Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus, part five

Although I did not think that it would be necessary to write another commentary on the coronavirus hoax that has resulted in massive and needless economic suffering, accustomed millions upon millions of people to accept unjust, immoral and unconstitutional limitations on their legitimate liberties in exchange for the illusion of some kind of physical protection from a virus that has a ninety-seven percent survival rate, dehumanized people’s ability to interact with each other publicly, and further corrupted constitutional case law in the United States of America than has occurred in the last century of rank legal positivism.

 As will be noted later in this commentary, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom, May 29, 2020, means that the draconian schemes of Bill Gates and his allies to require us to accept the “coronavirus vaccine” that comes from the poisoned tree of the cell lines of aborted babies and will inject both artificial intelligence and the infamous microchip into the bodies of those naïve enough not to resist this exercise of depopulation and mind control will upheld as “constitutional” by the current five justice (Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) majority in favor all things statist. The uncritical acceptance of the healthcare industry’s “narrative about the China/Wuhan/Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus continues to be accepted, yes, even by a majority of Supreme Court justices, even there is now thorough documentation about the real nature of the virus and that it is not as deadly in most instances as the plandemicists continue to claim. The numbers of infected persons and of fatalities cause directly by the virus have been inflated in various ways, including the deliberate labeling of patients who have tested negative repeatedly for the virus nevertheless have been labeled as “positive” and placed on ventilators, which killed them (see the first-hand account provided by a professional nurse, Erin Marie Olszewski, as found, at the least for the time being, at Erin Marie Olszewiski on Her Experience at Elmhurst, Hospital, Elmhurst, Queens, New York). We are, as noted in previous segments of this series, eyewitnesses to a “real-time” genocide of innocent human beings in order for the plandemicists to order lockdowns and the dehumanization that follows in the wake of protective masks and so-called “social distancing.

There are a few salient points that I desire to make in this commentary as the information about this plandemic is so abundant now as I rather doubt that this site’s relatively few readers will  find much, if anything, of what follows below to be “new” to them.

The Illusory Desire for Aldous Huxley’s Brave New Hygienic World

Although the truth of the not-so-soft “transformation” of the so-called “civilized world,” including most especially the United States of America, into a technocracy that permits committed Marxists-Leninists, no matter what they may call themselves, to use the fear of a supposedly “deadly” disease to restrict legitimate human liberties in exchange for “keeping us safe” and “healthy.”

Indeed, a non-Catholic man in the Democratic Socialist Republic of New York with whom I spoke a few weeks ago said, “They’ve a good job of keeping us safe.” To which I answered, “From what? Ourselves and our liberty?”

Even believing Catholics have fallen for the claims made by our statist, “transformative” minders, including some true Catholic clergymen, who refuse to even inform themselves of the existence of the overwhelming abundance of incontrovertible documentation of the agenda that is at work to imprison us all “for our own good” and, ultimately,  to put dissenters into “reeducation centers” along the models of the Chinese laogai gulag system that the Chinese Solzhentisyn, Dr. Harry Wu, discussed so very thoroughly upon his release and exile to the United States of America in the 1980s.

A secular commentator discussed what he termed as “hygienic fascism” as the “hook” that is being used by our “omniscient” and “infallible” totalitarians-at-the-ready to manufacture/manipulate any crisis for their nefarious ends:

Author Aldous Huxley once said, “A thoroughly scientific dictatorship will never be overthrown.”

Even as we try to battle the COVID-19 pestilence, we may be contracting a more dangerous virus — hygienic fascism. This involves a process when our political leaders defer to a handful of “experts,” amid what Dr. Joseph Ladopo, an associate professor at the UCLA School of Medicine, describes as an atmosphere of “COVID-19-induced terror.”

Ideologically, hygienic fascism is neither right nor left, nor is it simply a matter of taking necessary precautions. It is about imposing, over a long period of time, highly draconian regulations based on certain assumptions about public health. In large part, it regards science not so much as a search for knowledge but as revealed “truth” with definitive “answers.” Anyone opposed to the conventional stratagem, including recognized professionals, are largely banished as mindless Trumpistas, ignoramuses, or worse. Experience may show that debate and diversity of choices serve the public's health and general well-being better than unchallenged rule by a few, largely unaccountable individuals.

Even some non-Trumpians — like Elon Musk — see this as less an adherence to scientific standards than a “fascist” attempt to impose often impossible conditions on society and the economy, and without popular recourse. That these orders are often issued by the executive, and in the vast majority of states without legislative recourse, certainly follows an authoritarian pattern.

Big Brother, the ‘Great Helmsman’ and us

The degree of social control being proposed often reveals staggering tunnel vision. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s adviser, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, suggests that eradication of the virus will require a year or even 18 months of lockdown policies. This likely would catapult an already steep recession into something approaching a depression. Scientists and academics, it appears, may be less vulnerable to such a policy than, say, hotel workers, retail clerks or small business owners.

Sometimes the controls being implemented are reminiscent of Orwell’s “1984.” People are being handcuffed for walking alone, playing catch with a child in a closed park or riding the waves alone at a closed beach. Officials, from Harris County, Texas, to New York, are urging neighbors to spy on and report each other. Some police departments are even experimenting with using drones to monitor adherence to stay-at-home orders, while Baltimore, one of the nation’s most crime-ridden cities, proposes using aircraft to control inappropriate behaviors.

The current pandemic builds on a political tradition with origins in the writings of early 19^th century philosopher Henry St. Simon. The French aristocrat considered scientists to be “superior to all other men” and the natural leaders of society. Such ideas later informed many progressives in that century, including H.G. Wells’s idea of a new elite that would replace democracy with “a higher organism,” which he called “the New Republic.”

Contrary to the idea of Italy's "Black Shirts" as being mere mindless brutes, science-fueled “futurism” constituted a critical part of the Italian fascist mythology, offering the prospect of merging the elements of “science and faith.” In the 1920s, Benito Mussolini was widely considered not a buffoon but, as the London Times suggested, a leader of a “spiritual revolution” uniting his historically fractious nation. Hitler’s regime, his armaments minister Albert Speer claimed, was the first dictatorship of a fully modern industrial state that used “instruments of technology” to impose a single ideology on its populace. Speer identified himself as the “the top representative of technocracy” that “used all its know-how in an assault on humanity.”

Communists took a similar tack, espousing what they called “scientific socialism.” Lenin specifically wished to eradicate the last vestiges of “individualism” with the kind of conditioning perfected for dogs by Russian scientist I.P. Pavlov on Soviet workers and factories. These same ideas later were adopted by China, where the notion of rule by an educated elite — “an aristocracy of intellect” — has deep historical roots.

The media is the messenger

China has used its growing  technical prowess both to monitor and to persecute dissenters, sometimes assisted by U.S. tech firms. It has applied technology both to suppress unapproved information about the infection and to control behaviors that could spread it. Privacy concerns are, of course, utterly ignored. Other authoritarian regimes, such as Russia and Turkey, have done the same.  Remarkably, despite China’s disastrous role in the pandemic’s evolution, many Westerners, such as some at CNN, increasingly consider China’s approach as superior to our predictably poorly coordinated, chaotic response. Oligarchs such as Bill Gates also apparently endorse China’s authoritarian approach.

Others, particularly in our academic establishment, endorse censorship as superior to Western freedoms. Writing in The Atlantic, two law professors suggested that in the “debate over freedom or control,” China “was largely correct and the U.S. was wrong.” Still others have suggested, due to Trump’s often bumbling or ill-informed remarks, that networks not cover presidential press conferences. This same spirit is being embraced by some of the internet’s moguls — Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube — to monitor and censor comments, even those of medical professionals, that are not considered congruent with the accepted iteration of “science.”

Although these efforts generally are aimed at the right, some liberals as well as many conservatives are frightened by the new drive for censorship. The notion of “brainwashing” the public already has been raised by climate-crusaders like former California governor Jerry Brown. Some environmentalists even see the nation’s lockdown as a “test run” for the kind of highly managed, centrally controlled society they consider necessary to preserve the planet’s health.

We are entering a very dangerous time. The digital oligarchs and their allies continue to expand their sway over the struggling remnants of the analog economy. The pandemic offers them an unprecedented opportunity, as in China, to monitor citizens to an extent never before possible. Google and Apple already are working on a venture to track social distancing and contact tracing, and both separately are interested in collecting our medical records.

Granting power to the “expert class” and to the technology elite represents a distinct peril for our democracy and constitutional order. Ultimately the issue comes down to human nature and the dangers of assuming that education, or erudition, make for better people, or smarter judgments. In the end, as Huxley noted, society has to answer the old Latin phrase, quis custodiet custodes — who watches the watchers? (Hygienic Fascism Turning the World into a Safe Space, but a What Cost?.)

What this commentator does not understand is that there is no one to “watch the watchers” as democratic republics are inherently unstable of their nature and must degenerate over the course of time into rank majoritarianism, mob rule and, ultimately, tyranny, no matter how it is disguised euphemistically. This is how Antichrist comes to power, and it is nothing other than stunning to me that believing Catholics, no less clergymen, cannot see this for themselves and are thus willing to believe that the likes of Andrew Mark Cuomo, Lawrence Joseph Hogan, Jr., Philip Brian Scott, Janet Trafton Mills, Gina Marie Raimondo, Edward Milner Lamont, Jr., Gretchen Whitmer, Philip Murphy, Thomas Westerman Wolfe, John Charles Carney, Jr., Roy Asberry Cooper, Jay Robert Pritzker, Charles Duane Baker, Jr., Gavin Christopher Newsom, Jay Robert Inslee, Katherine Brown, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Stephen Sisolak, Jared Schultz Polis, Anthony Steven Evers, and Ralph Shearer Wortham, who is an actual baby-killer, have our “good” at heart. They do not. These egregious statists, pro-aborts, pro-perverts and panderers to looters and marauders are agents of social decay and destruction that empowers them to act as the ultimate arbiters over life and death and under what set of circumstances those under their fascistic thumbs can move about and even speak their minds without being deemed “criminals” worthy of arrest and imprisonment.

Physical disease, pain and suffering, the infirmities of the aging process and death itself are the consequences of Original Sin, and the extent to which there is an increase of physical diseases, pain and suffering in the world is very dependent upon the extent to which men persist in their sins unrepentantly and, worse yet, to enshrine their commission as matters of “human rights” under the cover of the civil law and celebrate them with barbarian abandon in what passes for “popular culture.”

Agents of disorder in men’s souls and in society and the world can never “keep us safe” as it is impossible to make men immune from the ravaging effects of unchecked sin in their own lives, the lives of others and the lives of communities, states and nations that celebrate sin and have, in effect, overthrow the binding precepts of the Ten Commandments just as surely as Martin Luther himself.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori had this to say about the ravaging effects of sin:

The devil deceives sinners, and makes them imagine that, by indulging their sensual appetites, they shall lead a life of happiness, and shall enjoy peace. But there is no peace for those who offend God. “There is no peace to the wicked, says the Lord." (Is. 48:22). God declares that all his enemies have led a life of misery, and that they have not even known the way of peace. “Destruction and unhappiness in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known.” (Ps. 13:3). 

2. Brute animals that have been created for this world, enjoy peace in sensual delights. Give to a dog a bone, and he is perfectly content; give to an ox a bundle of hay, and he desires nothing more. But man, who has been created for God, to love God, and to be united to him, can be made happy only by God, and not by the world, through it should enrich him with all its goods. What are worldly goods? They may be all reduced to pleasures of sense, to riches, and to honors. “All that is in the world,” says St. John, “is the concupiscence of the flesh,” or sensual delights, and “the concupiscence of the eyes,” or riches, and “the pride of life” that is, earthly honors. (1 John 2:16). St. Bernard says, that a man may be puffed up with earthly goods, but can never be made content or happy by them. “Inflari potest, satiari, non potest.” And how can earth and wind and dung satisfy the heart of man? In his comment on these words of St. Peter “Behold, we have left all things” the same saint says, that he saw in the world different classes of fools. All had a great desire of happiness. Some, such as the avaricious, were content with riches; others, Ambitious of honors and of praise, were satisfied with wind; others, seated round a furnace, swallowed the sparks that were thrown from it these were the passionate and vindictive; others, in fine, drank fetid water from a stagnant pool and these were the voluptuous and unchaste. O fools! adds the saint, do you not perceive that all these things, from which you seek content, do not satisfy, but, on the contrary, increase the cravings of your heart? “Hæc potius famem provocant, quam extinguunt.” Of this we have a striking example in Alexander the Great, who, after having conquered half the world, burst into tears, because he was not master of the whole earth. 

3. Many expect to find peace in accumulating riches; but how can these satisfy their desires? “Major pecunia,” says St. Augustine, “avaritiæ fauces non claudit, sed extendit.” A large quantity of money does not close, but rather extends, the jaws of avarice; that is, the enjoyment of riches excites, rather than satiates, the desire of wealth. “You were debased even to hell; you have been wearied in the multitude of your ways; you said not, I will rest." (Is. 57:9-10). Poor worldlings! They labor and toil to acquire an increase of wealth and property, but never enjoy repose, the more they accumulate riches, the greater their disquietude and vexation. “The rich have wanted, and have suffered hunger; but they that seek the Lord shall not be deprived of any good." (Ps. 33:11). The rich of this world are, of all men, the most miserable; because, the more they possess, the more they desire to possess. They never succeed in attaining all the objects of their wishes, and therefore they are far poorer than men who have but a competency and seek God alone. These are truly rich, because they are content with their condition, and find in God every good. “They that seek the Lord shall not be deprived of any good.” To the saints, because they possess God, nothing is wanting; to the worldly rich, who are deprived of God, all things are wanting, because they want peace. The appellation of fool was, therefore, justly given to the rich man in the gospel (Luke 12:19)., who, because his land brought forth plenty of fruits, said to his soul, “Soul, you have much goods laid up for many years, take rest, eat, drink, make good cheer.” (Luke 12:19). But this man was called a fool. “You fool, this night do they require your soul of you; and whose shall those things be which you have provided?” (v. 20). And why was he called a fool. Because he imagined that by these goods by eating and drinking he should be content, and should enjoy peace. “Rest,” he said, “eat, drink.” “Num quid, “ says St. Basil of Seleucia, “animam porcinam habes?" Have you the soul of a brute, that you expects to make it happy by eating and drinking? 

4. But, perhaps sinners who seek after and attain worldly honors are content? All the honors of this earth are but smoke and wind (“Ephraim feeds on the wind” Hosea 12), and how can these content the heart of a Christian? “The pride of them,” says David, “ascends continually.” (Ps. 73:23). The ambitious are not satisfied by the attainment of certain honors, their ambition and pride continually increase; and thus their disquietude, their envy, and their fears are multiplied.  

5. They who live in the habit of sins of impurity, feed, as the Prophet Jeremiah says, on dung. “Qui voluptuose vescebantur, amplexati sunt stercora.” (Lam. 4:5). How can dung content or give peace to the soul? Ah! what peace, what peace can sinners at a distance from God enjoy? They may possess the riches, honors, and delights of this world; but they never shall have peace. No; the word of God cannot fail. He has declared that there is no peace for his enemies. “There is no peace to the wicked, says the Lord." (Isaias, 48:22). Poor sinners! they, as St. Chrysostom says, always carry about with them their own executioner that is, a guilty conscience, which continually torments them. “Peccator conscientiam quasi carnificem circumgestat.” (Serm. 10. do Laz). St. Isidore asserts that there is no pain more excruciating than that of a guilty conscience. Hence, he adds, that he who leads a good life is never sad. “Nulla poena gravior poena conscientiæ, vis nunquam esse tristis? bene vive.” (S. Isid., lib. 2, Solit). 

6. In describing the deplorable state of sinners, the Holy Spirit compares them to a sea continually tossed by the tempest. “The wicked are like the raging sea, which cannot rest.” (Is. 57:20). Waves come and go, but they are all waves of bitterness and rancor; for every cross and contradiction disturbs and agitates the wicked. If a person at a ball or musical exhibition, were obliged to remain suspended by a cord with his head downwards, could he feel happy at the entertainment? Such is the state of a Christian in enmity with God, his soul is as it were turned upside down; instead of being united with God and detached from creatures, it is united with creatures and separated from God. But creatures, says St. Vincent Ferrer, are without, and do not enter to content the heart, which God alone can make happy. “Non intrant ibi ubi est sitis.” The sinner is like a man parched with thirst, and standing in the middle of a fountain, because the waters which surround him do not enter to satisfy his thirst, he remains in the midst of them more thirsty than before. 

7. Speaking of the unhappy life which he led when he was in a state of sin, David said, “My tears have been my bread, day and night, While it is said to me daily, Where is your God?” (Ps. 41:4). To relieve himself, he went to his villas, to his gardens, to musical entertainments, and to various other royal amusements, but they all said to him, “David, if you expects comfort from us, you art deceived. “Where is your God? Go and seek your God, whom you have lost; for he alone can restore your peace.” Hence, David confessed that, in the midst of his princely wealth, he enjoyed no repose, and that he wept night and day. Let us now listen to his son Solomon, who acknowledged that he indulged his senses in whatsoever they desired. “Whatsoever my eyes desired, I refused them not.” (Sir. 2:10). However, after all his sensual enjoyments, he exclaimed, “Vanity of vanities ,... behold all is vanity and affliction of spirit.” (Eccles. 1:2 and 14). Mark! he declares that all the pleasures of this earth are not only vanity of vanities, but also affliction of spirit. And this sinners well know from experience; for sin brings with it the fear of divine vengeance. The man who is encompassed by powerful enemies never sleeps in peace; and can the sinner, who has God for an enemy, enjoy tranquility? “Fear to them that work evil.” (Prov. 10:29). The Christian who commits a mortal sin feels himself oppressed with fear every leaf that moves excites terror. “The sound of dread is always in his ears.” (Job 15:21). He appears to be always flying away, although no one pursues him. “The wicked man flees when no man pursues.” (Prov. 28:1). He shall be persecuted, not by men, but by his own sin. It was thus with Cain, who, after having killed his brother Abel, was seized with fear, and said, “Every one, therefore, that finds me shall kill me.” (Gen. 4:14). The Lord assured him that no one should injure him, “The Lord said to him, “No; it shall not be so” (v. 15). However, notwithstanding this assurance, Cain, pursued by his own sins, was, as the Scripture attests, always flying from one place to another “He dwelt a fugitive on the earth.” (v. 16). 

8. Moreover, sin brings with it remorse of conscience that cruel worm that gnaws incessantly, and never dies. “Their worm shall not die.” (Isa 66:24). If the sinner goes to a festival, to a comedy, to a banquet, his conscience continually reproaches him, saying, Unhappy man! you have lost God; if you were now to die, what should become of you? The torture of remorse of conscience, even in the present life, is so great that, to free themselves from it, some persons have put an end to their lives Judas, through despair, hanged himself. A certain man who had killed an infant, was so much tormented with remorse that he could not rest. To rid himself of it he entered into a monastery; but finding no peace even there, he went before a judge, acknowledged his crime, and got himself condemned to death. 

9. God complains of the injustice of sinners in leaving him, who is the fountain of all consolation, to plunge themselves into fetid and broken cisterns, which can give no peace. “For my people have done two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have dug to themselves cisterns broken cisterns that can hold no water.” (Jer. 2:13). You have, the Lord says to sinners, refused to serve me, your God, in peace. Unhappy creatures! you shall serve your enemies in hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and in want of every kind. “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness, .... you shall serve your enemy in hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and in want of all things.” (Deut. 28:47-48). This is what sinners experience every day. What do not the vindictive endure after they have satisfied their revenge by the murder of an enemy? They fly continually from the relations of their murdered foe, and from the minister of justice. They live as fugitives, poor, afflicted, and abandoned by all. What do not the voluptuous and unchaste suffer in order to gratify their wicked desires? What do not the avaricious suffer in order to acquire the possessions of others? Ah! if they suffered for God what they suffer for sin, they would lay up great treasures for eternity, and would lead a life of peace and happiness, but, by living in sin, they lead a life of misery here, to lead a still more miserable life for eternity hereafter. Hence, they weep continually in hell, saying, “We wearied ourselves in the way of iniquity and destruction, and have walked through hard ways.” (Wis. 5:7). We have, they exclaim, walked through hard ways, through paths covered with thorns. We wearied ourselves in the way of iniquity, we have labored hard, we have sweated blood, we have led a life full of misery, of gall, and of poison. And why? To bring ourselves to a still more wretched life in this pit of fire. (Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Sermons for All Sundays in the Year, pp. 56-59.)

Anyone who thinks that those who are agents of sin and the destruction that follows in this wretched wake has done—or can ever do—anything to keep us physically “safe” is delusional as even genuine pandemics, which the China/Chinese/Wuhan/Covid-19/Coronavirus, is not in actual  truth, are themselves just chastisements from God to draw the just to perfection and to convert the unjust to repentance and salvation.

Lockdowns and Looters: Plandemic Controllers Pander to Modern Marauders

As anyone with the honesty to see can admit, the agenda for social control, depopulation and economic “transformation” that was discussed eight months ago during Event 201, which was detailed in length in Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus, part two, which is being implemented in a number of ways at this time.

First, a supposed “pandemic” that was the result of a leak at the now infamous BSL-4 in Wuhan, Red China, before the novel coronavirus could be potentized to be the most effective mass murdering agent in human history has emboldened statists around the world to act swiftly and decisively against all that they abhor, starting with those in the unwashed masses who have heretofore believed that the “American Way” of “freedom for all” could never succumb to what has been and continues to be a very effective takeover of this country by committed Communists masquerading under the label as “progressives.”

Many Americans who identify themselves as “progressives” and are thus “worried” about the environment, “man-made” global warming, the deforestation of the Amazonian rain forests, “sustainable development goals,” “racial  justice,” “economic justice,” “justice” for the “undocumented.” These horrifically hypocritical frauds, though, are the same ones who support the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn while opposing the imposition of the death penalty by the civil state upon those adjudged guilty of heinous capital after the discharge of the due process of law and every single aspect of the demands made by the homosexualist collective and are ready at all times to denounces as “haters” those who oppose every other such agenda items to which every professional politician in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” must subscribe lest they encourage the deadly political wrath of “The Squad” and the “woke” mob have welcomed the lockdowns, the surveillance, the surrender of legitimate liberties, “social distancing” and the wearing of masks because they are eager to render unto the demigods of medical science and public health and/or to the high priests and priestesses of the political and media castes the sort of obedience that must be rendered unto a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and the Sacred Deposit of Faith of which he is the infallible explicator and guardian. (Yes, that was one sentence.)

These same “progressives,” however, are among the first to hail violent protests in response to the unjustifiable killing of a black man by a police officer rather than seeking justice without vengeance. Gone is any concept of fulfilling the precepts taught by Our Blessed Lod and Saviour Jesus Christ on the Sermon on the Mount:

[1] And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him. [2] And opening his mouth, he taught them, saying: [3] Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [4] Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. [5] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

[6] Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. [7] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. [8] Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. [9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. [10] Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[11] Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: [12] Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. [13] You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? (Matthew 5: 1-13.)

Gone from the darkened hearts of today's Moors, Vandals and Tartars is any concept of forgiveness even on a natural level. “Progressives” in civil government, the mainslime news media, educational, the commentariat class and among the ordinary citizenry are all too eager to condemn those who point out the political agenda associated with the Chinese/China/Wuhan/Covid-19/Coronavirus lockdowns and who protest publicly against them, no less doing so without masks or “obey” “social  distancing” for “irresponsibly” “endangering” public health during a “pandemic,” while hailing the nonexistent “right” of looters and marauders to destroy the businesses and thus the livelihoods of men and women who have spent their lifetimes establishing them. Destruction of property and even the life of a former police chief in Saint Louis, Missouri, David Dorn, can be rationalized, “progressives” claim, because of “institutionalized racism,” but the desire of human beings who want to exercise their legitimate human rights and liberties that have been deprived by the civil state under the pretext of a viral “pandemic” that, considering the total number of actual infections, has a survival rate of 99.07 percent:

Fact #1: The Infection Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.07-0.20%, in line with seasonal flu

The Infection Fatality Rate math of ANY new virus ALWAYS declines over time as more data becomes available, as any virologist could tell you. In the early days of COVID-19 where we only had data from China, there was a fear that the IFR could be as high as 3.4%, which would indeed be cataclysmic. On April 17th, the first study was published from Stanford researchers that should have ended all lockdowns immediately, as the scientists reported that their research “implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases” and pegged the IFR between 0.12-0.2%. The researchers also speculated that the final IFR, as more data emerged, would likely “be lower.” For context, seasonal flu has an IFR of 0.1%. Smallpox? 30%.

As the first study to peg the IFR, the Stanford study came under withering criticism, prompting the lead researcher, Dr. John Ioannidis to note,

“There’s some sort of mob mentality here operating that they just insist that this has to be the end of the world, and it has to be that the sky is falling. It’s attacking studies with data based on speculation and science fiction. But dismissing real data in favor of mathematical speculation is mind-boggling.”

Like all good science, the Stanford data on IFR has now been replicated so many times that our own Centers for Disease Control came out this week to announce that their ‘best estimate’ showed an IFR below 0.3%. In this article on the CDC’s new data, they also highlighted how the cascading declines in IFR has removed all the fears of doomsday:

That “best estimate” scenario also assumes that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, meaning the total number of infections is more than 50 percent larger than the number of symptomatic cases. It therefore implies that the IFR is between 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent. By contrast, the projections that the CDC made in March, which predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could die from COVID-19 without intervention, assumed an IFR of 0.8 percent. Around the same time, researchers at Imperial College produced a worst-case scenario in which 2.2 million Americans died, based on an IFR of 0.9 percent.

If you’re still unconvinced that the IFR of COVID-19 is roughly in line with a bad flu season, the most comprehensive analysis I have seen comes from Oxford University, who recently stated:

“Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.41%.”

Finally, just last week, Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis published a meta-analysis (because so many IFR studies have been done around the world in April and early May) where he analyzed TWELVE separate IFR studies and his conclusion is so good, I’ll just leave you with it:

The infection fatality rate (IFR), the probability of dying for a person who is infected, is one of the most critical and most contested features of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The expected total mortality burden of COVID-19 is directly related to the IFR. Moreover, justification for various non-pharmacological public health interventions depends crucially on the IFR. Some aggressive interventions that potentially induce also more pronounced collateral harms1 may be considered appropriate, if IFR is high. Conversely, the same measures may fall short of acceptable risk-benefit thresholds, if the IFR is low…Interestingly, despite their differences in design, execution, and analysis, most studies provide IFR point estimates that are within a relatively narrow range. Seven of the 12 inferred IFRs are in the range 0.07 to 0.20 (corrected IFR of 0.06 to 0.16) which are similar to IFR values of seasonal influenza. Three values are modestly higher (corrected IFR of 0.25-0.40 in Gangelt, Geneva, and Wuhan) and two are modestly lower than this range (corrected IFR of 0.02-0.03 in Kobe and Oise)….

Forbes recently published an article explaining just how concentrated COVID-19 deaths really are in a single population, titled “The Most Important Coronavirus Statistic: 42% Of U.S. Deaths Are From 0.6% Of The Population,” the article explains:

2.1 million Americans, representing 0.62% of the U.S. population, reside in nursing homes and assisted living facilities…According to an analysis that Gregg Girvan and I conducted for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, as of May 22, in the 43 states that currently report such figures, an astounding 42% of all COVID-19 deaths have taken place in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.

Forbes also points out that the risk coronavirus-type illnesses represent to nursing home populations is nothing new:

The tragedy is that it didn’t have to be this way. On March 17, as the pandemic was just beginning to accelerate, Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis warned that “even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses have been known for decades [to] have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect people in nursing homes.” Ioannidis was ignored.

In his recent meta-analysis on the real Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19, Dr. Ioannidis explained the policy error in New York that likely contributed to thousands of preventable deaths:

Massive deaths of elderly individuals in nursing homes, nosocomial infections, and overwhelmed hospitals may also explain the very high fatality seen in specific locations in Northern Italy and in New York and New Jersey. A very unfortunate decision of the governors in New York and New Jersey was to have COVID-19 patients sent to nursing homes.

Dr. Ioannidis also mentions the choice by medical personnel in New York to quickly put patients on ventilators, which doctors now realize likely does more harm than good (Read: 80% of NYC’s coronavirus patients who are put on ventilators ultimately die, and some doctors are trying to stop using them. (The Data Are In: Stop the Panic and End the Total Isolation. Other parts of this important information will be cited later in this commentary. See also another article on ventilators by Dr. Paul A. Byrne:  Dr. Paul Byrne at Renew America.)

No, the lockdowns are designed to keep ordinary Americans in enforced home confinement while looters can gather together in large numbers without regard to “social distancing.” This hypocrisy is simply standard form for anyone and everyone who does not realize that those who advance sinful agendas will never realize even natural justice in this fallen world and thus continue to sow the seeds for genuine chastisements that will kill millions of people as the way is being paved for Antichrist to promise “order” out of the disorder that our own sins and those of the whole world has created and is being sustained by the plandemicists at this time.

Indeed, the very statists who have been “horrified” by even a mention of the use of the United States military forces against an armed insurrection that has destroyed the businesses and livelihoods of many innocent people are going to be the first ones to demand the use of the American military against anyone who organizes against mandatory vaccinations and draconian lockdowns once one of their “own” gets into the White House and has the chance to engage in the final bit of “transformation” of the United States of America into a near mirror-image of the so-called “People’s Republic of China.”

The “government” does not know “best.”

Governments based on anti-Incarnational principles must degenerate into machines of propaganda designed to fuel civil leaders’ insatiable lust for power and control, and those who do not believe or accept that human beings have immortal souls made in the image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity and redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His fearful Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday will never have any compunction about lying to the “unwashed masses” and about subjecting them to vaccinations that they know will kill many of them and turn the survivors into guinea pigs by means of the microchip and artificial intelligence that come as a “bonus” with the “salvific” Coronavirus vaccination.

Red Chinese Biological and Psychological Warfare

Part two of this series featured the conclusions about the origins of the China/Wuhan/Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus that had been expressed by Dr. Francis Boyle, a Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, in an interview with Geopolitics & Empire four months that was republished in Christian Order a month later. Dr. Boyle’s conclusions continue to stand the test of time as a wealth of new information has documented the origins of the novel coronavirus that, no matter the accidental nature of its original  leak from BSL-4 in Wuhan, Red China, was covered-up by the Chicoms, who decided to send a bevy of persons from the Wuhan region into other parts of the world to incite panicky politicians into ruining their own countries’ economies for nothing and, in the process, transforming them into near-mirror images of Red Chinese Communism. Red China has had a powerful Fifth Column in American universities and colleges, and its “educators” (propagandists) have great influence wit the textbook publishers that disseminate their false history and junk physical science and social science. Silicon Valley is as subservient to Xi Jinping as any member of the Chinese Communist Party Central Politburo, who are served so compliantly by their useful idiots in the American Kommentariat class. I am also personally convinced that many of those on worker visas in the United States of America and elsewhere in the West are “sleeper agents” who collect information on local communities and then report back to their superiors, whether in person or in “chats” on the internet. There is hardly any aspect of Western life that is not influence by the long, prying, corrupting and malicious espionage activities of the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army.

None of this is any way meant to be construed as an attack upon the Chinese people. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem all people regardless of their color, race or national origin, a point made recently in Pluralism Goes Up in Flames but is worth repeating yet again:

Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community -- however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things -- whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.

This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God's sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators' right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God.

None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah xl, 15). (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)  

The people of Red China have suffered greatly under the oppressive yoke of the murderous Chinese Communists. The Chinese are constantly monitored, and they are only a figurative banana appeal away from being called into a police station to answer for something they may have posted on “social media” that is contrary to the Xi Jinping party line du jour and then stripped of the sort of “social credits” that Silicon Valley are using sub secreto now against us all and that will become state policy if the Chicoms’ mumbling, stumbling vassal and stooge Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., becomes the forty-sixth president of the United States of America on January 20, 2021, something that appears more probable than not five months before the election on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

Mao Tse-Tung’s “Great Leap Forward” killed forty-five million people in just four years (1958 to 1962)!:

Mao Zedong, founder of the People's Republic of China, qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history, an expert who had unprecedented access to official Communist Party archives said yesterday.

Speaking at The Independent Woodstock Literary Festival, Frank Dikötter, a Hong Kong-based historian, said he found that during the time that Mao was enforcing the Great Leap Forward in 1958, in an effort to catch up with the economy of the Western world, he was responsible for overseeing "one of the worst catastrophes the world has ever known".

Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants to the Second World War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years; the worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55 million.

Mr Dikötter is the only author to have delved into the Chinese archives since they were reopened four years ago. He argued that this devastating period of history – which has until now remained hidden – has international resonance. "It ranks alongside the gulags and the Holocaust as one of the three greatest events of the 20th century.... It was like [the Cambodian communist dictator] Pol Pot's genocide multiplied 20 times over," he said.

Between 1958 and 1962, a war raged between the peasants and the state; it was a period when a third of all homes in China were destroyed to produce fertiliser and when the nation descended into famine and starvation, Mr Dikötter said.

His book, Mao's Great Famine; The Story of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, reveals that while this is a part of history that has been "quite forgotten" in the official memory of the People's Republic of China, there was a "staggering degree of violence" that was, remarkably, carefully catalogued in Public Security Bureau reports, which featured among the provincial archives he studied. In them, he found that the members of the rural farming communities were seen by the Party merely as "digits", or a faceless workforce. For those who committed any acts of disobedience, however minor, the punishments were huge.

State retribution for tiny thefts, such as stealing a potato, even by a child, would include being tied up and thrown into a pond; parents were forced to bury their children alive or were doused in excrement and urine, others were set alight, or had a nose or ear cut off. One record shows how a man was branded with hot metal. People were forced to work naked in the middle of winter; 80 per cent of all the villagers in one region of a quarter of a million Chinese were banned from the official canteen because they were too old or ill to be effective workers, so were deliberately starved to death.

Mr Dikötter said that he was once again examining the Party's archives for his next book, The Tragedy of Liberation, which will deal with the bloody advent of Communism in China from 1944 to 1957.

He said the archives were already illuminating the extent of the atrocities of the period; one piece of evidence revealed that 13,000 opponents of the new regime were killed in one region alone, in just three weeks. "We know the outline of what went on but I will be looking into precisely what happened in this period, how it happened, and the human experiences behind the history," he said.

Mr Dikötter, who teaches at the University of Hong Kong, said while it was difficult for any historian in China to write books that are critical of Mao, he felt he could not collude with the "conspiracy of silence" in what the Chinese rural community had suffered in recent history. (Mao's Great Leap Forward Killed 45 Million People in Four Years.)

Earlier statistics compiled by R. J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii in 1991 and updated fourteen years later showed similar totals based on the available evidence before Mr. Dikotter gained access to the Chicoms’ own records, which are important as Communists of every nationality are meticulous record-keepers. Dr. Rummel wrote in 2005 that his own revised figures indicated that over 78,000,000 people were killed by the Chinese Communists between the formation of the Chinese Communist Party in 1927 and 1987 (see Rudy Rummel on Democide, 2005).

No one should thus entertain that it is “racist” to criticize the murderous policies of an unjust, immoral and barbarous regime that has imposed a modern reign of terror upon its imprisoned citizenry precisely because Communism rejects the existence of man’s immortal soul made in the image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity, thus making the murder of political opponents thoroughly justifiable as Communists consider anyone who does not hew to the party line to be completely expendable. The liquidation of millions upon millions of innocent human beings means nothing as “Chairman Mao” himself once said that “to make an omelette one has to crack a few eggs; to make a revolution one has to crack a few skulls.”

So what if human beings must be killed or starved? T

he “good” of the revolution demands such “purification.”

So what if children must be considered as the possession of the civil state and can be torn away from their parents without any thought of familial ties or even pious sentiments of love and loyalty that is part of domestic life of its very nature?

Obviously, the “cause” is what matters.

So what if the state requires forced abortion, slave labor, forced sterilization, silencing of dissent, the vivisection of political prisoners for the bodily organs without resorting to the masquerade of “bran death, limits family size and controls every aspect of civil life without exception?

The state is above all else.

So what if religious expression and practice, no less that of the true religion, Catholicism, must be made subordinate to Chinese Communist “orthodoxy” at the moment? After all, Communism is a secular religion from which no one may legitimately dissent.

This is all very important to state in order to understand the agenda that the statists in this country have been imposing in the past few months and that they will expand massively if they win, whether by legitimate or illegitimate means, what will likely be the last “free” election in the history of the United States of America prior to legal enactments that vitiate the entirety of whatever legitimate liberties are supposedly enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America under the cover of a pandemic or some other manufactured crisis that will be upheld by a supine Supreme Court of the United States of America under the stewardship of the statist institutionalist, John Glover Roberts, who has appointed himself as the late Anthony McCleod Kennedy’s “moderate” replacement.

The Red Chinese model of national imprisonment is being imposed upon us slowly now, but that process will accelerate greatly on a state-by-state basis annually and, of course, will become implemented more rapidly on a national basis once a member of the false opposite of the naturalist left captures the White House.

The China/Wuhan/Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus escaped form BSL-4 in Wuhan escaped before it was fully weaponized, but that did not stop the Chicoms from doing what they could to cover their tracks and to use their stooges in the World Health Organization and their fifth column here in the United States of America to weaponize the virus to advance the political agenda summarized above.

Mr. Stephen Mosher, who was the first to expose the policy of forced abortion in Red China and thus was denied his doctorate at Stanford University following pressure brought by the Chicoms, wrote an article that appeared on Lifesite News last month that he has republished on his own Population Research Institute’s website that demonstrates how the Red Chinese have manipulated the China/Wuhan/Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus to serve their own diabolical purposes:

Dr. Shi Zhengli, known as China’s batwoman, was worried.  Her creation, a highly infectious coronavirus, had leaked from her lab in October.  Early efforts to stop the widening circle of infections had failed.  It had spread like wildfire through the densely populated city of Wuhan.

The Communist authorities were also worried that the source of the epidemic would be traced back to the Wuhan lab.  To muddy the waters, on January 3rd,  China’s National Health Commission ordered all biolabs in China to destroy not only the samples of the SARS-CoV-2 that they had isolated from those infected, but also the genetic sequencing of the virus’ RNA strand.  Dr. Shi must have been only too happy to cover her own tracks—evidence suggests she had already started doing so–by destroying the evidence of the deadly virus’ actual origins in her lab.

It was the equivalent of trying to wipe the fingerprints from a gun that had just been used to commit murder. 

The “gun” itself couldn’t be destroyed, however.  In fact, the murder weapon used was busy replicating itself by the billions within each and every person who came down with the China Virus.

Dr. Shi and her superiors, undoubtedly including Major General Chen Wei, the head of the PLA’s bioweapons program, knew that the coronavirus she had assembled using recombinant technology was so different from other known coronaviruses that it would raise suspicions.  None of the other known beta-coronaviruses, the family from which her “backbone” coronavirus came from, had anything resembling the genetic sequence she had inserted to make it more infectious to humans.

To reinforce the “Wet Market” cover story, namely, that this new pathogen had come from nature and not from her lab, something had to be done. And it had to be done quickly, since by then the China Coronavirus had spread to the rest of the world.  Anger against China for its lack of transparency about the origins and characteristics of the virus was growing. 

Dr. Shi decided to “discover” a new bat coronavirus that was very similar to the one she had created.  That “discovery” would prove that coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 were found in nature, and so deflect the growing suspicion that she had engineered it in her lab.  

The similarity between the two coronaviruses—including their common ability to infect humans–would greatly reinforce her story that the SARS-CoV-2 had jumped from a bat to a human, perhaps through some intermediate species at the Wuhan wet market. 

So, all Dr. Shi had to do was sit down before her computer keyboard, open a word file, and begin to fabricate the SARS-CoV-2 analogue that she would claim to have found in nature seven years before. All she had to do was type in the genetic sequence of her own creation, SARS-CoV-2, changing a few nucleotides now and again to mimic the “random mutations” that regularly occur in nature.

She could easily have completed the “data entry” part of her task in a day, since all she was doing was entering in a string of letters alternating between the four nucleotides, A, U, G, and C.  And coronaviruses contain less than 30,000 different nucleotides.

Dr. Shi registered her new virus on January 27th, 2020, with the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the customary repository for such information.  She called it RaTG-13, Ra for Rhinolophus affinis, the Latin name of the Intermediate Horseshoe Bat, and 13 for 2013, the year she supposedly “discovered” it.

A lot of people have been taken in by Dr. Shi’s clever “discovery,” which is looking more and more like a forgery. No one else has independently verified its existence.  No other lab has a sample of it, and no one else has ever sequenced it.  And of course, they likely never will, because more and more evidence suggests that it exists only in a string of letters on her computer. 

It was a brilliant scheme, and it almost succeeded.  The Chinese virology community—following new, strict Party guidelines—has published a flurry of studies suggesting that the existence of RaTG-13 proves that SARS-CoV-2 came from nature.  They claim that other “first cousins” of the China Coronavirus will soon be found to exist in nature if we just keep looking.  They do genomic analyses showing that RaTG-13 and SARS-CoV-2 are 96% identical throughout the whole sequence of the viral genome.  They calculate that the two share a common ancestor a few decades back.

Actually, the only thing the two virus genomes have in common is Dr. Shi herself, who engineered the one and appears to have fabricated the other.    

As clever as Batwoman is, however, she did not commit the perfect deception.  She left behind a few key clues that reveal, as clearly as fingerprints on a murder weapon, what she was up to.

One blogger, writing at Nerd Has Power, has brilliantly teased these findings out of the data. The blogger’s efforts can be read here if you have a free afternoon and a strong math background.  I offer here a summary of one of the blogger’s critiques, in the hope of making the blogger’s general line of argument accessible to the layman. Because he published his raw data, I and others have been able to check and verify his work.  I offer here a summary of one of the blogger’s critiques, in the hope of making the blogger’s general line of argument accessible to the layman.

An Impossible Ratio:  As viruses evolve, they mutate.  That is to say, one of the four nucleotides is randomly replaced by another.  Most of these random mutations do not produce changes in the amino acids that make up the protein.  Such mutations are called “synonymous”, since the three-nucleotide “codon” still codes for the same amino acid despite the change.  Like a synonym in a thesaurus, it “looks” different but “means”—in terms of the amino acid and resulting protein—the same thing.

But then there are “non-synonymous” mutations.  These are mutations that do change the resulting amino acid and hence the configuration of the resulting protein.  In nature, the ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous is approximately 5:1. 

Here’s where Dr. Shi got into trouble.  When typing in the genomic sequence of her “discovery” she made way too many non-synonymous changes at the beginning.  Then, one-third of the way through the sequence, she apparently realized her error.  After that, she made way too few non-synonymous changes.  So while the entire genome has the expected 5:1 ratio, there are stretches where the ratio is closer to 2:1, and other long stretches where it is as high as 44:1.

Nature’s mutations are random.  Dr. Shi’s “mutations” are not. Dr. Lawrence Sellin has calculated that the odds that her “mutations” occurred naturally in just one area—the critical spike protein–at almost ten million to one.     

If RaTG-13 is merely a strategic deception, as I believe it is, then what real coronavirus did Dr. Shi enhance in “Gain-of-Function” research to create the highly infectious SARS-CoV-2?  Evidence suggests that a coronavirus from a People’s Liberation Army biolab may have played this role.  

If Dr. Shi’s research was in any way connected with the PLA’s bioweapons research program, this would go a long way towards explaining China’s bizarre behavior – the secrecy, the serial lying, the brutal quarantine, the persecution of whistle-blowers, the seeding of the virus around the world, and the furious rejection by Beijing of the idea of an international commission to investigate the origin and spread of the disease.  It all seems wildly overwrought, even by the standards of a conspiratorial Communist Party whose leaders suffer from a pathological paranoia. 

Be that as it may, there is one thing about Dr. Shi’s research that we do know with absolute, ironclad certainty: The U.S. was helping to fund it.  From 2013 onward, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, run by the now-famous Dr. Anthony Fauci, gave $7.4 million for research involving gain-of-function work and collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, $600,000 of which went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Much of the rest went to other labs in China. 

If Dr. Fauci was as familiar with the Chinese Communist Party as he is with viruses, he would not have sent the Wuhan Institute of Virology one thin dime. He would have known that the PRC has a long-running program to develop bioweapons. He would have concluded that China’s only BSL-4 high containment lab was the obvious place to carry out at least some of this research.  And he definitely did know that the “Gain-of-Function” research he was funding had the potential to create “Pathogens of Pandemic Potential” that might not be used for peaceful ends.

Apparently none of these considerations ever crossed his mind.

Now that Western intelligence services have concluded that SARS-CoV-2 probably is a man-made chimera that leaked from a lab — a lab that he was funding — you might think that Dr. Fauci would be inclined to reevaluate the role he played in this global debacle.

Instead, he continues to tell us that there is “no scientific evidence the coronavirus was made in a Chinese lab” and that there is “no evidence” that it leaked from the lab.

It is a sad end to a career that was at least long, if not particularly illustrious. (Was the Coronavirus Created by Chinese Scientist Who Tried to Cover Her Tracks and Failed? Another excellent article by Mr. Mosher appeared recently on Lifesite News: How Dr. Fauci's Fraudulent Pandemic Advice Put Millions of Americans Through Hell.)

Perhaps the point is this: that Fauci is familiar with the PRC and desires to work in the same kind of environment where “truth” is simply what he wants it to be.

Pope Pius XI reminded us in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, that Communism is inherently evil and that no one could legitimate cooperate with it any way, something that matters not to Fauci, who is all for cooperation with anything that will his advance the agenda of vaccinations as the cure to most physical illnesses and line the pockets of his friend Bill Gates in the process:

See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)

This condemnation of any kind of cooperation with Communism was reinterred by the Holy Office on July 1, 1949, the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, under the pontificate of our last true pope, Pope Pius XII:

This Sacred Supreme Congregation has been asked:  

1. whether it is lawful to join Communist Parties or to favour them;
2. whether it is lawful to publish, disseminate, or read books, periodicals, newspapers or leaflets which support the teaching or action of Communists, or to write in them;
3. whether the faithful who knowingly and freely perform the acts specified in questions 1 and 2 may be admitted to the Sacraments;
4. whether the faithful who profess the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the Communists, and particularly those who defend or propagate this doctrine, contract ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See as apostates from the Catholic faith.

The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers entrusted with the supervision of matters concerning the safeguarding of Faith and morals, having previously heard the opinion of the Reverend Lords Consultors, decreed in the plenary session held on Tuesday (instead of Wednesday), June 28, 1949, that the answers should be as follows:

To 1. in the negative: because Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; and the leaders of the Communists, although they sometimes profess in words that they do not oppose religion, do in fact show themselves, both in their teaching and in their actions, to be the enemies of God, of the true religion and of the Church of Christ; to 2. in the negative: they are prohibited ipso iure (cf. Can. 1399 of the Codex Iuris Canonici); to 3. in the negative, in accordance with the ordinary principles concerning the refusal of the Sacraments to those who are not disposed; to 4. in the affirmative.

And the following Thursday, on the 30th day of the same month and year, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, Pope by the Divine Providence, in the ordinary audience, granted to the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Assessor of the Sacred Office, approved of the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers which had been reported to Him, and ordered the same to be promulgated officially in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Given at Rome, on July 1st, 1949. (As found at Decree Against Communism.)

Perhaps there are many in the academic, scientific, political and bureaucratic worlds in this country who want to live in a country based on Red Chinese thought control, censorship, imprisonment and torture of "dissidents" from Communist thought and practice. I, for one, do not want to live in such a country, although we may have no choice and we may have no refuge anywhere else in the world as this is what must happen over the course of the centuries once men and their nations reject the sweet yoke of Social Reign of Christ the King as taught and enforced (as a last resort after discharging all efforts at exhortation and admonishment whenever the good of souls demands) by the loving intervention of Holy Mother Church, she who is our mater and magister, Mother and Teacher.

John Glover Roberts Tells Us That His Supreme Court Is Not Coming to the Rescue

Most of the governors listed earlier in this commentary who have issued the most draconian lockdowns that they have enforced with something approaching an evangelical zeal hate the influence of any religion, no less the one and only true religion, Catholicism, which is why an important constituent element of their lockdowns has been to equate religious practice with commercial activities. As noted before, each of these statists are pro-aborts, pro-perverts, pro-everything heinously evil, wicked, debauched, deprave and perverted, which is why they have the cover provided them by the plandemic to silence any voices, which are actually very few in number and, sadly, mostly Protestant at as the conciliar revolutionaries and most traditional Catholic clergy are remained abjectly silent in the face of this power garb, that disapprove of the agendas of evil and might awaken some kind of popular uprising against their schemes.

Although we know that false religions have no right from God to exist, to hold ceremonies and to proselytize their false beliefs, Holy Mother Church has long acceded to the fact she cannot do violence to the misinformed consciences of non-Catholics in countries where the civil state does not accord her recognition as the one true church and provides with the protection of the civil law accordingly and will thus not interfere with the legal rights accorded those steeped in error and whose “services” are in se offensive to God, hurtful to human souls and thus deleterious to the temporal good nations and to the temporal and eternal good of those souls. Holy Mother Church zealously safeguards the integrity of the Holy Faith and the purity of Sacred Worship, which she knows are vital for the good men and their nations, but modern circumstances are what they are and she acts accordingly while conceding nothing to the erroneous beliefs and practice of non-Catholics and remaining vigilant and steadfast in seeking the conversion of all non-Catholics to her maternal bosom, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

The situation we face today is further complicated by the fact that what appears to be the Catholic Church to all but a microscopically small number of mostly warring people is actually false entity that is just a much a tool to prepare the way for the coming of Antichrist’s One World Religion and One World Governance as are the statists in civil governments worldwide but especially in the so-called “civilized” West. There is no one effective voice of the true religion to oppose the schemes that continue to be carried out in the name of stopping a virus that kills only a fraction of those infected, leaving aside, at least for the moment, how the numbers that pass for the “official” count of those who said to have died from the China/Wuhan/Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus is vastly inflated by deliberate efforts to label almost every sick person in the world at this time as “Covid-19 Positive” and then to put them on ventilators, which wind up killing them. More will be said about these inflated numbers momentarily, noting also that many of those killed in the past five months or so have been the victims of “comfort care” that is nothing other than euthanasia under the smokescreens provided by the euphemisms of “palliative care” and/or “hospice.”

This is take nothing away from those who have actually died from the novel coronavirus, whether because of the disease itself that, together with other underlying conditions, weakened them before competent medical treatment could be rendered or from incompetence, bad judgment and poor treatment or, of course malicious intent. The suffering of those whose relatives have died is real and can never be minimized. We must continue to pray for the souls of all who have died in past few months either because of the coronavirus or because they have been killed as we pray for the consolation and, if necessary, for the conversion of their survivors. This is our duty as Catholics.

Yet it is also our duty as Catholics to speak to the truth of our situation that recognizes the multifaceted dangers that face us from the medical monsters who support and put into practice the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means, declare living human beings, many of whom are perfectly healthy or simply in need of proper medical care, “brain death” so that they can be vivisected while anesthetized for their vital bodily organs, the starvation and dehydration of “brain damaged” or “hopelessly ill” patients who are said to be “vegetables” and/or suffering a deteriorated “quality of life” according to the medical industry’s own utilitarian standards and the support they give to and then put into practice the regime of “palliative care” for which modern hospices exist to provide patients with a “custom-designed” prescription of pills, potions and intravenous fluids that are designed to kill them in the name of “comfort,” “compassion,” “death with dignity” and “mercy,” over a specified course of time that the “hospice care team” decides in “consultation” with patients and family members after subjecting them to a carefully programmed schema of emotional manipulation to break down whatever resistance might exist to the “plan.” Anyone who ignores the facts on any of these issues or, worse yet, does not want to know anything about them, will have to answer to God for their persistence in error or willful ignorance, something that is especially true of the clergy who must given guidance to Catholics in and out of the context of the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

One of those who accepts the medical industry’s representations and the decisions made statists to enforce them by executive fiat in violation of the just laws of God and men, is the ultimate legal positivist, swamp creature and supreme judicial institutionalist, John Glover Roberts, a “cooperator” of Opus Dei, who wrote a truly remarkable opinion in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom that equated the public worship of God with commercial activities.

As readers will be able to see for themselves, John Glover Roberts’s decision is based upon a complete and total acceptance of the propaganda that has been disseminated by junk scientists and their enablers in the civil government who are, to a man and a woman, supportive of every moral evil under the cover of law imaginable and who have , as demonstrated earlier in this commentary,  forgotten about “lockdowns” and “social distancing” when marauding bands of rioters take to the streets, destroy businesses, injure police officers (who have been told to “stand down” in most instance), deface buildings and churches (including the Cathedral of Saint Patrick in Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York, and killed a former police chief in St. Louis, Missouri, David Dorn, without a word of rebuke by those who made it their business to shut churches, cause millions upon millions of people to lose their jobs and thus their livelihoods, spread social unrest and to order the arrests of barbers, hair stylists, restauranteurs and even parents who have had the audacity to take their children to parks for some fresh air. Two interjections will be made below before discussing the simple fact that John Glover Roberts, Jr., had told us from the very beginning in 2005 that he is a consummate institutionalist and jurisprudential contortionist of the most positivistic order:

The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is denied. JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH would grant the application. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief. The Governor of California’s Executive Order aims to limit the spread of COVID–19, a novel severe acute respiratory illness that has killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide. At this time, there is no known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine. (South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newson, May 29, 2020.)

Interjection One:

This section is premised upon the uncritical acceptance of the facts provided by the Centers for Disease Control that have been debunked by many sources, each of which has discussed the phenomena of inflating the numbers by labeling almost every death in this country as caused by “Covid-19,” killing people, whether by incompetence or malicious  intent, by the use of ventilators when there is no need to use them, the indiscriminate placement of non-coronavirus patients with those who are infected with the virus in hospital wards and nursing homes and the deliberate use of “comfort care” that has only one end: the killing of innocent human beings. Roberts also ignores the fact that there are effective treatments to help those without underlying conditions and pretends as though such treatments do not even exist. Nice work if you can get it, I supposed, but this is very unsound jurisprudential reasoning and fact-finding.

Moreover, John Glover Roberts, Jr., is premised upon the acceptance of a vaccine that could “prevent” a disease that, though dangerous to some, is not the deadly menace that has been claimed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and his willing acolyte, Dr. Deborah Birx. Vaccines will only spread the disease and result in the sickening, if not deaths, of countless number of human beings, which is exactly what the depopulationist named William Gates desires so as to rid “mother earth” from those “useless eaters.”

Here is one happened to one person who volunteered to get the experimental vaccine that has been developed by Moderna with the use of cell lines derived from butchered babies:

You know Ian Haydon from many appearances on CNN and other networks celebrating his heroic act of volunteering to test Moderna’s experimental COVID vaccine. The sun has now set on Haydon’s television career. He is no longer useful to the Pharmedia narratives that all vaccines are always safe for all people, that Moderna’s business partners, Tony Fauci and Bill Gates, were justified in skipping animal studies and that Moderna’s vaccine will soon rescue us from the Pandemic. Ian Haydon is now an embarrassment to Fauci, Gates, and their CNN cheerleaders. He will therefore vanish into the censorship twilight.

Moderna chose Haydon for the study because of his robust good health. He was among the 15 volunteers in the high dose group. Within 45 days, three of these—a shocking 20%—experienced “serious” adverse events according to Moderna’s press release meaning they required hospitalization or medical intervention. Less than 12 hours after vaccination, Hayden suffered muscle aches, vomiting, spiked a 103.2 degree fever and lost consciousness. His girlfriend caught him as he fell. His Moderna trial supervisor instructed Haydon to call 911 and described him as being the “sickest in his life”. Moderna let Haydon believe the illness was just a sad coincidence unrelated to the jab. Moderna never told Haydon he was suffering an Adverse Event.

“Moderna’s press release was the first I learned of the 3 AEs in the high dose group.” Haydon confessed last week on Twitter. “Later a study doc confirmed that what happened to me was an AE.” While hiding this truth, Moderna encouraged Haydon to appear on TV to deceive the public and its shareholders by declaring Moderna’s COVID vaccine trials a smashing success. On May 7, Haydon told Sanjay Gupta about his reactions in a pre-interview. The two men agreed to keep this bad news secret when he went on air. This corrupt deal bespeaks the pathetic state of journalism at CNN.

Fauci and Gates are proceeding with their plan to funnel half a billion taxpayer dollars into their reckless vanity project to create 30 million doses by November and two billion within a year (personal interview, Moderna insider) manufactured in the US and Switzerland. (Moderna's Guinea Pig Sickes in His Life After Being Injected with Experimental Vaccines.)

An excellent article on the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Children Health Defense website elaborates on the dangers of these vaccines that had been discussed at length in part four of this series, concentrating specifically on the use of children as vaccine guinea pigs for the benefit of adults. Who care if some children die in the process? After all, Gates and his partners in the pharmaceutical industry support the daily destruction of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means:

Most medical professionals and parents believe that vaccines are the best way forward to protect children from disease caused by infectious pathogenic agents.  In a recent article, Bill Gates reports that he suspects ”the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.”

Oxford has announced that its Phase II COVID-19 vaccine studies will include a group of children aged between 5-12 years.  Given the low susceptibility of children to illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the inclusion of children is, according to Oxford, warranted so the differences between their immune systems and those of adults challenged with SARS-CoV-2 antigens can be better understood.

Any translational scientist or bioethicist should, on the grounds of elementary first principles of the ethics of clinical research, object vehemently to the inclusion of children in COVID-19 vaccine studies.  Here, I lay those principles out in the current context.

1. There are no potential benefits to the child enrollees being experimented upon.The overall infection case fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2  is estimated by CDC at 0.26%.  The risk of serious illness and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection in children is effectively zero.  In fact, risk of serious/critical illness as death is isolated to known groups of individuals with diabetes or cardiovascular disease, and the elderly, and those with certain comorbidities (see CDC: Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness.)

There is, therefore, no potential benefit to any child who would be enrolled in COVID-19 vaccine studies, and the trial would only serve to benefit others.  This is highly unethical.

There is also no expected population-level beneficial effect from the Oxford vaccine; all rhesus monkeys, vaccinated or not, with their vaccine, were still susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection.  Thus, vaccination to prevent infection and transmission cannot be a justification for that particular vaccine: the virus should be expected to be freely transmitted throughout the population until it finds the immunocompromised and those at risk of serious and critical illness.

2. No free, prior and informed consent on risk is possible – for any COVID-19 human subject of any age.In SARS, MERS and other coronavirus vaccine research, unacceptably high risk of coronavirus disease enhancement was reported in animals vaccinated against the coronaviruses, and re-challenged with infection See “SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Recommended Readings“. This critical animal safety study phase led to the termination of the development of SARS and MERS vaccines.  That is not a failure of science, it is a success. The problem of disease enhancement from coronavirus vaccines has been misleadingly referenced as “immune enhancement”, a term that is an inexact reference to disease enhancement.  It has been re-labeled “Pathogenic Priming”, a phrase that focuses the liability on the act of the exposure, not the passive liability on the human immune system (Lyons-Weiler, 2020).

The knowledge of whether disease enhancement will occur due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2 proteins in a vaccine will have to be gleaned from Phase 2 or 3 human subjects studies.  The participants of such studies at any age cannot provide free, prior and informed consent – as required by US Federal Regulations – if participants do not know of the general possibility of risk, and worse, the specific likelihood of downstream serious/critical illness or death upon re-exposure.The all-important Phase 1 animal safety studies were specifically skipped prior to the Phase 2 trials of COVID-19 vaccines.  This was done with the full knowledge of NIAID’s Anthony Fauci, who is partnering with Moderna on their RNA vaccine (See Live Science: “Researchers fast-track coronavirus vaccine by skipping key animal testing first” . Vaccinologist Paul Offit has called for skipping Phase 2 or combining Phase 2 and 3 trials on the basis of his perception of the seriousness COVID-19. Due to a lack of new cases in the UK, Oxford is relocating its human vaccine experimentation trials to Brazil, where pathogenic priming will likely show its face because, according to Forbes,

“As part of the Oxford trial’s design, participants will receive the vaccine and then continue being exposed to the virus normally in their day-to-day work.”

This means the effect of exposure to the virus following vaccination – and potential pathogenic priming is specifically being sought in human experimentation on a population in a developing country.  Why not the UK?  Is this imperial medical exploitation?  This outsourcing of risk is unethical, and the lack of available clinical cases in some countries, including the UK begs the question of the plausibility and need of a COVID-19 vaccine program altogether.

3. Vaccines for Everyone At All Costs – Including Any Risk.In its publication, the Gates Foundation is apparently comfortable with COVID-19 vaccines being “brutal”, citing the experience with the polio vaccine leaving a large percentage of its recipients unable to go to school or work.  The message “It might not be a perfect vaccine yet—and that’s okay” is a self-authorized permission slip to proceed not only to research on these vaccines – but also to begin production of billions of doses of the vaccine prior to knowledge of efficacy and safety.

Treating vaccine safety science as a token step toward FDA approval

We don’t yet know how “brutal” a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine might turn out to be. Gate’s message appears to be “COVID-19 vaccine regardless of any harm”.  Gates is treating vaccine safety science as a token step toward FDA approval. Something is amiss with Gates’ moral algorithm: he favors benefit to a few at the potential high cost to the many.

One participant in the Moderna Phase 1 trial revealed his serious reaction to the vaccine. STAT News reported that, in spite of high fever and fainting, he is still, most unscientifically, a “believer”. Science is about empirical knowledge, not faith. It is unacceptable that we do not know whether he and all other participants in the early trial of Moderna’s vaccine study are now more susceptible to serious and critical illness or death from SARS-CoV-2 infection.  This ignorance is not due to a lack of opportunity to know; Moderna has boasted about its animal studies which demonstrated antibody production.  They had or have vaccinated animals; whether they simply have not challenged those animals with SARS-CoV-2 viral infection to check for pathogenic priming, or have done so but have not made those results public is unclear. If there was no pathogenic priming, they surely would have made the results public.

COVID-19 did not spread in the US due to a lack of a vaccine; it spread due to CDC’s botched strategy for early containment via testing and tracking: On January 16, 2020, CDC career scientists refused to adopt a validated test developed by Germany, and instead developed and shipped a flawed SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing kit, which led to the spread of COVID-19 due to false negative results. This is why SARS-CoV-2 spread so fast in the US. (With Covid-19, Science Has Completely Lost Its Way.)

Moreover, a secular columnist has noted that it is irresponsible for anyone not to see the clear objective of the civil state at this time, which is to engage in open social engineering and the killing off of large numbers of people, starting with the eldlerly who have managed to get past the "quality of life police" of the "palliative care industry":

People in this country apparently have no clue whatsoever as to what is actually going on with this “virus” scare. Bill Gates used continuous planted “viruses” to control users and to gain billions of dollars with his corrupt Windows platform at Microsoft. It is just this type of scam that is desired by the elites today, but this time the virus scares will be used so that the fix will allow Americans to be the human guinea pigs instead of computers. With mass vaccination of any number of toxic and poisonous adjutants, with DNA altering nano-particles able to replicate, and also with injections that build tracking systems inside the body meant to allow for control over not only body and mind functions, but also all financial transactions, the trap is set. This is not science fiction, and in fact is not fiction at all. It is reality. This is the future for all of us should this travesty be allowed to continue.

John Glover Roberts, Jr., is willfully ignorant of these incontestable facts as he believes whatever the statists assert as being so without regard to any desire to see if the lockdown orders have any actual basis in scientific fact, which they do not. A secular commentator named Tucker Carlson (we do not have a television set/screen and I do not watch any kind of programs, including cable news channels on my phone or computer) explained this stark reality in very simple terms:

"The cost of shutting down the United States and denying our citizens desperately needed contact with one another is hard to calculate. But the cost has been staggering," the "Tucker Carlson Tonight" host said. "The people responsible for doing all of this say they have no regrets about it. 'We faced a global calamity,' they say. 'COVID-19 was the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu. That flu killed 50 million people. We had no choice. We did the right thing.' That's what they're telling us."

In fact, Carlson said, data supports those who say "the lockdowns were not necessary."

"States that never locked down at all, states where people were allowed to live like Americans and not cower indoors alone, in the end turned out no worse than states that had mandatory quarantines ... " he added. "The states that did lock down at first but were quick to reopen have not seen explosions of coronavirus cases. All of this is the opposite of what they said would happen."

According to Carlson, the "remarkable story" of the coronavirus lockdowns is not getting the media coverage it deserved because of George Floyd's death and the aftermath.

"The media would rather tell you why you need to hate your neighbor for the color of his skin," he said.

Carlson went on to blast politicians and the media for ignoring the impact of the lockdowns, pointing out that they are still in effect and people are still suffering.

"The message is, you were played. We were all played. Corrupt politicians scared us into giving up control over the most basic questions in our lives," he stated. "At the same time, they gave more power to their obedient followers, like Antifa, while keeping the rest of us trapped at home and censored online. In other words, they used a public health emergency to subvert democracy and install themselves as monarchs." (Lockdowns Used to Subvet Democracy.)

Although Mr. Carlson's substantive points about the lockdowns are entirely correct, the truth of the matter is that a “democracy” based upon a naturalistic and Pelagian principles is bound to “evolve” into totalitarianism over the course of time, a process that has expedited in recent decades because the wellsprings of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces have dried up as a direct consequence of false, sacramentally invalid and thus spiritually barren liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, whose “popes” have made their “official reconciliation” with the very false principles that are manifesting their inherent degeneracy that are unfolding before our very eyes.

Yes, of course, there was no rational basis for the lockdowns, but this does not matter to John Roberts Clover, Jr., who has emboldened statists to make declaratory judgments that are not subject to constitutional review by the Supreme Court of the United States of America whose chief justice he has been since September 25, 2005.

It is now time to return to the Roberts decision:

Because people may be infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect others. The Order places temporary numerical restrictions on public gatherings to address this extraordinary health emergency. State guidelines currently limit attendance at places of worship to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees. Applicants seek to enjoin enforcement of the Order. “Such a request demands a significantly higher justification than a request for a stay because, unlike a stay, an injunction does not simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts.” Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 562 U. S. 996 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). This 2 SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM ROBERTS, C. J., concurring power is used where “the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear” and, even then, “sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.” S. Shapiro, K. Geller, T. Bishop, E. Hartnett & D. Himmelfarb, Supreme Court Practice §17.4, p. 17-9 (11th ed. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases). Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods. The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 545 (1985). That is especially true where, as here, a party seeks Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 ROBERTS, C. J., concurring emergency relief in an interlocutory posture, while local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground. The notion that it is “indisputably clear” that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable. (South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newson, May 29, 2020.)

Final Interjection:

Fact intensive?

What facts?

Whose facts?

Certainly not the facts as even the Indian government’s public health agency has been honest enough to put the United States Centers for Disease Control on a blacklist because of its secret funding of a BSL-4 laboratory in Manipal, India, that, by definition C.D.C. officials hid from their counterparts in India even though Anthony Fauci of the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases worked very closely with the BSL-4 in Wuhan, Red China:

India has asked the American frontline public health agency, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop funding virus research studies in the country. CDC was caught funding Karnataka’s Manipal Center for Virus Research (MCVR) for secretly carrying out research on the lethal Nipah virus – a pathogen considered potential bioweapon. The fact that an under-qualified private laboratory was secretly handling a dangerous virus under government’s nose at the behest of a foreign agency has raised major concerns within the health ministry apparatus.

The matter is more complicated with the fact that the CDC has a checkered history in India. The Indian defense establishment believes that the CDC was involved in the plague outbreak in the western Indian city of Surat in 1994, which they consider to be a case of bioterrorism. Earlier in February this year the Indian government launched an investigation into another secret research being conducted on bat hunters in the eastern Indian state of Nagaland, funded by the US Department of Defense in collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

A $3.6 million donation from Atlanta-based US health agency CDC to Indian research agencies for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic has been put on hold by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The CDC has been placed on the watchlist since December 2019 for its involvement in funding virus research without government’s approval.

The Nipah research fiasco that came into light in October last year was the primary reason behind the MHA decision. As of now, any funding or donation from the U.S government body CDC would be first cleared by the MHA itself. They can no longer send funds directly to any government or private institution in India without MHA’s clearance.

In October 2019, Hindustan Times reported that the Union health ministry wrote to both CDC and Manipal Center for Virus Research, ordering them to shut down the study related to Nipah virus that belongs to Risk Group 4 (RG4) classification. The RG4 viruses are considered highly dangerous and have no treatment or vaccine. They can only be tested in BSL4 lab which is the highest level of biological safety. The health ministry was upset that a study related to high risk pathogens like Nipah was being carried out at MCVR which is BSL2+ level facility. . . .

What’s more alarming was that two of the 12 researchers belonged to the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Department of Emerging Infectious Diseases – the same institute from where COVID-19 outbreak is believed to have originated. The Nagaland study was funded by the United States Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction agency (DTRA).

The results of the study were published in October last year in the PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases journal, originally established by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

To conduct a high-risk study in India, they would have needed special permissions from the Indian authorities which was not sought by the parties involved in the study. The fact that scientists from foreign countries were allowed to handle live samples of bats and bat hunters without permission prompted Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to send a five-member committee to investigate the matter.

Even before the coronavirus outbreak, a number of controversial studies were being carried out at China’s Wuhan lab under the patronage of United States’ National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of the studies is the gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses which involves mutating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans.

The gain-of-function research has been widely criticized by the scientists around the world due to the risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.

However, last year the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research. A total of $7.5 million of American tax dollars have been spent since 2014 for conducting GoF studies. (India Blacklists CDC for Secretly Funding Biological Weapons Research.)

These facts will go continue unreferenced by John Glover Roberts, who has now joined himself at the hip with hard-core legal positivists of the false opposite of the naturalist “left,” with whom he will vote to strike down a State of Louisiana law, the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, that was passed in 2014 that requires those who kill preborn babies surgically to have the right to admit patients to hospitals within thirty miles of their bloody practice if their executions go awry and injure both the mother and the child (see, for example, June Medical Services v. Russo Analysis on Justices Grapple with Louisiana Abortion Law) in a case, June Medical Services v. Russo, that was argued on March 4, 2020. Obviously, the fact that nine grown human beings with law degrees who have been confirmed to sit on a nation’s highest court of judicial review found themselves arguing about a baby-butcher  without hospital admitting rights is less qualified to protect the “health” of mothers who have made the immoral “choice,” granted them under the cover of the civil law, to kill their  own children than those with such rights is yet another instance of the absolute absurdity of what must happen in a nation whose government’s founding document admits no higher law than that the word of its text as men arguable about things that are inarguable. (See the Appendix below for a review of John Glover Roberts’s comments about Roe v. Wade during his United States Senate confirmation hearings in 2005.)

Roberts’s decision in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom is thus very standard fare for a man who twisted himself into pretzel to justify the imposition of a fine, enforceable by the Internal Revenue Service of the United States Department of the Treasury in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act even though the Constitution of the United States of America specified that a proposal to raise revenue must originate in the United States House of Representatives:

John Glover Roberts has a great respect of legal precedent that has no standing in the eyes of God, and it must be remembered as well that he has little regard for the Constitution itself when it means that an unconstitutional “goody” created by Congress would be overturned. This is what did when Roberts deliberately rewrote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to uphold its nonexistent constitutionality because he wanted to show “deference” to then President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s only legislative “achievement” in his first term, which is why he shifted his vote against the act’s constitutionality and then wrote the Court’s opinion in the case of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., June 28, 2012, that was so full of tortured reasoning and fallacies that even the “moderate” (no one who supports baby-killing or perversity under the cover of law, is a “moderate”) Anthony McLeod Kennedy found without any constitutional or legal merit:

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.

The Court regards its strained statutory interpretationas judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision. 

The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.

The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent. (Minority Opinion, at pages 64-65 of opinion, page 190-191 of the full .pdf.)

John Glover Roberts is thus fully capable of twisting himself into a constitutional pretzel to “uphold” Roe v. Wade. Those who are concerned about “results” rather than even any kind of the truth on the natural level wind up making up their rationalizations on a case-by-case basis without any regard for consistency. This has been made possible by triumph of positivism (the belief that something is so because it has been asserted as such), one of the many consequences of Martin Luther’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, and this is exactly what happened in the case of South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom.

The public worship of God is the first duty of a civil state, something that is privatized in the United States of America in the name of religious indifferentism in the Constitution’s First Amendment. All kingdoms, empires, principalities, and other state entities had some form of public pietas, a cult of public worship that held subjects together. Even pagan peoples had such a pietas, albeit false, but the United States of America was the first nation in the history of the world to make of religious exercise a purely private and personal matter was bound to lead inevitably to practical atheism as the lowest common denominator of social intercourse and legal jurisprudence, and it is a short step from there to the equating of commercial activities to those of religious exercise during the current plandemic.

Writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, Pope Leo XIII explained that nations that take no account of the true religion must descend to the point of practical atheism that places unbelief on a level of equality with any kind of religious belief, including that of the true religion, Catholicism:

31. The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.  (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

We see all manner of public disturbances hanging over our heads now as genuflections are made by a five-justice majority on the Supreme Court of the United States of America to the high priests and priestesses of the medical industry who have propagated the myth of “brain death” in order to make human vivisection an ordinary event in the American deathcare indstry, the “necessity” of both contraception and chemical baby-killing as an essential component of “women’s healthcare,” the provision of “palliative” in the false slogans of “mercy” and “death with dignity,” the starvation and dehydration of patients who are said to be in an irreversible coma and/or in a “persistent vegetative state” and the wanton use of vaccines that are unsafe and result in many permanent injuries and deaths. John Glover Roberts has, in effect, told us that the Supreme Court of the Unnitd States of America will not interfere with any state government and/or the Federal government issued mandates requiring all Americans to receive a vaccination for the China/Wuhan/Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus as the Court will uphold these as “constitutional” given their supposed “necessities” for “public health.

Even the dissenting opinion written by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the case of South Bay United Pentecost Church v. Gavin Newsom that took issue with the Chief Justice’s reasoning was premised upon the acceptance of a “compelling necessity” to justify the State of California’s lockdown, arguing only that religious exercise cannot be equated with commercial activities:

California has ample options that would allow it to combat the spread of COVID–19 without discriminating against religion. The State could “insist that the congregants adhere to social-distancing and other health requirements and leave it at that—just as the Governor has done for comparable secular activities.” Id., at 415. Or alternatively, the State could impose reasonable occupancy caps across the board. But absent a compelling justification (which the State has not offered), the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship. The State also has substantial room to draw lines, especially in an emergency. But as relevant here, the Constitution imposes one key restriction on that line-drawing: The State may not discriminate against religion. In sum, California’s 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion, and such discrimination violates the First Amendment. See Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U. S. 1312 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers). The Church would suffer irreparable harm from not being able to hold services on Pentecost Sunday in a way that comparable secular businesses and persons can conduct their activities. I would therefore grant the Church’s request for a temporary injunction. I respectfully dissent. (South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newson, May 29, 2020.)

Although Justice Kavanaugh meant well, he is, after all, a complete creature of conciliarism and does not realize that citizens have a positive obligation to resist unjust laws. The mandatory closures of Catholic churches in a “pandemic” that was exploited by the Red Chinese authorities once the coronavirus escaped from the BSL-4 in Wuhan  in cooperation with the World Health Organization to impose Chicom-like restrictions on legitimate human liberties throughout the so-called “free world” are unjust of their very nature and must be resisted with prayer and by treating such laws with the contempt and disrespect that they deserve as they are as manifestly unjust as requiring us to offer grains of incense to the false gods.

Pope Leo XIII explained the necessary distinctions that have been lost on so many Catholics, including some true priests and presbyters, when he wrote the following in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

We must repel the attacks of unbelievers, and thus the ready surrender of so many Catholics all across and up and down the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divine during this time of apostasy and betrayal to civil authorities who are agents, whether witting or unwitting, in paving the way for the coming of Antichrist does not auger as the evil one finally does become manifest and sets himself upon his seat of power.

We must use our reason to make the distinctions between truth and falsehood, between facts and misrepresentations, between light and darkness, between civil mandates that compel our obedience under pain of sin and those that must be defied and denounce with all the vigor that we can muster by means of the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood  of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

We Are Not “On Our Own”

A former Assistant United States Attorney for the United States District of Southern New York, Andrew C. McCarthy, whose work has been cited about a score of times on this website, wrote a column on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom that closed with the following observation:

There is no recognition, in Roberts’ rendering, that there is another side to this equation — a side where 400 times the number of people who’ve died have lost their jobs, millions of them facing ruin. The stubborn message: Don’t expect the court to help you, you’re the ones who elected these people; if you don’t like what they do, un-elect them. If you’ve elected social engineers who say the Bill of Rights is above their pay grade, that’s your problem.

The justices are happy to order that abortion must be available, to decide which couples (or perhaps throuples) must be permitted to marry, and to dictate what’s ever next in the ceaseless march of progressive, organic “liberty.” But as for the liberties that are actually in the Constitution, we are on our own. (It Wasn't Just Religious Liberty that Chief Justice Roberts Strangled.)

Mr. McCarthy, who has been very good, after first giving Robert Mueller the benefit of the doubt three years ago, in dissecting the continuing Deep State coup against President Donald John Trump, who has aided and abetted his enemies by his ignorance of the American constitutional system before he took office and by selecting Cabinet and sub-Cabinet members who loathed him and his agenda when they served under him and who are now creating a gigantic smokescreen of criticism to deflect attention on the efforts of the mobster from Hawaii by way of Chicago, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero, and the boss’s underbosses to thwart his election and then, failing that, to undermine his administration at every turn in full cooperation with the members of mainslime media and the Fifth Columnists of judicial totalitarians who have cooperated with the coup plotters, does not understand that a civil state constituted with a confessional recognition of the Catholic Church as its official religion would never undertake the mandatory closures of Catholic churches because civil leaders would recognize the absolutely importance of providing their citizens with the supernatural helps that they need to be fortified in a time of a genuine public health emergency and with the full understanding that the Holy Eucharist is a remedy for the whole of a man, both soul and body. The leaders of a civil state that recognized the Social Reign of Christ the King would thus know that the true necessity in any time of genuine crisis to having access to the Most Blessed Sacrament and of public devotion, including Rosary processions, to the August Queen of Heaven, Sovereign Mistress of the Angels, who made our salvation possible by her perfect fiat to God the Father’s Holy Will for her at the Annunciation and is our Perpetual Help, Help of Christians, Health of the Sick and Comforter of the Afflicted. The conflicts and absurdities we are seeing at this time are the direct result of Martin Luther’s overthrow of the Social Reign of the Christ the King and thus of the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church. "Religious liberty" leads ultimately to the death of liberty for all except those who any all religion, no less the true religion, Catholicism.

Although we may be “on our own” politically and legally as this country deteriorates more and more into the abyss from which, barring a miracle of supernatural grace, if not Divine intervention itself, it will never recover, we are never “on our own” when it comes to preparing ourselves to face the situation that obtains now with Catholic fortitude as we recognize that the good God has ordained from all eternity for us to live in these difficult times when the forces of both the civil state and those of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are converging to try to make it impossible to proclaim the truths of the true Faith, Catholicism pure and unalloyed, lest one be branded a “bigot” or a “hater” or a “racist” or an “anti-Semite” or “homophobe” or a Pharisaical “zealot.” The ineffable graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the King of men and their nations whether or not they recognize and accept Him as their Divine Redeemer and King Whose Most Sacred Heart beats with love for us all in the Most Blessed Sacrament day and night, are sufficient for us to not only endure but to prosper under the crosses that He has appointed us to bear as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We are not Pelagians.

We are not rationalists.

We are not deists.

We are not “conservatives” or “liberals.”

We are Catholics, which means that we accept the realities that face us with neither fear nor despair as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins that have worsened the state of the world-at-large and of the Church Militant here in this passing, mortal vale tears far, far more than we would like to admit, and perhaps even far, far more than we will ever understand as Our Lord, in His Divine Mercy, understands that we would probably die if we came face to face with the unfathomable harm we have done to ourselves, to others, to the world and to Holy Mother Church because of our sinful thoughts, words, deeds and cowardly acts of omission. We have created to enjoy the glories of Heaven for all eternity, but there is no other path to those glories than by bearing each of the crosses appointed unto us with joy, love and fervent prayers of thanksgiving that we are being given gratuitous opportunities to save our souls, make reparation for our sins and to pray for our own daily conversion away from our sins and worldliness as seek the conversion those who have fallen away from the Holy Faith and for the conversion of those outside the bosom of Holy Mother Church to do so before they die.

We must bear the cross.

We must love the cross, and we must never become agitated or grow despondent in the midst of circumstances for which there is not and never can be any “naturalistic” solution as they have arisen from the sins of men who seek protect their sinful lives under the cover of the civil law and celebrate them in “popular culture” while ostentatiously breaking each of the Ten Commandments, including the Seventh Commandment (“Thou shalt not steal”) as is happening now as pluralism goes up in flames.

The Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus is but a week away from today. It is thus good to consider these words contained in Pope Pius XI’s Caritate Christi Compulsi, May 3, 1932:

Lamenting this unhappy state of things from our innermost heart, We are compelled as by a certain necessity to express, according to our weakness, the same words that came from the love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, crying out in like manner: "I have compassion on the multitude" (Mark viii. 2). But, indeed, the root itself from which this most unhappy state of things arises is yet more to be lamented; for if that judgment of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed by the Apostle St. Paul, "the desire of money is the root of all evils," was always in close agreement with the facts, this is more than ever true at the present time. For is not that avidity for perishable goods which was justly and rightly mocked, even by a heathen poet as the execrable hunger of gold, "auri sacra fames"; is not that sordid seeking for each one's own benefit, which is very often the only motive by which bonds between either individuals or societies are instituted; and, lastly, is not this cupidity, by whatsoever name or style it is called, the chief reason why we now see, to our sorrow, that mankind is brought to its present critical condition? For it is from this that come the first shoots of a mutual suspicion which saps the strength of any human commerce; hence come the sparks of an envy which accounts the goods of others a loss to itself; hence comes that sordid and excessive self-love which orders and subordinates all things to its own advantage, and not only neglects but tramples upon the advantage of others; and, lastly, hence come the iniquitous disturbance of affairs and the unequal division of "possessions, as a result of which the wealth of nations is heaped up in the hands of a very few private men, who -- as We warned you last year, in Our Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno -- control the trade of the whole world at their will, thereby doing immense harm to the people.

4. Now if this excessive love of self and of one's own, by an abuse of the legitimate care for our country and an undue exaltation of the feelings of piety towards our own people (which piety is not condemned but hallowed and strengthened by the right order of Christian charity) encroaches on the mutual relations and the ties between peoples, there is hardly anything so abnormal that it will not be regarded as free from fault; so that the same deed which would be condemned by the judgment of all when it is done by private individuals, is held to be honest and worthy of praise when it is done for the love of the country. In this way, a hatred, which must needs be fatal to all, supplants the Divine law of brotherly love which bound all nations and peoples into one family under one Father who is in Heaven; in the administration of public affairs the Divine laws, which are the standard of all civic life and culture, are trampled under foot; the firm foundations of right and faith, on which the commonwealth rests, are overturned; and, lastly, men corrupt and obliterate the principles handed down by their ancestors, according to which the worship of God and the strict observance of His law form the finest flower and the safest pillar of the state. Furthermore -- and this may be called the most perilous of all these evils -- the enemies of all order, whether they be called Communists or by some other name, exaggerating the very grave straits of the economic crisis, in this great perturbation of morals, with extreme audacity, direct all their efforts to one end, seeking to cast away every bridle from their necks, and breaking the bonds of all law both human and divine, wage an atrocious war against all religion and against God Himself; in this it is their purpose to uproot utterly all knowledge and sense of religion from the minds of men, even from the tenderest age, for they know well that if once the Divine law and knowledge were blotted out from the minds of men there would now be nothing that they could not arrogate to themselves. And thus we now see with our own eyes -- what we have not read of as happening anywhere before -- impious men, agitated by unspeakable fury, shamelessly liking up a banner against God and against all religion throughout the whole world.

5. It is true, indeed, that wicked men were never wanting, nor men who denied the existence of God; but these last were very few in number, and, being alone and singular, they either feared to express their evil mind openly, or thought it inopportune to do so. The Psalmist, inspired by the Divine Spirit, seems to hint this in those words: "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God" (Ps. xiii. 1, lii. 1); as though he showed us such an impious man, as one solitary in a multitude, denying that God his Maker exists, but shutting up this sin in his innermost mind. But in this age of ours, this most pernicious error is now propagated far and wide amid the multitude, it is insinuated even in the popular schools, and shows itself openly in the theaters; and in order that it may be spread abroad as far as possible, its advocates seek aid from the latest inventions, from what are called cinematographic scenes, from gramophonic and radiophonic concerts and discourses; and possessed of printing offices of their own, they print books in all languages, and, taking a triumphant course, they publicly display the monuments and documents of their impiety. Nor is this enough; for dispersed among political, economical and military parties, and closely associated with them, through their heralds, by means of committees, by pictures and leaflets, and all other possible means, they labor diligently in the evil work of spreading their opinions among all classes and societies, and in the public ways; and to carry this further, supported by the authority and work of their universities, they succeed at last by forceful industry in binding fast those who have incautiously allowed themselves to be aggregated to their body. When We consider all this careful labor devoted to the advantage of an unlawful cause, that most sad complaint of Christ our Lord spontaneously rises in our mind and on our lips: "The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light" (Luke xvi. 8).

6. Now, the leaders and authors of this iniquitous faction do all they can to turn the present distress and need of all things to their own purpose; and they seek, by infamous cavils, to persuade the people that God and religion are to blame as the cause of all these great evils; and that the sacred Cross of Christ our Savior itself, the ensign of poverty and humility, may be compared with the ensigns of the modern lust of domineering; as though, forsooth, religion was joined in friendly union with those conventicles of darkness which have brought such an immense mass of misery upon the whole world. And by this line of argument they strive, not without fatal effect, to mix up the struggle for daily food, the desire to possess a smallholding, to have a fair wage, an honorable home and, lastly, those conditions of life that are not unworthy of a man, with their iniquitous war against God. It may be added that these same men, going beyond all measure, treat alike the legitimate appetites of nature and its unbridled lusts, so long as this seems to favor their impious plans and institutions; as though the eternal laws promulgated by God were in conflict with man's happiness, whereas they create it and preserve it; or as if the power of man, however much it may be augmented by the latest inventions of art, could prevail against the most mighty will of God the Best and Greatest and give to the world a new and a better order.

7. And now, indeed, which is much to be lamented, immense multitudes of men, having completely lost touch with the truth, adopt these delusions, and believing that they are fighting for livelihood and culture utter violent invectives against God and against religion. Nor is this directed against the Catholic religion alone. For it is against all those that acknowledge God as the Author of this visible world, and as the Supreme Ruler of all things. Moreover, the Secret Societies, which by their nature are ever ready to help the enemies of God and of the Church -- be these who they may -- are seeking to add fresh fires to this poisonous hatred, from which there comes no peace or happiness of the civil order, but the certain ruin of states.

8. In this wise, this new form of impiety, while it removes all checks from the most powerful lusts of man, most impudently proclaims that there will be no peace and no happiness on earth until the last vestige of religion has been uprooted, and the last of its followers beheaded -- as though they thought that the wondrous concert wherein all created things "show forth the glory of God" (cf. Ps. xviii. 2) could ever be reduced to everlasting silence. (Pope Pius XI, Caritate Christi Compulsi, May 3, 1932.)

Does it not seem as though Pope Pius XI was writing to us in our present day, eighty-eight years after he issued Cartiate Christi Compulsi?

Pope Pius XI’s words were written at the height of the Great Depression, and the statism that emerged triumphant throughout the former countries of Christendom and elsewhere, including here in the United States of America, after World War II has led to the greatest depression of all: the poverty of the spirit, a poverty that can be found in the midst of the world, governed as it is by elected tyrants who have contempt for the laws of God and men, and in the midst of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is governed by truly heartless, cruel men who distort everything in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and thus mock Christ the King while leading men further and further into the abyss by reaffirming them in their lives of utter debauchery.

There is, however, a remedy at hand for cruelty and hatred at work in the world, and that remedy is be found by making reparation to the very fountain of Divine mercy, the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, which Pope Pius XI explained in Caritate Christi Compulsi:

31. Let, therefore, this year the Feast of the Sacred Heart be for the whole Church one of holy rivalry of reparation and supplication. Let the faithful hasten in large numbers to the eucharistic board, hasten to the foot of the altar to adore the Redeemer of the world, under the veils of the Sacrament, that you, Venerable Brethren, will have solemnly exposed that day in all churches, let them pour out to that Merciful Heart that has known all the griefs of the human heart, the fullness of their sorrow, the steadfastness of their faith, the trust of their hope, the ardor of their charity. Let them pray to Him, interposing likewise the powerful patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all graces, for themselves and for their families, for their country, for the Church; let them pray to Him for the Vicar of Christ on earth and for all the other Pastors, who share with him the dread burden of the spiritual government of souls; let them pray for their brethren who believe, for their brethren who err, for unbelievers, for infidels, even for the enemies of God and the Church, that they may be converted, and let them pray for the whole of poor mankind.

32. Let this spirit of prayer and reparation be maintained with keen earnestness and intensity by all the faithful during the entire octave, to which dignity it has pleased Us to raise this feast; and during this octave, in the manner that each of you, Venerable Brethren, according to local circumstances, shall think opportune to prescribe or counsel, let there be public prayers and other devout exercises of piety, for the intentions We have briefly touched on above, "that we may obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid." (Hebr. iv. 16.)

33. May this be indeed for the whole Christian people an octave of reparation and of holy austerity; let these be days of mortification and of prayer. Let the faithful abstain at least from entertainments and amusements however lawful; let those who are in easier circumstances deduct also something voluntarily, in the spirit of Christian renunciation from the moderate measure of their usual manner of life bestowing rather on the poor the proceeds of this retrenchment, since almsgiving is also an excellent means of satisfying divine Justice and drawing down divine mercies. And let the poor, and all those who at this time are facing the hard trial of unemployment and scarcity of food, let them in a like spirit of penance offer with greater resignation the privations imposed on them by these hard times and the state of society, which divine Providence in its inscrutable but ever-loving plan has assigned them. Let them accept with a humble and trustful heart from the hand of God the effects of poverty, rendered harder by the distress in which mankind is now struggling; let them rise more generously even to the divine sublimity of the Cross of Christ, reflecting on the fact, that if work is among the greatest values of life, it was nevertheless love of a suffering God that saved the world; let them take comfort in the certainty that their sacrifices and their trials borne in a Christian spirit will concur efficaciously to hasten the hour of mercy and peace.

34. The divine Heart of Jesus cannot but be moved at the prayers and sacrifices of His Church, and He will finally say to His Spouse, weeping at His feet under the weight of so many griefs and woes: "Great is thy faith; be it done to thee as thou wilt." (Matth. xv. 28.)  (Pope Pius XI, Caritate Christi Compulsi, May 3, 1932.)

This is a message for our day as well, is it not?

Yes, we must do penance for how we have grieved the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus by our sins.

We must do penance for our indifferences to the life-giving stream of Water and Blood that continues to flow forth from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is indeed the Mediatrix of All Grace.

We must do penance for the many times we have been distracted or rush in our prayers, for the many times we have been “too busy” to pray, to immersed in the agitation of the world to think in supernatural terms and to spend more time in prayer rather than “surfing” the internet to find the latest source of agitation and angst.

Our Lord Himself wants to enfold us in the tender mercies of His Most Sacred Heart as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Sin is far, far more deadly than the coronavirus, but, no, we are not "on our own" supernaturally.

However, without the remedies provided by the Most Holy Eucharist, the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary we will caught up in the agitation the adversary seeks to stir up in our souls because of the present injustices and violence against all that is true and thus do us no good here in this life and quite possibly for all eternity.

We must see ourselves and every circumstance of our lives and that of the world around us through the eyes of the Holy Faith as we remain reliant upon confident in—but never presumptuous of—the merciful help of Our Lady, Queen of Mercy, especially through her Most Holy Rosary.

Heaven awaits our response.

What are we waiting for?

Appendix

The Confirmation Hearings of John Roberts, 2005

(From Confirmations of a Different Sort, 2018)

This is so because Opus Dei's own John Glover Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, has shown that he has a greater regard for the Court’s wrongly-decided legal precedents and for the political realities of the day than he does for the constitutionality of legislative enactments or for any concept of moral truth that exists beyond the “will of the people” to manipulate.

Roberts said in his opening statement before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary during his confirmation hearings to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

Mr. Chairman, I come before the Committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes. I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat. (Roberts Confirmation Hearing.)

A Catholic is not to have any kind of “open mind” about moral right and wrong. Well, I will correct myself: no believing Catholic has such an “open mind.” John Glover Roberts is a Catholic after the apostate mind and heart of an Argentinian heretic named Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

Here is what the then Judge Roberts said in specific terms about Roe v. Wade during his confirmation hearings before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, then chaired by the pro-abortion, pro-perversity, anti-Catholic thirty-third degree Freemason named Arlen Specter (D-R-D, Pennsylvania), who asked Roberts whether he considered Roe v. Wade as “settled law”:

Chairman SPECTER. When you and I met on our first so-called courtesy call, I discussed with you the concept of a super-stare decisis. And this was a phrase used by Circuit Judge Luttig in Richmond Medical Center v. Governor Gilmore in the year 2000, when he refers to Casey being a super-stare decisis decision with respect to the fundamental right to choose, and a number of the academics—Professor Farber has talked about super-stare decisis, and Professor Estrich has, as it applies to statutory lines. Do you think that the cases which have followed Roe fall into the category of a super-stare decisis designation?

Judge ROBERTS. Well, it’s a term that hasn’t found its way into the Supreme Court opinions yet. I think—

Chairman SPECTER. Well, there is an opportunity for that. [Laughter.]

Judge ROBERTS. I think one way to look at it is that the Casey decision itself, which applied the principles of stare decisis to Roe v. Wade, is itself a precedent of the Court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And that would be the body of law that any judge confronting an issue in his care would begin with, not simply the decision in Roe v. Wade but its reaffirmation in the Casey decision. That is itself a precedent. It’s a precedent on whether or not to revisit the Roe v. Wade precedent. And under principles of stare decisis, that would be where any judge considering the issue in this area would begin.

Chairman SPECTER. When you and I talked informally, I asked you if you had any thought as to how many opportunities there were in the intervening 32 years for Roe to be overruled, and you said you did not really know, and you cited a number. And I said, ‘‘Would it surprise you to know that there have been 38 occasions where Roe has been taken up, not with a specific issue raised but all with an opportunity for Roe to be overruled?’’ One of them was Rust v. Sullivan, where you participated in the writing of the brief, and although the case did not squarely raise the overruling of Roe, it involved the issue of whether Planned Parenthood units funded with Federal money could counsel on abortion. And in that brief, you again raised the question about Roe being wrongly decided, and then I pointed out to you that there had been some 38 cases where the Court had taken up Roe. I am very seldom a user of charts, but on this one I prepared a chart because it speaks—a little too heavy to lift, but it speaks louder than just—thank you, Senator Grassley. Thirty-eight cases where Roe has been taken up, and I don’t want to coin any phrases on super precedents. We will leave that to the Supreme Court. But would you think that Roe might be a super-duper precedent in light— [Laughter.]

Chairman SPECTER.—of 38 occasions to overrule it?

Judge ROBERTS. The interesting thing, of course, is not simply the opportunity to address it, but when the Court actually considers the question. And that, of course, is in the Casey decision where it did apply the principles of stare decisis and specifically addressed it. And that I think is the decision that any judge in this area would begin with.

Chairman SPECTER. Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for circuit court, your testimony read to this effect, and it has been widely quoted: ‘‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?

Judge ROBERTS. Well, beyond that, it’s settled as a precedent of the Court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes.

Chairman SPECTER. You went on then to say, ‘‘It’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision.’’ So it has that added precedential value.

Judge ROBERTS. I think the initial question the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don’t go straight to the Roe decision; you begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding.

Chairman SPECTER. And you went on to say, ‘‘Accordingly, it is the settled law of the land,’’ using the term ‘‘settled’’ again. Then your final statement as to this quotation, ‘‘There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying the precedent as well as Casey.’’ There had been a question raised about your personal views, and let me digress from Roe for just a moment because I think this touches on an issue which ought to be settled. When you talk about your personal views, and as they may relate to your own faith, would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by John Kennedy when he was a candidate and he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960, ‘‘I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me’’?

Judge ROBERTS. I agree with that, Senator, yes.

Chairman SPECTER. And did you have that in mind when you said, ‘‘There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying the precedent as well as Casey’’?

Judge ROBERTS. Well, I think people’s personal views on this issue derive from a number of sources, and there’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedents of the Court faithfully under principles of stare decisis. (Roberts Confirmation Hearing.)

Although there are very few people left as readers of this site—and fewer each month are those who support it financially (!), let me reiterate the fact that the influence of then United States Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s statement, quoted by Arlen Specter thirteen years ago, on succeeding generations of Catholics in public life, which is contradiction to a Catholic’s baptismal obligations that were summarized by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

The rest of this article can be found at Confirmations of a Different Sort.