Search This Blog

Friday, May 29, 2020

Which is more unstable, China or the U.S.

President Trump has lambasted China in his speech about pulling out from the World Health Organization. Tensions are high with the ChiComs. Many suspect war. And revolution. Though with the racial troubles in the U.S. some expect a revolution in the U.S. rather than authoritarian China.

If a war comes, or a revolution, even, how would such affect the U.S.? Which of the two is likely to lose this version of "the Great Game" as the English used to call their rivalry in Central Asia with Imperial Russia. Many think the U.S. – and the Chinese leaders certainly think so – that the U.S. is a hopeless mongrel state and like to fall apart quite readily.


Maybe. Maybe not. We're a powder keg because of the Communists and their long-march through our institutions, and because we're a multi-racial society and that's just next to impossible to "de-powder keg" in the first place.

China, though, is a powder keg in that its core Han Chinese population, racist like few of us here can imagine, is under every imaginable pressure: their government is a kleptocracy unanswerable to any one (ours mirrors this, but we're far down the corruption totem pole compared to them), their government is staffed by thugs who rise to power not on competence but connections. Their government has forced the killings of 10s of millions -- maybe 100s of millions -- of babies, forcing a "One-Child Policy" that has left not only a completely unbalanced male to female population, but devastating psychological scars on just about everyone in the country. Even their physical health is shaky, and their environment massively polluted. Their "Capitalist" system is pure crony, and they hide the true state of their economy. Their real-estate and banking is very shaky. Their manufacturing depends on the goodwill of foreigners (especially the U.S.) whom they keep offending and insulting. They're loathed by the minorities in China and they've no friends outside their borders, except their pet slave, N. Korea. And to cap it all, they're just barely feeding themselves. A war or revolution of any sort will result in mass Chinese starvation.

So, all in all, I wouldn't trade places with them.

An Préachan

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

The March of the Mucus Zombies

Amici, 

Regarding the mandatory wearing of face masks, especially as the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the resulting COVID-19 dies down:

There's a lot of folk with mental health issues who just cannot wear a mask. It is impossible for them. It puts them under tremendous stress, which by itself makes breathing difficult. My wife is like that. Wearing a mask makes her choke, or it is as though she has serious asthma and can't breath. A whole slew of people with a wide range of mental health issues, from minor to major, just can't manage the mask. (And that's only in terms of wearing one; looking at them is another matter, discussed below.) Then there's the actual asthmatics and others who have breathing troubles. I have COPD, and I notice that if I am wearing a mask (as on a bus or in a grocery) there's a definite limit to how long I can wear it without  gagging. 

Meanwhile, on top of all that, there's the constant monstrous image of people in masks. Masks were worn in pandemics in previous times, ones with long noses, etc., and they were hideous. World War I gas masks are hideous. Such masks look like skulls, or demons. All this is in the subconscious, of course, but it starts bubbling up. My wife pointed out to me that people in this various Covid masks look like they have huge blobs of mucus hanging from their faces, white mucus or blue. What an image! Then there's the black masks, like Biden the Demented wore over Memorial Weekend. He looked like a walking corpse; one just knows that if one pulls his mask off, his lower face will be a hideously grinning skeleton.

For the mental healthy (to the extent such exist, certainly none of us is spiritually healthy), none of this is obvious; but to those of use with an over-vivid imagination, we're walking about in a world of mucus-globbed zombies. The ghost of H.P. Lovecraft must be having a field day.

An Préachán

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Writer Meg Greenfield on why she chose St. Mary Magdelene as her patron saint

Amici,
A most excellent and expressive – not to mention a very personal, indeed – essay by a first-rate writer on St. Mary Magdelene, and why the author chose her as her patron saint. This article was published a year ago at OnePeterFive. Just perfecto.
(Of course, some holier-than-though types take offence, if you read the Comments. Such will always be with us.)
An excerpt (but do yourself a favor and read the whole thing):
You loved Him for it, this man; the man you loved after all other men, the man you loved before all other men. You loved Him for telling you to stop surrendering to it all. You loved the man who would never be your lover more than you had ever loved any other man, and He saved you for it. You loved him all the more.
Christ gave you the gift of His divine grace and completely transformed you. He gave the generations to follow, sinners like me, the gift of your example. He gave us the story of you, the woman with all the demons, to teach us of His infinite mercy. To show us that no matter how wicked we are, we can be saved through Him, and with Him, and in Him.
To be totally honest with you, I get a little jealous of that. I wish that Christ would let my life be the lesson sometimes. That I could teach a little more and learn a little less.
I get jealous because I keep doing it again, Mary Magdalene, and you didn’t. I might bear your name, in spirit, as an alter Magdalene, but I am not worthy of this name, so beautiful and triumphant. I know that you went and sinned no more; you did penance and amended your life. But I keep doing it again, even though he commands me not to. I am contrite, and I am full of sorrow for offending our God. But our God didn’t give you this German soul of fire and this Irish spirit of gasoline. Talk about a hypostatic union.
Sometimes, I think that maybe if I didn’t have these kids, as you didn’t, and I didn’t have this mortgage and this Mormon husband, as you didn’t, and if I didn’t have these two coonhounds and these student loans, completely unlike you, that maybe when He judged me, maybe I could be a saint, too. Maybe even I could be a saint if all I had to do was to sit and listen to Jesus all day.
You listened to Him, and you learned from Him, and you followed Him. You wept for your Lord because you knew of His horrifying destiny. You washed His holy feet with your tears, with so many tears. You wiped those holy feet with your hair, with all that hair. You anointed those holy feet with that perfume, with all of that expensive perfume. You showed Him great love, and your sins were forgiven. For the love of God, the forgiveness of sins. By the love of God, the forgiveness of sins.

Monday, May 25, 2020

Fmr Israel Health Minister "‘Nothing can justify this destruction of people’s lives"

Amici,

Of your courtesy, please pass this interview linked to below on to everyone you know. Many important points are made, but very interesting indeed is the insight of this: "It is the first epidemic in history which is accompanied by another epidemic – the virus of the social networks. These new media have brainwashed entire populations. What you get is fear and anxiety, and an inability to look at real data. And therefore you have all the ingredients for monstrous hysteria."


An excerpt:
Countries across the world have been in lockdown for months in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The costs of the policy are enormous – in terms of life, liberty and the economy. But is it worth it to save lives? Yoram Lass was once the director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Health. Lass is a staunch critic of the lockdown policy adopted in his native Israel and around the world. He has described our response to Covid-19 as a form of hysteria. spiked caught up with him to find out more.


spiked: You have described the global response to coronavirus as hysteria. Can you explain that?

Yoram Lass: It is the first epidemic in history which is accompanied by another epidemic – the virus of the social networks. These new media have brainwashed entire populations. What you get is fear and anxiety, and an inability to look at real data. And therefore you have all the ingredients for monstrous hysteria.

It is what is known in science as positive feedback or a snowball effect. The government is afraid of its constituents. Therefore, it implements draconian measures. The constituents look at the draconian measures and become even more hysterical. They feed each other and the snowball becomes larger and larger until you reach irrational territory. This is nothing more than a flu epidemic if you care to look at the numbers and the data, but people who are in a state of anxiety are blind. If I were making the decisions, I would try to give people the real numbers. And I would never destroy my country.

Saturday, May 23, 2020

We must practice "Subsidiarity" ourselves, if were to survive the demise of the Vatican II Church




Amici,

In a Comment here at OnePeterFive, a Commentator name "Michael" wrote an eloquent plea for help dealing with the insane, paradoxical current Church situation, wherein the pope is a heretic, and how do we be Catholics when the top hierarchy (and so much of the lower) is no longer Catholic in teaching or practice? I wrote the follow to Michael. 

You write an eloquent and pleading Comment, Michael, but I'll focus on one line of it: "It's a circle which cannot be squared."

Then don't.

Since Vatican I (yes, the Council in the 1860s, not the one in the 1960s), we've been – mainly because of technology, actually, the first TransAtlantic cable was laid before the U.S. Civil War – ever more and more under the Pope, directly under the pope, something the vast majority of Catholics never were historically. Popes were far off and only the final court of appeals capstone to a hierarchy that was mostly local and self-governing. Bishops were locally elected by Cathedral chapters (or appointed by religious orders, or by archbishops who were the pope's representative in far-flung nations, and even by secular kings). Popes picked archbishops, who sometimes were from Italy and personally known to the pontiff, though often they were local bishops elevated from Rome. They ran the Church locally, through their suffragan bishops, who in turn were much more like local archpriests and nothing like the modern never-seen corporate managers of today.

(This is the way it ought to be – must be! – again, though such reforms could only come after a total collapse of the existing order.)

So, in this specialized way, all the regional churches were in essence "national" -- though the concept of nation took longer to develop in France and Spain, say, than England, with Germany and Italy not being "nations" till the 19th century! So by "nation" I mean region, more or less. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was practicing "Subsidiarity", in other words, long before the concept itself was defined! The nature of long-distance communications made that a reality.

Then technology altered all that, what with world cable communications, and Pius IX began turning bishops, wherever they were in the world, into his local "secretaries". After Pio Nono, under the great Leo XIII, we got used to expecting a brilliant papal encyclical with breakfast, as one Englishman put it. But of course, it couldn't last. So much depended on the character of the pontiff. Great pontiffs made for great times universally, as they were basically our actual local pastors, thanks to technology. But along with that, a bad pope could bring utter disaster upon the world, as we've seen in spades.

Thus, were in the pickle we find ourselves in, Michael. Those of us who know the Faith need to practice "subsidiarity" ourselves, working locally as best we can to being true Christians, Eucharistic Christians, and making a difference in our own little circles. That's our place in the hierarchy. For now, at least.

RC

Friday, May 22, 2020

Who is behind the American Left? Soviets started it, ChiComs run it now, but the Freemasons probably started it

Judge Emmet Sullivan's insane judicial acts in the past week have garnered a lot of attention, and I rejoice to see the great Sidney Powell has gotten a quick response from the Appellate Court

But of course, the whole railroading/framing of General Flynn is only a part of a long-standing, deeply wide-ranging attack on the "American Right" or, as it actually is, the John Lockean "Classical Liberal" school of political thought that created the United States in the first place. 

From what does the Left come, though? Originally, as most political histories (political histories that aren't Leftist, of course) will teach that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the "father" of what has become Leftism. In some ways that's true. Rousseau was born in 1712 (in Geneva, Switzerland). If ever there was a seventh-century man, Jean-Jacques could be said to be it, as immoral as the Bourbons and as stupid, too. 

But in 1717 something else was born, and that organization was the real "power-that-was" in fashioning Leftism and Communism, or whatever form Socialism takes. I refer, of course, to Freemasonry.

Today, in the U.S., I suppose the ChiComs are behind a lot of the Left's antics. The Chinese Communist Party has bought up U.S. politicians like it has bought up industry, agriculture, and real estate  indeed, but beyond those obvious gambits that we talk about so much, it is probably true that a lot of "sleeper cells" of various sorts are being activated to do their mischief. The Soviets were famous for their "sleeper cells", of course; the Chinese are even more patient and "Long March" than the Soviets ever dreamed of being. In any event, originally, it would have been Russian Soviets directing all that back in the 1920s and esp, once FDR was in office, they pretty much controlled the new "Administrative State" he created. 

Joe McCarthy and Dick Nixon would later put a dent into all that in the '50s, but probably only a dent. (To the extent Nixon was successful, he gained the implacable hatred of the American media, which was only too happy to use Watergate to bring him down.) Jack Kennedy, for all his many, many faults, was at least a serious Cold Warrior (and close friend of McCarthy, BTW), and look what happened to Jack: taken out in an obvious KGB op that the government and media "powers-that-be" (as in Scotty Reston of the NY Times) hid in plain sight. About the over-all Communist game, Diana West has written extensively. She her American Betrayal, The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character.) 

Then, as the Russian Communists began to fade out, the ChiComs were only too glad take their place, ironically able to do so because of Nixon's "Opening" of China. Actually, we can thank both Nixon and Kissinger for this turn of events, but it was post Reagan presidents, Democrats (Clinton and Obama) and the Republican Bushes, who really made China's near total power in the world possible. The de-industrialization of the U.S. to the point that we didn't even make our medicines was not something that just happened, or followed naturally from unbridled Capitalism à la David Ricardo. It had to be planned, especially so as it happened so fast.

But behind all of the Leftists, whether Communist or Socialist, behind all the machinations, were the Freemasons. I know it has been made to sound "tinfoil hat" to bring them up, especially in the U.S., where they've been either not noticed at all, or made fun of, or perhaps the hospital Shriners, but in the 18th century they were an association of extremely influential elites, a truly trans-national organization in an age when the only other "trans-national" institution was the Roman Catholic Church! Freemasonry was contemporary to the rationalism of the 18th century, contemporary to the atheism (Deism) so fashionable in that century. 

From what I understand; i.e. they would later foster the whole Communist/Socialist ideal, from back in the days of Karl Marx on, for whatever Black Arts/Utopian reasons they had conjured up in the 18th century – but they certainly would have been the original "Globalists" and "New World Order" types. Consider it: they were the only "Globalists" in town, the only Global Idealists for a couple of hundred years; until the Bolsheviks seized Russia and broadcast their intention to spread Communism across the world, nobody else even thought of such an outlandish set of ideals involving all nations, the entire world.

Today? I don't know what, if any, role they might play today in all this. The Left might have, like Frankenstein's monster, taken on a life of its own (Lenin wasn't polite to the Masons in Russia!). It might well just be running on its own steam now, a perpetual motion machine – like Captain Kirk's Doomsday Machine in the Star Trek episode of the same name, a weapon set in motion eons ago in a war long forgotten, but still running, and still deadly.

An Préachán

Monday, May 18, 2020

What Is Science? Something that needs a specific metaphysical underpinning...

Science, science, science.

As we used to hear with Global Warming, "It's the science! The science is settled!"

Is that true? Currently, lots of fighting going on about "science" being bandied about, as here about Oregon

Oregon's governor, Kate Brown, said, "From the beginning of this crisis, I have worked within my authority, using science and data as my guide, heeding the advice of medical experts.'' 

Ah, but first off, the guv'ner had a 28-day window on how long she could impose restrictions, and she's exceeded that. The Oregon legislature has not extended that 28 days, but Oregon Supreme Court says, "Oh, no you don't." So chaos ensues, legally and morally.

(Personally, I suspect such issues will probably be decided by open rebellion. People are fed up with these Democrat Party Napoleons and things are going to get ugly. Or "government" may just wilt under the pressure. A good essay on the limits of government is here at the Conservative Treehouse.)

But the "science"...? Truth is, medical "experts" don't agree, neither do a lot of scientists in related fields, and debate rages. Heated debate. And it is clear that "the science" is being politicized. Massively so. The mainstream media clamps down on all this, but the debate is real. And I suspect the damage to "science" is real. Politicize anything and you pretty much ruin it.

Yet what is Science? I think a little background is needed.
First off, science is something that needs a specific metaphysical underpinning...

In most people's minds, "science" means the "scientific method." So, can we define "science" as a particular set of methods to study reality?

Ah, first, before any such method is developed, one has to have a philosophy — and it is not merely a "belief" or opinion, but an organized system of thought founded on logic — that objective reality itself is real, objectively real; i.e. that we're not mad, or trapped in a Matrix, etc. This is the great revolution in thought that produced the modern world, for most humans have followed religions (and philosophies) that taught that reality wasn't real, but a dream of some deity ("We are all a dream of Brahma, and some day Brahma will awake") or as in Islam, wherein reality is real enough for the moment, but a capricious Allah might change the basic laws of physics (or morality or anything else) from one second to the next — because Allah's will is supreme: this is called "Islamic Volunteerism". 

Only in the West did we have a religion that insisted Reality was Real, that God blessed it as a good in itself, and made a covenant with it (first verses in Genesis 2). It was in defense of that First Covenant that God set out to rescue His Creation, to undo and repair and make anew the world He had blessed in that First Covenant when Adam and Eve marred His Creation by their Fall.

Reality was thus understood to be good in itself, inherently good, and worthy of study, for of course we humans were there (in the unFallen Adam and Eve) when the Lord of Hosts "rested" on the Seventh Day and blessed it. This idea is foreign to so many religions and philosophies that it is remarkable that it came into existence in the first place. Indeed, its mere existence is a proof of the Existence of the God who made it. 

Then the early Church took that theology and melded with the Greek philosophical inheritance from Socrates through Plato and especially Aristotle — helped mightily by Boethius — cemented the idea in the West that reality was real and we could study it; i.e., that unlike in Islam, where the study of the physical sciences is blasphemy, we in the West were free and encouraged — in fact, we were made to study and interact with the world, rather than merely endure world -- to use our minds to explore the creation we are a part of. Western empirical science is founded on this ancient metaphysics.

Of course, the ancient competing idea that reality isn't really real, somehow or other, or that the physical world is evil and the spiritual world an escape from this evil (Manichean doctrine/Catharism, etc.) or that we can make reality by willpower, manifests itself today in many, many ways. Marxism/Leftism insists — against all evidence — that an earthly Utopia can be made by sheer willpower (and killing enough of those who don't agree). One of many current examples is that sex-change operations produce sex change: that one can change one's sex, via gruesome surgery and hormones. Or of course that homosexual can marry, that their phyical intimacy, a mere tribadism, is the equal to the transmission of life between male and female. 

This impulse — to demand that reality is malleable and conformable to our will, is a form of the ancient "reality is a dream" belief; it is what lies behind these malicious (or deeply foolish) people wrecking modern Western empirical science in the name of following some bizarre contemporary fetish or other that motivates them, that gives meaning to their otherwise metaphysically empty lives. (Walker Percy, the great novelist, used to say that the Sexual Revolution was in part about modern people secretly suspecting that they were mere ghosts, and needed "hooking up" to try to convince themselves they weren't disembodied nothings.

Global Warming is obviously a classic example, and now the "Let's kill ourselves to preserve ourselves from contagion" incoherence fits in the same genre. It's a great crusade, a jihad, to "save the planet" and thus, of course, give substance to ghosts.

An Préachan


Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Three articles about wearing face masks

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” — Voltaire

Face masks, face masks, face masks.

We're playing politics with medicine, these days. That's a catastrophe, as we'll be finding out, and soon. This is obscenely frustrating. First, we were told, logically, not to use them: https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-need-masks-pence-says-as-demand-increases-2020-2 back on March 2 the U.S. Surgeon General said not to use them, that they could increase one's acquiring COVID -- but of course they're dangerous in general.

Basically, if you wear a face mask, it has to be air-tight (expensive ones are) and have the right micro filters (expensive ones have 'em). You should also wear goggles!

But more than that, you can only wear it once, and must throw it away after one use, or six hours of continuous use. (And use plastic gloves to take it off, and have a bio-hazard disposable unit!) Nor can you adjust it as you go about your business. I need to adjust mine all the time, I find. That's a huge no-no, but I have to. It just moves round about. (I usually have to take my hearing aids out, too, and walk about deaf as a post.) And I have to wear face masks to ride the bus or do the shopping, and even with a basic, cheap, hopelessly inadequate mask, I can't afford to buy these basic masks in that quantity. So I have to re-use, which is dangerous because of course they're perfect for collecting nasty items you breathe out of yourself, which then, as in a Petri dish, boil, coil, and double -- and treble, etc. (I try to disinfect mine in the strong sunlight, which we've been having a good bit of lately. FWIW. I need to find an ultraviolet light fixture.)

However, my wife refuses to wear a mask except in the most dire circumstances, so out I go.

What follows are three articles on the subject. First, a fascinating article here that my wife found, though some might find it a bit "tin-foil hat" territory, but after the 20th century, and the first two decades of the next one, I'm about ready to believe anything: https://medium.com/@kevinashereyanu/face-masks-for-all-is-not-scientific-but-whats-the-harm-in-wearing-one-anyway-40f2d0fa02b4
An excerpt:

This conditioning leads people to be more willing to follow irrational orders and do things without questioning authority, or logic, in the future. This is an incredibly powerful form of social conditioning, leading to a vast mob mentality, and the tendency for polarization fallacies to cause vast dehumanization of innocent people, and justify horrendous violence. This has happened nearly a dozen times in the last century or so, leading to the deaths of over 500 million people, at the low estimate.
So in summary, besides being proven ineffective to stop the spread of viruses, and actually fairly effective at helping to spread them, by providing a surface for viruses to collect on, like carrying a petri dish in front of your face; besides being unconstitutional, non-consensual and dangerously divisive between different people with different beliefs and value systems; why are mandates and the media-derived social pressure for all people to wear face masks so incredibly dangerous?

Here's the second article:

Finally, what's the real story on medical face masks? The answer: We don't actually know.


So, round and round we go, and it is becoming something of Poe's "Masque of the Red Death", actually:
 
An Préachan


Monday, May 11, 2020

A Most Excellent rebuke of the U.S. Bishops at The Federalist


Read the article at The Federalist here.
It is anonymous.

The American bishops’ decision to withhold the Sacraments from the church faithful, and withhold the holy priests whose very purpose is to render them to the church faithful, forsakes the examples of the saints, forsakes the vows of the church, and runs exactly contrary to Christ’s chastisement of the pharisees and His challenge to the apostles to “put out into the deep.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued guidance early in the pandemic that bishops cancel public Mass, and the bishops have followed, with some closing their churches to all sacraments and even private prayer. As April drew to a close, the USCCB issued new guidance that bishops should begin to reopen the church.
Most remain quiet, but some of the country’s 177 dioceses and archdioceses have indicated they will follow or trail the secular authorities in their phased reopenings. The reality, however, is that the USCCB has no actual canonical authority over individual bishops. Nor should the bishops bow to civil authorities to separate the faithful from Christ’s gifts, as most but not all have.
The bishops have allowed themselves to be led astray and cowed, even reprimanding priests on behalf of the civil authorities for quietly serving their parishes. The faithful take notice. And this must end.
Each of the sacraments was uniquely instituted by Christ for the purpose of extending and granting His grace to the faithful, regardless of situation or circumstance. Indeed, if there is anything that can and should be extended to the faithful in troubled times it is God’s grace, and the means of doing so are those sacraments.
A wonderful thing about the sacraments is they are not “goods” or possessions to be alternately withheld or bestowed, freed or loosed by bishops. They are Christ’s means of gifting His grace, the faithful need them, and it is the bishop’s responsibility and solemn obligation to provide for them. Christ’s instruction to “Do this in remembrance of me” is not qualified by any “except for when’s.”
Consider the very sacrament of Holy Matrimony. At its critical moment the spouses-to-be “promise to be faithful to you, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love you and to honor you all the days of my life.”
St. Paul, in his first-century epistles, writes that the church is the bride of Christ. He reveals this miraculous truth to us for us to understand and for us to wonder, and it would do well for the bishops to understand and to wonder themselves. They might begin with the promises of the spouses and understand their role as leaders who make, and are obligated to keep, the promises of the bride to the bridegroom, Christ Himself.
Are the bishops being faithful in bad times and in sickness to honor Christ all the days of their lives? There fear and risk management in the bishops’ collective retreat to the chanceries; love and honor, not so much.
In thinking of the church’s duty in times and places of rampant pestilence, consider St. Teresa of Calcutta. Were she alive today, the bishops would be rebuked by her excellent example without her needing to utter a word.
Or consider St. Damien of Molokai, St. Roch, and St. Aloysius Gonzaga. In the face of disease these priests got to holy work fulfilling the promises of the church. They are venerated as saints not for their knowledge of canon law, deference to secular leaders or lethargy, but for their faith and action.
The bishops, our shepherds, are culpable for more than mere inaction, however, for the closing of churches and suppression of the sacraments are their willful acts. Heaven takes notice.
Christ called Himself the Good Shepherd, saying, “The Good Shepherd gives his life for his sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees. […] And the hireling flees because he is a hireling and he has no care for the sheep.”
It is not rash to observe that the bishops have fled the pasture and their individual — yes, individual — flocks. They have demonstrated their status as hirelings whose own the sheep are not. None of this is lost on the sheep. The odd thing is that in doing so, the bishops have herded each other together and thus the shepherds are proven to be sheep themselves. Sheep in shepherds’ clothing.
Bishops: Roust your individual selves, take up your crooks and return to the work of the Good Shepherd, for Christ’s sake – and for the sake of His church.
The author is a faculty member at a university associated with the Roman Catholic Church.
This byline marks several different individuals, granted anonymity in cases where publishing an article on The Federalist would credibly threaten close personal relationships, their safety, or their jobs. We verify the identities of those who publish anonymously with The Federalist.




A few Questions for Dr. Fauci that he's never asked

Amici,


You-all may have heard that Dr. Deborah Birx has had some heated words with the head of the U.S. CDC (Centers for Disease Control), as reported in Salon here

The CDC is gaming the COVID mortality rate in the U.S., upping it by 25 percent, reportedly. Well, well. Gosh darn. Ambaist, as the Irish might say. "The Scarf" herself is getting tired of the male bovine guano, it seems. Is the whole COVID scare front about to collapse? Notice how the mainstream news makes no mention of the state of Georgia's successful reopening? Or Colorado's? Or...?

As an example of just how insidious all the lies, confusion, double and triple death counting and so forth and so on, is it any wonder people are suspicious?  I found these questions offered by a Commentator at TheConservativeTreehouse. : 

"The Gipper Lives" wrote the questions and I did a little highlighting, boldening, and buttoning for you all. :)

Questions for Dr. Fauci:
    • You were wrong about when the virus came here, about the death toll, about the threat posed, about the WHO, about the Chinese, wrong not to tell the President instantly, wrong to fund them, wrong about Sec. Clinton’s perjury at the Benghazi Hearings and wrong about Hydroxychloroquine. Are you planning to be right soon?
    • When was the last time you communicated with the Wuhan Bio-Lab?
    • When did you inform the President you had been funding them for years?
    • Do you hold any patents on Coronavirus?
    • Do you hold any patents on vaccines or other possible treatments?
    • You’ve advocated for Remdesivir to become the “standard of care” for Coronavirus based on anecdotal evidence. Do you have any financial interest in Remdesivir?
    • Why didn’t you have the VA test Remdesivir on dying patients like you did with Hydroxychloroquine?
    • Do you know who owns Gilead? Is it George Soros?
    • Are Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation also involved?
    • Where is Remdesivir made? In China? If so, in Wuhan?
    • Why haven’t you explained your involvement with the Wuhan Bio-Lab to the American people? Don’t you owe that to them?
    • You haven’t explained anything except you are adamant the virus wasn’t manipulated–yet manipulating viruses is that lab’s specialty. How can you claim that?
    • And how is it possibly appropriate for the person who funded the Bio-Lab to be in charge of our response to that Bio-Lab?
Some wag then suggested this query:
Gipper, don’t forget to ask him if he went out to Chinese food dinners with any Harvard professors these past few years. I’ve been wondering and I’m sure others are too.

That's a reference to the arrest of the Head of Harvard's Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department earlier this year:
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases
The Department of Justice announced today that the Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and two Chinese nationals have been charged in connection with aiding the People’s Republic of China.
Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts.
Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China.
There is a LOT to this story -- and a host of others -- and the MSM just hushes it all up. As Iowahawk writes:

"Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving."

An Préachan









Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Must-see Video about Anthony Fauci and the Coronavirus, featuring Dr. Judy Mikovits

This isn't "tin-foil hat" stuff, my friends.

We've been lied to and misled for decades. Watch this video below:
Dr. Anthony Fauci's ex-employee, Dr. Judy Mikovits, who was jailed by Fauci and friends, finally tells all.
Go behind the scenes with an experienced expert, virologist who worked under Anthony Fauci,director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984. She was jailed and now tells all. All is revealed and be prepared for a future you are NOT PREPARED FOR! "Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science," April 14, 2020 by Kent Heckenlively and Judy Mikovits OUT OF STOCK! Sign up for movie update Plandemic Movie

BEWARE: Youtube has taken it down today and this link is a reposting. Watch it before they take it down again. -An P

An Préachán again: Pass it on. Honestly, everyone of you should have by now heard that Fauci had been funding Coronavirus research in China, A; B, he curiously predicted the Trump administration would face a terrible pandemic back in 2017; and C, he's now saying -- against the intelligence gathering of the "Five Eyes" (U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand), that the SARS-CoV-2 was natural in its occurrence. 

PS I was especially horrified about that 100-year-old drug that helped autism and that they've taken off the market. If anyone can hear that drug name clearly, let me know. Dr. Mikovitz starts mentioning it at 17:30, something like: "Seramin".



Sunday, May 3, 2020

Gee, Seems Only About Half of the U.S. COVID Deaths Actually Died of COVID!!!

Amici, some highly revelant news from trendingpolitics.com:

An excerpt:
That figure includes confirmed and presumed coronavirus deaths, the site notes.
In addition, the CDC data show that the pandemic peaked in the United States the week of April 11, now nearly three weeks ago — yet several states and cities are continuing or extending their current stay-at-home orders.
Also, the number of COVID-19 deaths have been steadily decreasing since April 25, according to the listed data, with some 93 percent of all coronavirus deaths occurring in people 55 years old and older.
And, as noted by Newsmax journalist John Cardillo, data reported on WorldInfo is most likely a “scam” for attributing other causes of death to the virus, in order to inflate the numbers.
I’m well aware of the CDC ‘lag times’ but this isn’t that, so stop with that excuse for these numbers. They’ve separated out other illnesses that were the actual causes of deaths and now the mortality rate is half of what it was last week. It’s been nothing but a scam,” he tweeted.

An Préachán again: Read all of it. There's a lot more to it, and there's a lot of questions involving a number of reports of hospitals, bureaucrats, and even morticians, about the ongoing "fudging" if the COVID causes of death.
and
and

An Préachán