraine in its time of existential threat. Putin’s actions are a direct attack on the sovereignty of all States that were once in the Soviet Union, and beyond. Russia is in clear violation of the United Nations charter and should be held accountable. Allowing Putin to succeed on his quest will send a message across the world that nations can simply be created or dissolved by brute force. We must stand with Ukraine, as they stand for us.
Through the calculated direction of his massive funds, Soros has intervened in the internal affairs of nations across the world. The U.K.’s Brexit pioneer Nigel Farage said in 2017 that Soros may be part of the biggest “international political collusion in history,” and Hollywood movie star James Woods has tweeted regarding Soros, “The degree to which this one Nazi collaborator has undermined the stability of Western democracies is virtually incalculable.”
Though Jewish himself, Soros is reported to have accompanied his “godfather” as a teenager in confiscating property from Jews in Nazi-occupied Hungary. In a 1998 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Soros said he has “no sense of guilt” since he “was only a spectator” as this happened.
“That sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?” Kroft asked.
“Not at all,” Soros responded with a smile.
|
|
|
|
| DNA found in coronavirus was patented by Moderna 3 years before the pandemic |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-28-2022, 07:41 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
DNA found in coronavirus was patented by Moderna 3 years before the pandemic
Researchers say 'there is a one-in-three-trillion chance Moderna's sequence randomly appeared through natural evolution.'
Fri Feb 25, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) – Giving additional credence to the “lab leak” theory, a chunk of DNA found in the coronavirus shares an identical genetic sequence to a sequence patented by Moderna three years prior to the “pandemic.”
In an interview with FOX News host Maria Bartiromo, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel admitted to the possibility that the coronavirus pandemic started after gene modification experiments led to the infection of lab workers. The statements came after Bartiromo asked him to comment on how it is possible that researchers discovered that coronavirus contains DNA with an identical genetic sequence to patents filed by Moderna three years before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Now scientists find the virus contains a tiny chunk of DNA that matches sequence[s] patented by Moderna three years before the pandemic began,” said Bartiromo. “Your reaction Stephane, what can you tell us?”
“My scientists are looking into those data to see how accurate they are or not,” replied Bancel.
“As I’ve said before, the hypothesis that this came from a lab by accident is possible… human[s] make mistakes. It is possible that the Wuhan lab in China was working on virus enhancement, or gene modification, and then there was an accident where somebody was infected… it is possible.”
Regarding whether Moderna is indeed the patent holder to a DNA sequence found in the coronavirus, “the scientists are analyzing [the data] to know if it is real or not,” added the CEO.
According to an analysis of the data by the Daily Mail, the patented sequence appears in the “furin cleavage site located on the virus’ spike protein,” an area of particular interest to scientists as no other known member of the coronavirus family has such a site, and these mechanisms are responsible for the virus’s heightened transmissibility.
Moderna’s patent, filed in February 2016, is part of a gene called MSH3 “that is known to affect how damaged cells repair themselves,” the U.K. outlet noted. According to the filing, the company was deploying the patented sequence for cancer research.
“The international team of researchers suggest the virus may have mutated to have a furin cleavage site during experiments on human cells in a lab,” reported the Daily Mail. “They claim there is a one-in-three-trillion chance Moderna’s sequence randomly appeared through natural evolution.”
The genesis of the coronavirus pandemic has been a hotly contested issue for two years, with initial inquiries into a possible lab leak or intentional manufacturing of the virus being labeled “misinformation” and a “conspiracy theory.”
While independent media outlets, including LifeSiteNews, consistently held the possibility that the coronavirus pandemic initiated from a lab, it was not until mid-2021 that mainstream media outlets began to acknowledge it as a possibility.
According to emails between American and British scientists, top researchers privately acknowledged it was “likely” that COVID-19 escaped from a laboratory but feared publicly admitting as much would undermine “science and international harmony.”
Just last month, The Telegraph reported that Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the London-based Wellcome Trust, emailed National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci and then-National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins on February 2, 2020 to posit rapid evolution in a low-security lab, “accidentally creat[ing] a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans,” as a “likely explanation” for COVID’s origin.
“I share your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence-inspiring framework is needed or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony,” Collins replied.
The discovery of cover-ups, both surrounding the origin of the coronavirus, as well as the nature of the COVID shots, has led to widespread skepticism surrounding normally trusted institutions and industries.
After Moderna and Pfizer mRNA injections had been marketed as “vaccines” for over a year, a Bayer pharmaceutical executive admitted to the public that they are indeed a form of “gene” and “cell therapy” marketed as vaccines to make the shots more palatable to the public.
“We are really taking that leap [to drive innovation] – us as a company, Bayer – in cell and gene therapies … ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say: if we had surveyed two years ago in the public – ‘would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ – we probably would have had a 95% refusal rate,” stated Bayer Executive Stefan Oelrich.
“Our successes over these 18 months [the duration of the COVID ‘pandemic’] should embolden us to fully focus much more closely on access, innovation and collaboration to unleash health for all, especially as we enter, on top of everything else that is happening, a new era of science… the Bio Revolution.”
|
|
|
|
| Vatican liturgy chief: Latin Mass just a ‘pastoral concession’ not aligned with post-Vatican II Chur |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-27-2022, 09:18 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Vatican liturgy chief: Latin Mass just a ‘pastoral concession’ not aligned with post-Vatican II Church
Archbishop Roche described the Traditional Latin Mass as not being ‘the norm’ in the Church’s life
and somehow out of step with the ‘mandate given to the entire Church by the Second Vatican Council.’
![[Image: Archbishop-Arthur-Roche-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Archbishop-Arthur-Roche-810x500.jpg)
Archbishop Arthur Roche, Prefect of the CDW
Fri Feb 25, 2022 - 1:02 pm EST
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican’s liturgy chief, Archbishop Arthur Roche, has described the Traditional Latin Mass as being merely “a pastoral concession” granted by Pope Francis, suggesting it was not in line with the fundamental changes the Second Vatican Council introduced to the Catholic Church.
In a recent interview with The Tablet, Archbishop Roche, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW), discussed Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, and the CDW’s subsequent Responsa ad dubia, both of which effected sweeping restrictions on the traditional Latin Mass. His comments have been described as revealing the post-Vatican II liturgy to represent an “opposing ecclesiolog[y]” to the traditional Mass.
“It’s clear that Pope Francis, along with his predecessors, has great care for those who are finding this difficult and therefore it is still possible to use the Missal of 1962,” said Roche in answer to whether Francis wished to see the Latin Mass disappear. “But it is not the norm,” he added. “It is a pastoral concession.”
As for whether the Latin Mass would eventually disappear, Roche replied that “it’s not within my ability to see.” He said the aim of Traditionis Custodes was “to bring people ‘closer to an understanding of what the Council required.’”
Is the Latin Mass ‘incompatible’ with Vatican II?
Summarizing Roche’s comments, The Tablet’s Christopher Lamb wrote that the archbishop stressed that “a deep theological foundation” was underlying the Pope’s restrictions on the traditional Mass.
“It is not about some Catholics having a personal preference for Latin. It goes to the heart of how the Church sees itself and its mission. It is about the old saying, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: how we pray, is how we believe.”
Matt Gaspers, managing editor of Catholic Family News, highlighted this comment, suggesting that Roche thus “confirms yet again that Vatican II’s new ecclesiology is fundamentally incompatible with the traditional ecclesiology expressed via the TLM.”
Referencing Vatican II’s document on the church, Lumen Gentium, Lamb noted how Roche saw the council’s document as “shift[ing] away from a model of the Church as a ‘perfect society’ to the biblical notion of the Church as the pilgrim People of God.”
Doubling down on his theme that Vatican II had ushered in irrevocable change in the Church, Roche stated the idea “that things will change under a new pontificate is not only misplaced but reveals an enormous ignorance about the mandate given to the entire Church by the Second Vatican Council.”
“To stand against Peter is an astonishing act, full of hubris,” Roche added.
Roche: Seminary formation ‘lacking’ as new priests soon turn to Traditional Mass
The 69-year-old archbishop also claimed that the post-Vatican II liturgy is much “richer” than the Latin Mass, saying that it made room for a “greater sensitivity” to people’s situations. Such a result was due to Pope Paul VI, said Roche, who, according to the CDW archives, spent hours every night examining the liturgical upheaval presented in the Council’s texts.
This “reform” of the liturgy had not been “fully understood,” lamented Roche.
Seminary formation was “very lacking,” he added, evidencing this by referencing “strong currents pushing for a return to pre-Vatican II styles of dress and liturgy” within seminaries.
Paraphrasing Roche, Lamb added that “t’s not uncommon for newly-ordained priests coming out of seminaries in the Western world to almost immediately start celebrating the Tridentine Mass.” Instead of this, which Roche appeared to attribute to the “lacking” formation, the CDW is urging seminaries to promote the “richness of the liturgical reform called for by the Second Vatican Council.”
Roche said the CDW, acting upon the “concern” of Pope Francis, is drawing up a document preparing norms on seminary formation.
Resurgence of the Latin Mass ‘couldn’t be tolerated’ as Vatican II ‘changed’ the Church
Described by Lamb as “the opening batsman of the liturgy team: able to defend his wicket in the face of a furious fast-bowling attack, while steadily accumulating runs and striking the odd boundary,” Roche staunchly defended the Pope’s attack on the traditional liturgy.
The veracity of the CDF’s global survey of bishops, used to defend Traditionis Custodes over alleged negative responses that the Latin Mass was causing “division,” has since been strongly questioned. But referring to the survey, Roche said the visible resurgence of the Latin Mass and the “promotion to return to what existed before the Second Vatican Council” was unwelcome in the Vatican.
It “couldn’t be tolerated because the Council had changed the way in which we’re going forward. That’s just a simple matter.”
Bishops, Roche claimed, expressed “relief” when Traditionis Custodes was released, a statement not supported by any public pronouncements since the motu proprio was released.
Lamb’s interview with Roche was done prior to the announcement that Pope Francis had met with superiors of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) to confirm that they were “not affected” by his “general” restrictions on the Latin Mass.
Roche showing Novus Ordo and Latin Mass represent ‘two opposing ecclesiologies’
Roche’s comments in the interview have already caused consternation amongst faithful Catholics. New Liturgical Movement contributor Matthew Hazell took issue with a number of points. “Roche’s claim that Paul VI went through all the new liturgical texts ‘page by page’ is, like his ‘90% of the old Missal is in the new Missal’ claim, demonstrably false,” wrote Hazell.
Hazell has compiled research contradicting Roche’s claim that the Novus Ordo is “richer” than the traditional Mass, showing that only “13%” of the prayers of the Latin Mass are used unchanged in the Novus Ordo. While others were included after being altered, a total of 52.6% of the traditional Mass’ prayers “have been excised from the modern liturgy.”
Meanwhile Gaspers commented that “once again, Archbishop Roche has confirmed that the new ‘ecclesiology of Vatican II’ (ITC, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, nn. 42, 71) is fundamentally incompatible with the Church’s traditional ecclesiology, which is expressed so clearly in the Traditional Latin Mass (he did the same last month here).”
Commenting to LifeSiteNews, Gaspers noted that “according to Scripture and Tradition (as understood and taught by the Magisterium), the Church is the visible, hierarchical, perfect, and supernatural society founded by Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, for the salvation and sanctification of all men.”
“Anyone familiar with the Traditional Mass knows that it beautifully manifests all of these characteristics in multiple ways,” he said.
“By their efforts to eradicate the Traditional Mass, Roche and Cardinal Cupich are conceding that the Traditional Mass and Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Mass represent two opposing ecclesiologies — two different visions of the Church’s very nature. This is a monumental admission on their part.”
|
|
|
|
| Opinion: This French cardinal may have been part of the ‘smoke of Satan’ detected by Pope Paul VI |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-26-2022, 08:46 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
This French cardinal may have been part of the ‘smoke of Satan’ detected by Pope Paul VI
While a priest and a seminarian talked about Cardinal Eugène Tisserant and the evil role he arguably played at the Second Vatican Council,
there arose 'white-colored smoke' from a point on the carpet.
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bdnancy.fr%2Fimagesa...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bdnancy.fr%2Fimagesarticles%2Ftisserant.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Maike Hickson
Fri Feb 25, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) — The following is an article about an incident that took place in 1993 in Brazil. Two men—a priest and a seminarian who is today a priest—give testimony under oath that, while they talked about one specific cardinal—Cardinal Eugène Tisserant—and the evil role he arguably played at the Second Vatican Council, saying some of his comments were “satanic,” there arose “white-colored smoke” from a point on the carpet that then went up to their faces. The two men could not find a natural cause for this incident and thus decided to write a careful testimony about it.
As one Vatican expert commented to LifeSiteNews: “So these two men were talking essentially about the fact that the ‘smoke of Satan had entered the Temple of God’ (in the famous words of Pope Paul VI), when smoke came up from the floor.” He saw it as a symbolic incident.
On June 29, 1972, on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul and seven years after the conclusion of the Council, Pope Paul VI stated: “There is the feeling that ‘through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.’”
Let us first ask who were these two men who witnessed this stunning, above-mentioned incident with the smoke? While we may not reveal the name of the respected priest who wrote the report because he wishes to remain anonymous, we can mention the second witness: Dr. Ingo Dollinger, a priest who was at the time the rector of the Institutum Sapientiae in Anápolis, Brazil. He himself, moreover, had helped to found this theological-philosophical institute aimed at forming future Catholic priests.
Dr. Dollinger is known to many Catholics because he confirmed to me in 2016 an earlier story about what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had told him before 2000. Cardinal Ratzinger had told him that the Third Secret of Fatima was about a warning not to open a Council (a “bad Council”) and not to alter the holy liturgy (a “bad liturgy”). When the Vatican then published its specific version of the Third Secret in June of 2000, but it did not mention either of these things, Dr. Dollinger right away visited Ratzinger after his Mass at St. Peter’s and asked him about it. The German cardinal only quickly admitted that they did not publish everything.
Dr. Dollinger died in 2017. Bishop Athanasius Schneider—one of Dr. Dollinger’s former students at the Institutum Sapientiae—traveled to Germany in order to celebrate the Requiem Mass for his beloved teacher. Dr. Dollinger was a spiritual son of St. Padre Pio, who heard Dr. Dollinger’s confessions dozens of times. Padre Pio had also told Dr. Dollinger that he would have to suffer much at the end of his life, which turned out to be true.
Most importantly, it was Dr. Dollinger who in 1983, after the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law that explicitly omitted condemning Freemasonry, went to Cardinal Ratzinger (then the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and convinced him to make the well-known 1983 decree Declaratio de associationibus massonicis, which was officially published and promulgated on November 26, 1983, and which says that Freemasonry and the Catholic Church are incompatible. Dollinger himself had previously participated in the official discussions about Freemasonry at the German Bishops’ Conference conducted with the United Grand Lodges of Germany, which took place from 1974 to 1980, and thus was an expert in the matter.
In 2016, after the publication of Dr. Dollinger’s story about the Third Secret, Pope Benedict XVI publicly denied it and claimed never to have spoken with Dr. Dollinger about Fatima. But many Catholics think that there might be more to Dr. Dollinger’s side of the story than Benedict’s version, since there is an abundance of evidence and sources showing that prominent churchmen have revealed elements of the Third Secret—most prominently that the apostasy predicted will start at the top—none of which are to be found, however, in the official 2000 version of the Third Secret. In addition, the key actors involved in the publication of the Third Secret – Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and Cardinal Angelo Sodano – have both been accused by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò as having promoted the homosexual network within the Church. That is to say, these prelates might not be the most trustworthy witnesses.
Finally, LifeSiteNews recently spoke with someone who was in close contact with Dr. Dollinger in 2000, and Dr. Dollinger called that person immediately after he spoke with Cardinal Ratzinger and told him the cardinal’s response.
We shall leave it up to our readers to decide which witness they believe to be more trustworthy here.
The testimony of Dr. Dollinger and the seminarian is itself a credible testimony. It stems directly from the archive of Dr. Dollinger. The second signatory of this document is also known to us and has a good standing in the Catholic Church.
The document reads as follows:
AM+DG
Declaration
On November 18 (eighteen) 1993 (nineteen hundred ninety-three), about 9:30 h (nine-thirty), in the morning, we—Dr. Dollinger, our rector, and I, XXX—talked in the rectorate of this faculty—Institutum Sapientiae / Anápolis—about themes, discussing a possible rebellion against the Holy Father John XXIII, of blessed memory, concerning his initial instructions on how to execute the work of the Second Vatican Council. When we spoke about a possible “rebellion,” which was led by Cardinal Tisserant with the support of his sectarians, at the moment, in which we discussed his [Tisserant’s] comments which denounced the first instructions of the Pope as “tyrannical instructions” which could not be accepted under any circumstances, and when we described these comments as perverse and even satanic, as I myself called them, followed by Father Rector, there arose from one spot on the carpet, which was lying in the space between the chairs on which we were sitting, a trail of white-colored smoke which went up to the height of our faces, visible in a completely clear manner—which enables me to exclude the possibility of an optical deception—and without leaving a perceptible odor. After we carefully examined that very carpet and the other corners of the room for possible causes of this phenomenon, we did not find anything. What happened on that morning and what has been described here above we, Fr. Dollinger and I, witness under oath.
Anápolis, March 5, 1994
(signed) Ingo Dollinger and XXX
Original testimony to the apparition.
In order to explain the background of these comments made by two faithful Catholic men, let us consider what Cardinal Tisserant had done during the Second Vatican Council that could justify such a harsh condemnation of his role, especially since there are some other prelates at that Council, for example Cardinal Josef Frings, Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens, and Cardinal Achille Liénart, who are generally better known as the driving and progressivist forces among the Council Fathers.
One could point to two key aspects of the history of the Council where Cardinal Tisserant had played an important and clearly negative role.
First, at the beginning of the Council, on October 13, 1962, Tisserant played his part in the famous well-planned insurrection of the modernist faction of the Council Fathers under the guidance of Cardinals Achille Liénart, Josef Frings, Franz König, and Julius Döpfner, who were all part of the German-French group of effective revolutionaries.
On October 13, when the Council Fathers assembled for the first working session, it had been planned that they would vote for certain members of the commissions. The list had been put together by the Roman Curia who had been tasked with the preparation, over the course of three years, of those preparatory documents (schemata) that should be further discussed and then voted upon by the Council Fathers. It was therefore natural that the same members of the preparatory commissions would be presented to the Council Fathers as the potential new members of the Council Commissions, so as to have well informed members to continue the work of the prepared documents. As it turned out, however, not only did the Council Fathers under the well-planned leadership of Liénart dismiss this first list of possible candidates, but they also later dismissed the entire set of prepared documents in order to introduce novel ideas and actionable concepts.
To return to the October 13 event, Cardinal Tisserant was the presider over this first session, since he was the dean of the council presidents. When he started to present the schedule of the day, Cardinal Liénart raised his voice and asked permission to speak. This was against the rules of the day, as they did not foresee a discussion among the Council Fathers. Even though Tisserant declined this request, the French cardinal grabbed the microphone and proceeded to read aloud, in Latin, a prepared document, in which he requested a delay of the voting process so that the Council Fathers could first get to know better the candidates for the commissions and so that the episcopal conferences could come up with their own recommendations. Cardinal Frings stood up to second Liénart, adding that he also spoke in the name of Cardinals Döpfner and König. Professor de Mattei describes this incident in his own 2012 book on the Council, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, and calls it “the break with council procedures.”[1] He points out that Tisserant, after the intervention of the two cardinals, closed the session and moved it to October 16, thus giving in to their request. As an additional detail, Dr. Rolf Weibel, a Swiss theologian and scholar of the Council, writes that Tisserant did so after consulting with the fellow Council Presidents who sat with him at the table.[2] Weibel also recounts how Pope John XXIII subsequently told Liénart: “You did well to say aloud what you were thinking because for this reason I have called the bishops to the Council.”[3]
As described in more detail in our article about Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and his role during the Council, delaying the vote of the commission members to October 16 gave the progressivist camp enough time to organize their own list of preferred members. De Mattei quotes here the modernist Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens: “This was indeed a brilliant and dramatic turn of events, an audacious infringement of existing regulations! … To a large extent, the future of the council was decided at that moment. John XXIII was very pleased.”[4]
Professor de Mattei insists that the intervention of Liénart and Frings on October 13 was not a spontaneous event. Another Italian historian and expert of the Council, Andrea Riccardi, points to a certain collaboration between Liénart and Tisserant, as well. The following quote from Riccardi is also important in light of the document signed by Dr. Dollinger:
Quote:Cardinal Lienart was certainly not the only one of the fathers who was looking for an immediate change in the election procedure. According to some, after the Mass, Tisserant, dean of the cardinals and conciliar president that day, suggested to [the general secretary of the Council, Archbishop Pericle] Felici, that the voting be postponed and that the episcopal conferences draw up their own lists. Cardinal [A. G.] Cicognani, Secretary of State, when consulted on the subject, declared himself in favor of an immediate vote, and Felici sided with Cicognani. When Tisserant communicated Felici’s position to Lienart, the annoyed Bishop of Lille decided to speak, followed by Frings, who had close ties with the elderly French cardinal.[5]
So here, Tisserant’s active involvement in the rebellious incident is shown. Even though Riccardi insists that this event was “no plot,” but, rather, merely a “concrete initiative,” he reveals that there was yet another French cardinal involved. The historian states:
Quote:His [Liénart’s] decision to intervene was strengthened by the opinion of Cardinal Lefebvre [not to be confused with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre], who asked him to speak in order at least to ward off any immediate elections and who provided him with a Latin translation of a petition, which Liénart would not have been able to improvise in that language.[6]
Yet another scholar of the Second Vatican Council will help us further to understand Cardinal Tisserant’s role during the opening session of the Council. Romano Amerio, in his 1996 book Iota Unum, quotes the French academician, Jean Guitton—a lay participant at the Council and a friend of the later Pope Paul VI. Amerio writes:
Quote:When showing Guitton a painting made from a photograph, which depicted Tisserant himself and six other cardinals, the Dean of the Sacred College [Tisserant] said: “This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the council, when we decided to block the first session by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII.”[7]
It is striking that Tisserant uses here the expression “tyrannical rules,” which is similar to the expression used by Dr. Dollinger and his interlocutor in 1993—“tyrannical instructions”—thus making it possible that these two men were aware of the Guitton quote. As other quotes in this article show, it seems that Pope John XXIII encouraged the rebellious initiatives and behavior, against his own instructions, or at least against the instructions as prepared by his curial members.
A churchman who wishes to remain anonymous commented on this essay of mine with the following words:
Quote:“As the sources now show more and more, Pope John XXIII was ultimately not as naive as he is usually portrayed, but quite clever. He played along with satisfaction with the game of Cardinal Tisserant and Liénart and Co., that is, with the revolution on October 13, 1962.”
After we have established here that Cardinal Tisserant played a shady and unforthright role at the beginning of the Council, and before we proceed to discuss the second crucial event of the Council at which Tisserant played a major role, let us point out only in passing that Tisserant also was involved in the piercing moment on October 30, 1962, in which the head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani, was humiliated in a symbolic way in front of the entire council assembly. Cardinal Alfrink on that day simply turned off Ottaviani’s microphone after he had exceeded the established speaking time, even though Ottaviani was the second most influential man in the Vatican after the pope himself. Let us review what Fr. Wiltgen has to say about the incident where he mentions Tisserant’s role in this painful incident:
Quote:On October 30, the day after his seventy-second birthday, Cardinal Ottaviani addressed the Council to protest against the drastic changes which were being suggested in the Mass. “Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal, among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.” Speaking without a text, because of his partial blindness, he exceeded the ten-minute time limit which all had been requested to observe. Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the Council Presidents, showed his watch to Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding that morning. When Cardinal Ottaviani reached fifteen minutes, Cardinal Alfrink rang the warning bell. But the speaker was so engrossed in his topic that he did not notice the bell, or purposely ignored it. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, a technician switched off the microphone. After confirming the fact by tapping the instrument, Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation. The most powerful cardinal in the Roman Curia had been silenced, and the Council Fathers clapped with glee.[8]
Let us now pass over to the second major role that Tisserant played with regard to the Council, and which was his active role in assuring the Communists that the Council would not speak in a condemnatory way about Communism. Professor de Mattei gives a detailed account of how Tisserant, on behalf of Pope John XXIII, secretly met, away from Rome, in August of 1962 with the Russian Orthodox Archbishop of Yaroslavl, Nikodim, in Metz, France. At that secret meeting, the two men agreed that the patriarchate of Moscow would welcome an invitation from the pope to participate at the Second Vatican Council, while at the same time the pope promised that the Council would not issue any adversely critical statements against Communism. De Mattei also points out that Nikodim was a KGB agent.[9]
Moreover, Dr. Robert Hickson shows in an essay that this secret agreement has raised many questions. Were the Council Fathers ever informed about this secret agreement, and was this Council thus truly inspired by the Holy Ghost if one of the most pressing pastoral questions of the time—after all, innumerable Catholics were imprisoned in Communist countries—were to be effectively excluded even before the start of the Pastoral Council?
As Romano Amerio puts it, “the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it.”[10] And being an expert of the council documents, the author continues by saying that:
Quote:the council refrained from condemning communism, and in its Acta the very word, which had been so frequent in papal documents up to that moment, does not occur. The great gathering made specific statements about totalitarianism, capitalism, and colonialism, but hid its opinion on communism inside its generic judgment on totalitarian ideologies.[11]
Importantly, de Mattei reports, Cardinal Tisserant not only played a major role at this controversial—and consequential—secret meeting in Metz, but he also tried to influence the Council and its discussions on Communism away from any criticism of this dictatorial system. For example, at the Council he himself voted against a document condemning Communism.[12] The Italian historian then describes a conversation between Tisserant and Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, in which Tisserant recounted the outcome of the secret meeting in Metz in 1962: “Moscow demanded that no one speak against communism in the council, and Rome agreed,” were Tisserant’s words, adding that it was “possible to speak against materialism and atheism without mentioning communism; in this way the council, which deals only with religion, could accomplish its mission perfectly.”[13]Further revealing his own support of such disloyalty toward those Catholics suffering under Communism, Tisserant then even made a demeaning remark about the heroic victim of Communism, Cardinal Mindszenty, calling him a “pauvre imbecile” (a poor imbecile).
These few examples of how Cardinal Tisserant acted before and during the Council—clearly promoting the agenda of the progressivist wing within the Catholic Church—seem to justify the comments made by Dr. Dollinger and his interlocutor in 1993, even if one might disagree that Tisserant himself played a leading subversive role. The extraordinary phenomenon of the smoke coming up from the carpet can at least be taken as a symbolic confirmation that, indeed, Pope Paul VI was somehow right when he publicly said that “the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God.”
***
[1] Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2012), 177–179.
[2] There are slight variations of this incident, but always with Tisserant’s involvement. Fr. Ralph Wiltgen writes in his book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: The Unknown Council: “After hurried consultation with Eugene Cardinal Tisserant, who as first of the Council Presidents was conducting the meeting, Archbishop Felici announced that the Council Presidency had acceded to the request of the two cardinals. The meeting was adjourned until 9 a.m. on Tuesday, October 16” (New York City: Hawthorn Books, 1967, 16–17).
[3] Rolf Weibel, “Die bleibende Aktualität des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils (III),” kirchenzeitung.ch, undated, https://www.kirchenzeitung.ch/article/di...s-iii-7055
[4] De Mattei, The Second Vatican Council, 179.
[5] Andrea Riccardi, “The Tumultuous Opening Days of the Council,” in History of Vatican II, vol II, ed. Giuseppe Alberigoand Joseph A. Komonchak (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 30–31.
[6] Ibid, 31.
[7] Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century (Kansas City: Sarto House, 1996), 87. The English quote of Guitton has been provided by Amerio who first quoted it in French. We used the English translation for the sake of our readers. Amerio also provides the source of the quote by Guitton: J. Guitton, Paul VI secret (Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1979), 123.
[8] Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, 28–29. It is always striking to me how the Council Fathers, with their applause, at different times could show such malice. Dr. Robert Hickson once described in an essay another painful applause in the Council Hall.
[9] De Mattei, The Second Vatican Council, 149.
[10] Amerio, Iota Unum, 76.
[11] Ibid.
[12] De Mattei, The Second Vatican Council, 153.
[13] Ibid., 154.
|
|
|
|
| Macron tells French farmers: Ukraine war will weigh on you, and it will last |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-26-2022, 08:20 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Macron tells French farmers: Ukraine war will weigh on you, and it will last
Reuters [Emphasis mine]| February 26, 2022
PARIS, Feb 26 (Reuters) - The war in Ukraine, and heavy sanctions Western powers have taken against Russia, will have long-lasting and serious consequences for the French farming sector, the European Union's biggest, French President Emmanuel Macron said on Saturday.
"If you ask me to share one conviction with you this morning, it is that this crisis is here to stay, this war is here to stay," Macron told the Paris farm show on Saturday.
Trade restrictions resulting from EU sanctions on Russia will weigh on French exports such as wine and grains, Macron said, while a further rise in energy prices will hit livestock farming.
"We are building a resilience plan," Macron said, adding measures would be taken to protect farmers from cost pressures and compensate lost revenues.
A surge in commodity prices in the past year has benefited grain producers but squeezed livestock farmers for whom grain feed is a major cost. The government announced at the end of January a 270 million euro ($304 million) relief package for the pork sector.
The crisis in Ukraine is increasing volatility in agricultural markets, with Paris wheat futures hitting a record high on Thursday. Farmers are also worried the crisis could exacerbate supply tensions in fertilisers and disrupt the spring growing season for crops.
The annual Paris farm show, the Salon de l'Agriculture, is a major occasion in France and, coming less than two months before the first round of presidential elections, has drawn the major candidates.
French commentators long expected Macron could use his presence at the show to officially announce he will be running for a second term, a fact nobody in France doubts.
But international crises, above all Russia's invasion in Ukraine, have thwarted the president's calendar several times.
While Macron spent over 12 hours at the Salon's last edition in 2020, trying to reassure farmers over the impact of Brexit and a reform of the EU's farm policy, he only spoke on Saturday for about 15 minutes.
($1 = 0.8875 euros)
|
|
|
|
| Canada Clears World’s First Plant-Based Covid Vaccine |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-25-2022, 06:55 PM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
Canada Clears World’s First Plant-Based Covid Vaccine
Unit of Mitsubishi, Philip Morris crafted the shot with Glaxo
Vaccine may generate $1 billion in sales, Mitsubishi CEO says
![[Image: 800x-1.jpg]](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iEAUFPtjbmJ8/v0/800x-1.jpg)
Medicago Inc.’s greenhouse.
Bloomberg | February 24, 2022
The world’s first plant-derived Covid-19 vaccine was cleared for use in Canada, creating a novel immunization to combat the virus from a unit of Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corp. and Philip Morris International.
The vaccine named Covifenz was jointly developed by Medicago Inc., a biopharma company owned by Mitsubishi Chemical and Philip Morris and based in Quebec City, and GlaxoSmithKline Plc. It will be available for adults aged 18 to 64, Medicago and Glaxo said in a statement Thursday.
The approval gives people who are hesitant to take currently available vaccines made by Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca Plc and Moderna Inc. another option. Many countries are struggling to raise vaccination rates and are requiring citizens to be immunized to get into restaurants, shopping malls trains and planes.
The company hopes Covifenz will generate about $1 billion a year eventually, Mitsubishi Chemical’s Chief Executive Officer Jean-Marc Gilson said in an interview last week. The vaccine is easier to transport and store than rival mRNA shots, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, since it doesn’t need to be kept at ultra-low temperatures, he said.
Covifenz is made from proteins, grown in plants, that look like the virus that causes Covid-19 to the human immune system, according to Medicago’s website. The vaccine also uses Glaxo’s pandemic adjuvant, a substance that boosts the immune system’s response.
Medicago has a contract with the Canadian government to supply up to 76 million doses of the vaccine and is in talks with other countries about potential agreements, Chief Executive Officer Takashi Nagao has said. The immunization was granted fast-track designation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in February 2021.
The vaccine demonstrated 71% efficacy against multiple variants of the virus in December, Medicago said. It was 75% effective against the highly-infectious delta variant and nearly 89% effective against the gamma variant first identified in Brazil. The omicron variant wasn’t circulating when the trial was conducted, and the company is planning future tests against that strain.
|
|
|
|
| “How Dare You! Bishop Williamson / the SSPX has never said that!” |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-25-2022, 01:40 PM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- No Replies
|
|
Excerpt from The Recusant #57 - Lent 2022
“How Dare You! Bishop Williamson / the SSPX has never said that!” Well, take a look…
Question 1 (Grace in the New Mass)
“There are cases where even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s Faith instead of losing it. … Be very careful with the Novus Ordo … But, exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.” (Bishop Williamson, public conference in Mahopac, New York, USA 28/06/15)
“Therefore I will not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass. If they can trust their own judgement that attending this Mass will do more good than harm spiritually.” (As above)
“The Novus Ordo Mass may have been allowed by God to make it easier for Catholics to leave the Faith if they wanted to, but not impossible to keep it if they wanted to.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 438, December 2015)
“As an essential part of the subjective and ambiguous religion, the Novus Ordo Mass can be what you make of it. A priest can celebrate it decently, a Catholic can attend it devoutly.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 447, Feb. 2016)
“But don’t say that there’s no good in it at all and that there can be no grace passed attending the Novus Ordo Mass.” (Bishop Williamson, public conference in Emmett, Kansas, USA 18/09/16)
Various SSPX priests have preached that the New Mass only gives a trickle of grace, or less grace compared to the Traditional Mass - i.e. not none! (See, for instance, Recusant 22, p.38)
Question 2 (The Indult Mass)
“Therefore, in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is anywhere near you.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 505, March 2017)
Various SSPX priests are happy to tell people to go to the indult Mass - whereas the old SSPX used to tell people to stay away. The District Superior of Great Britain, Fr. Robert Brucciani, even helped out in a Novus Ordo/Indult parish last year. Compare with Archbishop Lefebvre: “Availing ourselves of the Indult is tantamount to putting ourselves into a state of contradiction because at the same time that Rome gives the Fraternity of St. Peter, for example, or Le Barroux Abbey and other groups authorization to say the Mass of All Time, they also require young priests to sign a profession of faith in which the spirit of the Council must be accepted.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon at Friedrichshafen, 29th April 1990)
“…‘After all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says’ – but they are betraying us! Betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work. … One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, address to his priests, 6th September 1990)
Question 3 (Mass Every Sunday vs. Less Frequently)
Most, almost all, Fake Resistance Masses are every Sunday, and out-of-the-way once-a-month Mass locations are unheard-of, much like the modern SSPX (See, Recusant 56, pp.54 & 55, for instance). The Resistance priests who stayed true to Archbishop Lefebvre, like the old SSPX tend to spread themselves thinly and widely, whereas the Fake Resistance, like the modern SSPX don’t see the need: after all, as far as they are concerned you can just go to the Indult Mass, or even the New Mass, instead. Contrast with the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre: “If someone asks me: ‘I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V?’ … I
would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. I would not go myself because I would not want to take in this atmosphere ... So I advise you not to go.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference at Écône, 25th June 1981)
“We understand quite well what troubles you may experience in the circumstances in which you are living, without a good Mass … In fact, in such a case Monseigneur Lefebvre recommends rather to stay at home and pray the rosary in the family and to read the old Mass in the missal…” (Reply to a personal letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, 27th April 1980 - see Recusant 40 p.10)
Question 4 (Holy Office Condemnations)
“The Poem of the Man-God [real title: “The Gospel As Revealed to Me”] runs into tremendous opposition. I think it’s the devil, quite honestly. And I think the devil was in the Holy Office at that time. … The Index has been abolished, yes. I read it and I don’t bother too much about - I don’t know all the background details. I get so much out of it myself that I’m not worried about it, you know.” (Bishop Williamson, public conference in St. Mary’s, Kansas, USA 26/05/2016)
Evidence abounds of the modern SSPX tolerating and even promoting the condemned “Divine Mercy” devotion and the condemned writings of the bogus seer Sr. Faustina (see, for instance, Recusant 29, p.36)
Question 5 (Get Out of the Conciliar Church!)
“Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 348, March 2014)
“I do not say to everybody inside the Novus Ordo, priests and laity, I don’t say: ‘You’ve got to get out!’ (Bishop Williamson, public conference in St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada 5/11/14)
“[Traditional Catholics who] have had to put a distance between themselves and the mainstream Church … have exposed themselves to the opposite danger of an isolation leading to a sectarian and even pharisaical spirit, disconnected from reality.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 438, November 2015)
“The Novus Ordo people have souls. If they have souls, then the Mother of God wants to save them and Almighty God wants to save them, Our Lord Jesus Christ wants to save them. … You know, I mean Heaven has got all these souls to look after and try to get to heaven, not just those souls who make their way to Tradition.” (Bishop Williamson, public conference in Veneta, Oregon, USA 19/09/16)
Priests defecting from the conciliar church to the SSPX used once to be fairly common and was still happening in the late 1990s/early 2000s. In England, for instance Fr. Alan Rolf left his diocese and joined the SSPX twenty years ago. Now, however, that has become something unheard-of, despite the SSPX having lots of contact with parish priests. None of them ever leave and renounce Vatican II or the conciliar church. Why? Surely it is because the modern SSPX offers tea-and-sympathy but doesn’t dare encourage such priests to take the fateful step, for fear of upsetting the conciliar bishops with whom they are trying so hard to be friends. Like the modern SSPX, Bishop Williamson’s house in Broadstairs has become a place for all
sorts of priests, both from the modern SSPX and the conciliar church, to drop in for tea and a chat. None of them are ever encouraged to leave, quite the contrary, they are positively encouraged to stay where they are. Finally, like the modern SSPX, it is interesting to notice that Bishop Williamson no longer talks of the “conciliar church.”
Question 6 (Novus Bogus “Miracles”)
“Facts are stubborn - as long as they are facts. If readers doubt that the eucharistic miracle of 1996 in Buenos Aires is a fact, let them undertake their own research…” [We did! See Recusant 34] (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 437, November 2015)
“However, these [Novus Ordo] miracles – always assuming they are authentic – have lessons also for the Catholics of Tradition … ” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 438, December 2015)
The modern SSPX also accepts the highly dubious Novus Ordo “miracles” and promotes them to the faithful. See, for instance: sspx.org/en/news-events/news/new-eucharistic-miracle-poland
Question 7 (The Faithful’s Right to Know Where their Shepherds Stand)
Concerning its dealings with modern Rome in 2012, the SSPX famously said: “Ultimately from this modern spirit of an unbalanced desire for information and an insistence on a “right to know”, souls will be led away from Christ’s peace ... Non‐SSPX members [i.e. the laity] do not have a strict right to be kept informed about the internal affairs of the SSPX, which is a religious congregation.” (Article on sspx.org “The Need to Know versus Peace of Soul” Jan. 2014, available at: https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/%E2%80%9Cneed%E2%80%9D-know-all-vs-peacesoul-3073 - See also Recusant 6, p.28)
In keeping with the modern SSPX saying that the faithful no right to know whether their shepherds now accept Vatican II or not, or whether they are seeking to compromise with modern Rome, the Fake Resistance priests and bishops likewise treat the faithful as though they have no right to know where they stand. Bishop Zendejas does not allow anyone to record any of his sermons and his Blue Paper newsletter stopped being publicly visible shortly after its heterodoxies were exposed in late 2015, to give just one example. Fr Paul Morgan has never once published the date, time or address of any of his Masses, to give another and is marketed as an “independent” priest in some quarters despite being at virtually every Bishop Williamson function for the past three or four years. Is he a Bishop Williamson priest? If not, why is he always with him? If he is, why has he not said so loud and clear, and where is his defence of the Williamsonist teachings outlined above? Secrecy and the Fake Resistance go together like hand in glove. These pages recently carried a picture of the chapel in Kansas owned outright by the Fake Resistance: it has no hint on the outside that it even is a chapel.
Was this ever the approach of Archbishop Lefebvre? Was this the attitude of the old SSPX? “We believe that it is very important to pray, to sanctify ourselves, but not in silence. We have the duty not only to uphold the Faith with the heart unto justification, but also to profess it with the mouth unto salvation (see Rom. X, 10). We have the duty to profess the true Faith loudly, even if one day God requires of us the supreme sacrifice of martyrdom.” (Fr. Francois Laisney, The Angelus, December 1986)
“Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.
But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father.” (Mt. 10:32-33)
Question 8 (Creation vs. Evolution)
The modern SSPX has been promoting a book by one of its priests, Fr Paul Robinson, in which he denies the Noaic flood and spreads dangerously heterodox ideas such as the ‘Big Bang,’ the bogus so-called ‘fossil record’ and the Billions-of-Years timeline. Fr Hewko, Fr. Rafael OSB, and The Recusant, (see, for instance Recusant 46) have taken a clear stand against this. What has been heard from the Fake Resistance and from Bishop Williamson in particular? Why has there so far been not one Eleison Comments dedicated to this question? Could it be that he too is compromised by some of the same modern bogus “scientific” ideas?
Question 9 (Errors of Vatican II vs. interpretation of Vatican II)
“The Novus Ordo Mass, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous. … But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the Novus Ordo Mass does not absolutely exclude the old religion.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 437, November 2015)
“In the days of the Council, the teaching of novelties about humanism (man-centred Church) were opposed and then silenced by more or less honest means and men, but adherents thereof have since been installed in key positions of power during the post-Conciliar period.” (Fr. Gerardo Zendejas, The Blue Paper 300, November 2015)
Contrast with Archbishop Lefebvre who described the Council not merely as “ambiguous” but as “poison,” “cancer,” “satanic,” “a schismatic council,” “the greatest disaster since the founding of the Church,” “a betrayal” and “a new religion.” (For a list of many quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre condemning Vatican II see thecatacombs.org here).
Question 10 (Archbishop Lefebvre is Right, Then and Now!)
“For this reason we hold firmly to all that has been believed and practiced by the Church of all time in her Faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation and institutions [i.e. seminaries, monasteries, priories, ‘classic congregations,’ structures...]” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1974 Declaration)
“It is not clear that the present need is to rebuild a classic Congregation or Seminary. Both may be somehow out-dated. … But God is God, and for the salvation of souls tomorrow it may be that he will no longer resort to the classical Congregation or seminary of yesterday.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 278, November 2012)
“In the early 21st century there seems to me to be just not enough Catholic straw left to make a Catholic brick like the SSPX of the late 20th century.” (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments 311, June 2013)
“Don’t be under any illusion: it’s not going to be me who puts together a new SSPX. No way! The time for that is over. Put away your toys everybody and get with it. Grow up!” (Bishop Williamson, public conference, St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada 05/11/14)
“Without the Pope you can't be Catholic in any way. ... In our time, authority is dissolved. So, to structure a resistance with authority and obedience and superiors, don’t hope for it. … The time for structures is past. What, what's he saying? The time for structures is yesterday!”
(Bishop Williamson, public sermon in Brazil, 19/03/16)
“Today the situation is so bad that I don’t think a structure or organisation, I, my opinion is that a structure or an organisation can’t be put together. It’s too late.” (Bishop Williamson, public sermon in St Paul, Minnesota, USA 29/05/16)
|
|
|
|
| Order Out Of Chaos: How The Ukraine Conflict Is Designed To Benefit Globalists |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-25-2022, 01:04 PM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Order Out Of Chaos: How The Ukraine Conflict Is Designed To Benefit Globalists
ZH [Emphasis mine.] | FEB 24, 2022
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,
Within the next couple of months it is likely that there will be direct US military involvement in Ukraine, with Russia now openly supporting and recognizing separatist groups in the Donbass region on the eastern edge of the country and apparently moving to aid them militarily in separation. This is not the first time Russia has sent military units into Ukraine, but it is the first time since 2014 and the annexation of Crimea that the threat of military action has been overt rather than covert.
When conflict erupts, you are going to see a swarm of media stories in western nations trying to outline the complexity of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union, while ignoring certain inconvenient truths. You will see many of these stories construct a narrative which then oversimplifies the situation and paints Russia as the monstrous aggressor. The goal will be to convince the public that our involvement in Ukraine is a moral and geopolitical necessity. There will be attempts to gain American favor and a call for US boots on the ground. Joe Biden will be at the forefront of this push.
The surface trigger for the confrontation is obviously rooted in the 2009 decision by western powers and Ukrainian officials to consider the country for membership in NATO. Most of Russia’s actions when dealing with Ukraine can be owed to NATO involvement in the region, including the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. Strategically, it makes sense. Imagine if Mexico suddenly announced it was joining a military alliance with China and that Chinese military assets were going to be transferred near the US southern border? It probably would not end well.
To be sure, Russia has a history of hypocritical behavior when it comes to its involvement in the affairs of its neighbors. For example, only a few months ago Kazakhstan was facing mass protests which the government claimed were caused by “foreign manipulation.” Zero proof was presented to justify this assertion. However, the claim was enough to rationalize the deployment of 2300 Russian troops over the border to shut down the protests.
In reality, citizens of Kazakhstan were angry over a spike in inflation and high gas prices which continue to grind down the middle class and those in poverty (sound familiar?). In 2019, only 4% of the population lived under the official poverty line. In 2020, that number exploded to 14% of the population. Accurate numbers are difficult to find for 2021, but it is likely that poverty levels are now closer to 16%-20%. The reasons for civil unrest were obvious and justified, but the protesting Kazakhs were accused of being pawns of foreign enemies. As I have noted in many articles lately, this is a typical strategy of corrupt governments trying to retain power when the people rise up and rebel for legitimate reasons.
Again, imagine if the Canadian government under Trudeau asked for US military assistance in scattering the trucker protests against his draconian vaccine mandates? We need to look at these decisions in context in order to grasp how insane they really are.
Ironically, Russia is happy to support the unrest of separatists in Ukraine while also helping to silence unrest in Kazakhstan. Keep this pattern in mind because it will help in understanding how events surrounding Russia reflect a global trend that might effect Americans in the future.
The diplomatic mess between Ukraine and Russia can be blamed in part on both sides, and it’s this kind of historical ambiguity where globalists tend to thrive. The fog of war helps to obscure establishment activities and often it is hard for people to see who is truly benefiting from the chaos until it’s too late. It is my belief that the Ukraine problem is at least partially engineered and that it is designed as a first domino in a chain of intended crises.
I don’t think there is anything unique to the Ukraine conflict for the globalists; they could have just as easily tried to initiate a regional war in Taiwan, North Korea, Iran, etc. There are numerous powder keg countries that they have been cultivating for a couple of decades. We should not hyperfocus on who is to blame between Ukraine or Russia, we should focus on the effects that will result from any major regional disaster and how the globalists exploit such catastrophes to further the agenda of total centralization of power.
The Ukraine scenario could be easily defused if both sides took some basic diplomatic measures, but this is not going to happen. NATO officials could take a step back from their pursuit of adding Ukraine to the ranks. The US could stop pouring cash and weaponry into Ukraine to the tune of $5.4 billion since 2014. Over 90 tons of military equipment has been sent to the country in 2022 alone. Russia could stop sending covert special operations units into the Donbass and be more willing to come to the table to discuss diplomatic solutions. The reason these things do not happen is because they are not allowed to happen by the power brokers behind the curtain.
We are all aware of the globalist influences behind US and NATO leaders, we present the undeniable evidence of this on a regular basis. Biden’s penchant for globalist institutions is well known. But what about Russia?
There are some in the alternative media and the liberty movement who falsely believe that Russia is anti-globalist – Nothing could be further from the truth. As with many political leaders Putin will sometimes use anti-globalists rhetoric, but his relationships tell another story. In Putin’s first autobiography, titled ‘First Person’, he discusses with fondness his first encounter with New World Order globalist Henry Kissinger as a member of the FSB (formerly the KGB). As Putin rose through the political ranks he maintained a steady friendship with Kissinger and to this day they have regular lunches and Kissinger has been an adviser to multiple branches of the Kremlin.
It doesn’t stop there, though. Putin and the Kremlin have also kept a steady dialogue with the World Economic Forum, the project of the now notorious globalist Klaus Schwab. In fact, only last year Russia announced it was joining the WEF’s “Fourth Industrial Revolution Network” which focuses on economic socialization, Artificial Intelligence, the “internet of things” and a host of other globalist interests which will all lead to worldwide technocracy and tyranny.
Again, the Russian government is NOT anti-globalist. This claim is nonsense and always has been. I would attribute the fantasy of Russian opposition to a steady stream of propaganda and what I call the False East/West Paradigm – The fraudulent notion that the globalist agenda is a purely Western or American agenda and that countries like China and Russia are opposed to it. If you look at the close interactions between the east and the globalists, this idea completely falls apart.
It’s important to understand that most conflicts between the East and the West are engineered conflicts and the leaders of BOTH SIDES are not really at odds with each other. Rather, these wars are Kabuki Theater; they are wars of convenience to achieve covert ends while mesmerizing the masses with moments of terror and calamity. For anyone who has doubts about this, I highly recommend they read the thoroughly researched and evidenced works of professional historian and economist Antony Sutton, who quite accidentally stumbled onto the facts surrounding the globalist conspiracy and went on to expose their habit of playing both sides of nearly every war over the past century from the Bolshevik Revolution to WWII and onward.
The strategy of order out of chaos is nothing new, it’s something the globalists have been doing for a very long time. The number of open revelations post-Covid about the ‘Great Reset’ that globalists have publicly admitted to is so staggering that their plans can no longer be denied. Any skeptics at this point should be suspected of having a single digit IQ.
So, now that we have established the reality of globalist involvement in both the west and in Russia, we need to ask ourselves how they benefit from initiating a crisis between these powers over Ukraine? What do they get out of it?
As I have noted in recent articles, it appears to me that Ukraine is a Plan B attempt to conjure more smoke and mirrors where the covid pandemic failed to satisfy the Great Reset plan. As Klaus Schwab and the WEF has constantly asserted, they saw the pandemic as the perfect “opportunity” to force the Fourth Industrial Revolution on the world. As globalist Rahm Emanual once opined in the wake of the 2008 economic crash:
Quote:“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
The WEF is an old hand at this tactic. Klaus Schwab also used the same exact language right after the credit crash of 2008 as he has used after the spread of covid, always trying to sell global governance as the solution to every disaster:
Quote:“What we are experiencing is the birth of a new era, a wake-up call to overhaul our institutions, our systems and, above all, our thinking, and to adjust our attitudes and values to the needs of a world which rightly expects a much higher degree of responsibility and accountability,” he explained. “If we recognize this crisis as being really transformational, we can lay the fundaments for a more stable, more sustainable and even more prosperous world.”
– Klaus Schwab on the Global Redesign Initiative, 2009
Schwab jumped the gun back then just as he jumped the gun in 2020 when he declared the Great Reset an inevitability in the face of covid. The globalists must have expected a much higher death rate from the virus because they were practically dancing in the streets, elated over the amount of power they could steal in the name of “protecting the public from a global health threat.” If you look at the WEF and Gates Foundation simulation of a covid pandemic, Event 201 which was held only two months before the REAL THING happened, they clearly expected covid to do way more damage, predicting an initial death tally of 65 million. This never happened; it isn’t even close.
It’s hard to say why an obvious bioweapon like covid failed to do the job. Viruses tend to mutate rapidly in the wild and behave differently than they do in a lab setting. I would even consider the possibility of divine intervention. Whatever the reason, the globalists did not get what they wanted and now they need yet another crisis to oil the gears of the Reset machine. With the already tiny death rate of covid now dropping even further with the Omicron variant and half the states of the US in full defiance of the vax mandates it is only a matter of time before the rest of the world asks why they are still under medical authoritarianism?
War in Ukraine and the mere threat of that war expanding beyond the region could accomplish a number of things covid has not. It provides an ongoing cover for the stagflationary collapse which is now in full swing in the US, the supply chain problems that continue globally as well as the destabilization of the European economy. In particular, the EU is strongly reliant on Russian natural gas in order to heat homes and maintain its economy. Russia has strangled natural gas supplies to Europe in the past and they will do it again. Russian oil exports also fill demand gaps globally, and these exports will be strangled by sanctions or by the Kremlin deliberately cutting supplies to certain nations.
War is always a distraction from economic sabotage. Even though the seeds of financial crashes are often planted and watered well in advance by central banks, the banks never get the blame because international conflicts conveniently take center stage. By extension, economic crisis causes mass poverty, mass desperation, and mass hysteria, and globalists will say that these dangers require an international solution that they will happily provide in the form of centralization.
In the US and in many other western nations which have a large number of people still defending individual freedom, the globalists clearly want to use tensions with Russia as a means to silence public dissent over authoritarian policies. Already I am seeing numerous instances of establishment officials and leftists on social media suggesting that liberty activists are “pawns of the Russians” and that we are being used to “divide and conquer.” This is nonsense backed by nothing, but they are trying out the narrative anyway to see if it sticks.
I have no doubt that any rebellion in the US against the globalists will be blamed on foreign interference. As mentioned earlier, the last thing the elites want is movements of free people obstructing the Reset in the name of liberty. We witnessed this in Canada where Trudeau announced unilateral emergency powers against the trucker protests, giving himself totalitarian levels of control. Even the Russian government has intervened in such public actions to prevent any kind of activist momentum. Biden will try to do the same thing, and war, even a smaller regional war, gives him a rationale to oppress dissent in the name of public security.
Interestingly, martial law in the US is also much easier to legally and historically justify for the government as long as it is done in response to the invasion of a foreign enemy. The Russian influence narrative may very well be in preparation for martial law within America. Whether or not this actually succeeds is another matter.
The consequences of a shooting event in Ukraine will be far reaching well beyond a distraction for the American public; my intent here is not to suggest only Americans will be affected. My point is that there are certain places in the world that are naturally resistant to the globalist scheme, and freedom minded Americans are a primary obstacle. If there is a large scale rebellion against the Great Reset, it’s going to start here. The globalists know this as well, which is why the US will undoubtedly be centrally involved in the Ukraine quagmire.
While the event would be disastrous for Ukrainians and probably many Russians, there are deeper and more dangerous underlying threats intended for the US and a war in Ukraine acts as an effective scapegoat for many of them.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F33%2F70%2Fe2%2F3370e2a36c19c1fd6fc04878de7ed944.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: 9063E2C8-9E27-4AF2-86BB-14C0149478BA_1_201_a.jpeg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/9063E2C8-9E27-4AF2-86BB-14C0149478BA_1_201_a.jpeg)
![[Image: PutinWEF1-768x512.jpg?itok=6zSXwga8]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/PutinWEF1-768x512.jpg?itok=6zSXwga8)
