Easter: Open Letter to Catholics re: Our Perceptions of Schism

Friends,

We know that this Easter week, Pope Francis, whom I call "Bergoglio" (when I'm being polite) is ailing. Whatever the immediate future holds for him, though, the Catholic Church suffers massive ailing as well. Catastrophic ailing. The first step to any cure is to recognize the sickness. Curing ills cannot occur if we don't know what's causing the ailment. And our understanding of anything, from the Church to Black Holes to Reformation History to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is based on perception.

It is precisely this essential perception of our realities that generates the problem we're having in the Catholic Church. We perceive – most of us – that there's one Catholic Church that has a host of difficulties and numerous factions who seem increasingly divergent. I suspect this view in the clergy at least stands strongest among those bishops consecrated, and priests ordained, when Karol Józef Wojtyła held the papal throne. Their ranks are thinning out now, but many remain. "The Church" for them is as they perceive it to be. But is it? And was it ever? And what of the other ideas of "The Church" that exist, pre- or post-John Paul II?

What if we could willingly change our perception? What if we perceived more closely that three separate "Catholic Churches" exist: i.e. the steadily drying up (and confused, and fading, and straying) Vatican II Church, the aborning Synodal/One-World anti-Church that Bergoglio is midwifing, and of course the Traditional Catholic Church, with its Traditional Latin Mass and Traditional Catholic teaching.

• This is a simple perception, and it doesn't involve endless contortions of cognitive dissonance. Achieve the perception by simply asking about the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Polls indicate that around 25 percent of the Vatican II laity believe in that, probably next to none of the Synodal Church believes it, while most likely near 100 percent of Traditional Catholic believe it. Thus, this question serves as a simple way to discern which of the three Church "avatars" one belongs to.
  

How did this situation develop?

Look again at Church history over the past three-quarters of a century. Under pressure from the Modernists, the Vatican II Church clearly broke ranks with the entire Church before it, as exemplified in the multitudinous Vatican II documents and the basically impossible ditching of the Traditional Latin Mass (impossible on a number of levels, not least Pope Pius V's famous 1570 Apostolic constitution Quo Primum). These dense, tedious, and prolix Vatican II decrees – that naturally very few have read or certainly studied – contain a thorough mixture of typical Catholic orthodoxy, Protestant heresy, and 1960s "pop-psych" palaver. They basically offer "something for everyone", depending on who is reading and what their conceits are. Whichever Church faction is strongest can implement them in any way they like. They laid the foundation of the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II" that blew in so many dire phantoms that plague the Church today.

• To use a metaphor, they set the Barque of Peter's voyaging on an initially slightly divergent course from what it had been sailing on for nearly two millennia, and slowly, imperceptibly to millions, it began to head away from its ancient Witness Against the Worldly Powers route, and into dangerous Waters of Surrender to the secular, fallen "pop" culture. The Church went from "The world will always hate me because it hated my Lord" to "The world will love me because I will surrender to it."
• While probably 20 percent of Catholics (and certainly many onlooking Protestants and Jews) were not fooled by this new trajectory, millions of priests and laity were indeed misled. But now, nearly 70 years on, can we not see how far the Church has wandered off the counter-culture course its Founder chartered for it? Grasp our reality. We now have no excuse to tolerate this misdirection any longer.

I can't be sure of John Paul I, poor man, or the vacillating Paul VI who became a recluse after 1968 and Humanae Vitae, but clearly Pope John Paul II was the only pope who actually believed the Vatican II Church would be THE Church from now on. Perhaps the Polish pope's near assassination refocused his understanding a bit, but still, it was his Curia (papal court/administration) that held the line for Modernism. For example, John Paul II's refusing to approve bishops for the SSPX – and the perfidious way his people kept saying "yes" then changing that to "er, wait a bit longer," stringing the SSPX along – forced the necessity of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's ordaining bishops without papal approval. This was pure "Deep State"-style treachery.

Pope Benedict XVI would eventually rescind the resulting automatic excommunications of the SSPX bishops because of the absurdity of it all, and even the cunning, duplicitous Bergoglio seemed to occasionally favor the excellent Society's work to some extent, though technically it remains somewhat "canonically irregular". (I discount all such qualms entirely, of course. "Partial communion" is nonsense. And it remains a blessing the SSPX is not under full Vatican control.)

Benedict's Fall

Although an early and idealistic Vatican II revolutionary, the hyper-intelligent Joseph Ratzinger was no fool. Eventually, he could see "the handwriting on the wall" for the Vatican II Church. But as pope, Benedict's inability to control the "Junta" of homosexual mafia, Communist sympathizers, and the Freemasonry-Globalist clique that runs the Church – and has done so for decades – proved that the Vatican II version of Holy Church was hopelessly hollowed out and drifting toward the rocks. Yet Benedict knew he was not going to be allowed any true course correction. To buy time, therefore, he tried a subtle, sideways attack via his Summorum Pontificum, creating a Hegelian type synthesis-antithesis via his "Ordinary Form" and "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass. Very clever. 

But of course it only enraged the Junta. They removed Benedict in a less violent way than John Paul I had been, or the attempt to assassinate John Paul II. (Ever notice how the "cancellation"of Jack Kennedy, Nixon, John Paul I & II, and assassination attempt on Reagan and the lawfare against Trump all just seems to coincidentally happen? "Gee, what bad luck we have in our popular leaders getting removed!" Well, it ain't no coincidence, my friends! Wake up and see the very clear pattern going on here.)

1. Bergoglio was brought in to put paid to Benedict's "Reform of the Reform". 
2. But the Vatican II Church was too far gone. 
3. The Covid fraud gut-punched it and left it prostrate. It's a husk of what it was even 20 years ago, though the remnants of Team Pope John Paul II might not see that yet. 
4. So, Bergoglio began his employment of a legion of heresies to pave over it, to bury it alive, in effect, enabling the Synodal Church to drive over its grave. 
5. The Argentinian Peronist "Junta of One" clearly now wants to create a new Church entirely, an Anglican doppelganger called the Synodal Church. It happens to serve as the Jewish, Muslim, and Globalist-approved non-governmental organization for the New World Order that the elites want to establish. (None of those powers want to see a strong, confident – and independent – Christianity in the world.)
   

Schism from all that

So where does that leave the One, Holy Catholic Church? The Church of the traditional theology, worship, and spirituality? The events of a Biblical lifetime have partially submerged it, and scattered it too, though thanks to Benedict's Summorum Pontificum, it began a serious comeback. Now Generalissimo Bergoglio wants to crush it. Therefore, this Traditional Latin Mass Catholic Church simply HAS to break with the other two ecclesiastical avatars, or they will drag it down into the Abyss with their own self-destruction.

In other words, we actual Catholics – Catholic Christians who pray the Tradition, thus believe the Tradition, and thereby live the Tradition: Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi – MUST perceive full schism to be a necessity from what one needs call the Unbelievers. In a metaphor, the S.S.Vatican II is going down, and it has only two lifeboats; one boat is leaky and full of trannies, catamites, and absolute landlubbers, the other staffed by regular old-time sailors; indeed, the veterans of Lepanto. Which lifeboat would you chose?

Perception, Perception, Perception

Again, this is about perception, perception of our reality. And once you see this, grasp it, comprehend what's going on, there's no more trying to square the circle. A great burden is lifted from the soul, and cognitive dissonance is banished.

  An Preáchán

"Prophecy will take care of itself." Re: The Mission of Divine Mercy

Friends,

A recent essay of mine mentioned the prophecies of that group in Texas – the Mission of Divine Mercy – who claims to be receiving messages from the B.V.M. See one of the Lifesitenews articles here. 

And the local bishop, a notorious Modernist infamous for shutting down a Catholic family retreat center, squashed them for it. A number of commentators told me "they lost me" when I brought this up and that John-Henry Westen should be ashamed of giving space to them. The Mission of Divine Mercy has been receiving prophecies for 30 years or something but is only now making them known. Or so they say.

In a return comment, I wrote that "Prophecy takes care of itself" is the old saying. Whether the prophet is a prophet will be seen, and soon enough. The Church is disintegrating as we look at it, and nothing and no one seems to be able to stop Bergoglio, or whoever is running the show. (A Freemasonry committee? A Communist junta? Atheists R-Us?) John-Henry Westen is desperate. That desperation is he published these prophecies and why the bishop squashed the revelations: they were on target. They'll squash Fatima and the other accepted revelations soon enough, as well. Bet on it. Yet the Church's situation is an exact parallel with the U.S. government devolution into tyranny. Exact.

If it is a true prophecy, it will happen whether we note it or not; if it is not a true prophecy, it will fade away and be forgotten – unless, of course, the "Usurper" finishes off the Church. Whether a true prophecy or not, however, as I've been arguing for years, Bergoglio is obviously an usurper who has been allowed to sit on the throne of St. Peter. 

You don't need a prophecy to see that. 

Just common sense. 

AnP  

What Is Love? Follow up on Scott Hahn and "She's not your girlfriend".

Friends,

Following up on my earlier criticism of Professor Scott Hahn's assertion in the Mass of the Ages 3 movie that every bishop in the world should "fall in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary", I received a number of comments that make me realize "What is love?" is a question that first must be answered in order to understand how cloyingly mawkish, just plainly over-  sentimental, Hahn's comment is. 

• But first of all, please note he is speaking of bishops using their full Apostolic powers. In my original essay, I reported Hahn as saying, “All bishops and priests ought to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.” 
• I have now watched the MOTA3 movie, and at 39 minutes in, Prof Hahn's full quote is, "I think bishops need to really stretch themselves to move from the natural to the supernatural. The bishops ought to be in persona Christi in a way that corresponds to Vatican II defined as the plenitude of holy orders. They ought to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary. That's the only safe way they can lead us."

A bit of a jump there, a bit tangled too, though now I understand his comment in context. (And for me, any reliance on anything Vatican II produces an immediate headache.)

Yet my initial observation in my original critique STILL stands: I wrote then that the majority of (at least the Western World's) bishops are chosen for their "hard-nosed" unbelief in the supernatural. All of Vatican II, especially the Novus Ordo Mass, is a desacralization of the Faith. That was exactly what the 16th century Reformation was, and Vatican II is exactly that revolution come again. In other words, the Modern Church Catholics who don't know what the Eucharist is regarding the Real Presence, they are a FEATURE of the Vatican II Church, not a BUG!

All this is because a non-Catholic "junta" or "deep state" runs the modern Church, and has done so since Pope John XXIII let his people he chose to manage the Vatican II Council be removed when the Council opened and "young Turks" took over.

This is self-evidently obvious. To deny it is to go cross-eyed with cognitive dissonance. And I mean that. The junta running the Church since the '60s has never relented in its goals. It wants no-nonsense materialist financial and "bottom-line" managers; it does not want "men of Faith". That's why Bergoglio dumped Bishop Strickland (and others): they obviously believed. That's why Benedict was deposed (and he was deposed.) That's why the Vat 2 junta remains at war with the Traditional Latin Mass: that ancient liturgy creates and inspires believers. Ergo, they want it G.O.N.E.

 

So, with that observation reinforced, I also note again how cartoonish, written in thick crayon and felt, like decorations for kindergarten, Prof Hahn's statement is. Therefore, here's a quick discussion of what love actually is.

Love

First of all: love, real love, is to "will the good of another", and it is to will their good without demanding or even wanting a return on that investment. Fr Ripperger so defines it in one of his online talks. How simple, how direct. And so of course the Vatican II Church never uses it. 

Christians use the Greek word "agápē" for this love. It was a Greek word originally employed as just a generic term, and Christians used it to denote their new love revelation: God is love. This sort of "real" love is different fundamentally from other kinds of love. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."; John 3:16. Translate that as "For God so willed the good of the human race and His creation that He gave Himself...". 

Love in English

In English, we can say anything from "I love you" to a spouse or a child, or "I love ice-cream" or "I love the old Twilight Zone show" or "I love baseball" to "I love God" or "I love my country". The Greeks had a different word for each of those. Many languages invest in different words precisely to avoid confusion. But English doesn't. The word "like" is no substitute: "I like ice-cream" is quite different from "I love ice-cream." But idiomatic phrases like "fall in love" specifically refer to romantic love, and that's the phrasing Scott Hahn used. Note he used "hopelessly". That's clearly used of romantic love.

But romantic love is the cheapest and silliest of all "loves". It didn't exist for most human beings for most of the human history. There's an old joke about a Greek and an Italian arguing over who had the better civilization. For every thing the Greek came up with, the Italian had something to match it. "We created democracy" said the Greek. "We had a republic" the Italian countered. "We had the Parthenon" said the Greek. "We had the Pantheon" said the Italian. Finally, the Greek boasted, "You must admit, though, that it was we Greeks who created romantic love." The Italian thought for a bit and countered, "Yeah, OK, I'll have to admit that. But you have to admit one tiny fact about it." "Oh," said the Greek, "and what is that?" The Italian said, "We Italians first gave it to women."

This is funny precisely because it is true. What we call romantic love was a homoerotic creation, first by the Ancient Greeks, and later by the Muslims of Moorish Spain, where it was transferred via the Cathar heresy to Southern France and the famous troubadours. Only later did it become a standard affectation of average people. And of course, fiction writers and playwrights like Shakespeare made it a nearly de jure icon men and women were supposed to experience.

Maybe Scott Hahn didn't intend for his comment to be read this way, but he's supposed to be a professor, a knowledgeable man. As I wrote in the original essay, "We Catholics have the problem of too few men in the Catholic world. The world itself has that problem."

And so it is. The most important types of love: i.e. married spousal love, parental love, patriotic love, can never be just strong emotion and "desire". It HAS to be rational, founded in Faith in God's Creation and in the Will, and it must be selfless, a product of the rational mind, as the soul is itself rational. We get our emotions from our bodies, rationality from our souls. It's our bodies that get all passionately "love crazy." Careless "idiomatic usage" does NOT help clarify all this. 

AnP

She's the August Mother of God, Scott Hahn. She's NOT your girlfriend!

Amici,

Why are modern Catholic men such saps? Sappy. Dopey. Squishy. Too many of them – and I refer to the non-degenerate, non–perverted actual men, still act sappy. "Gushing." Just not very masculine – not remotely.

Example: In an article at his padre peregrino blog, Fr. David Nix wrote a bit about the new Mass of the Ages movie, or MOTA3. He says in the article:

'But the most moving line [in the film] came from Dr. Scott Hahn. Hahn rarely weighs in on politics, but in reference to the Church crisis, Hahn said the only answer was for “all bishops to fall hopelessly in love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.” I think he is exactly correct: Imagine if every priest and bishop in the world “fell in hopeless love with the Blessed Virgin Mary.”'

I wanted to shout at the computer, "She's the August Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven. The greatest created being in all existence! She embraced every suffering God assigned to her AND to her Son without the slightest demure. She's NOT your girlfriend!"

How sappy can you get? First of all, most bishops in the world, and a very large proportion of priests, are apostates. Or perhaps they never believed to begin with. Time will reveal yourself to yourself if you let it do so. They have allowed an absolute monster and papal imposter root and rut and spiritually (and not so spiritually) rape his way through Holy Mother Church for the past eleven years. John-Henry Westen seems to agree. Yes, he most certainly has. And many of them knew what Bergoglio was in the beginning! Read this description of Bergoglio from eleven years ago. Bergoglio the Tyrant has fulfilled all the predictions made of him there in that article.

So even remotely imagining that bishops and priests who don't believe to begin with can "fall in love" with God's Mother is senseless from a purely pragmatic angle. How much more sappy – and indeed, creepy – it is in and of itself the way Hahn expresses it. Do you "fall in love" with your own mother? Hahn is talking romantic love, that unmistakable. It's sick, but it is also revealing. 

So often so much of Vatican II-era Catholicism is sappy, mawkish, juvenile, silly, sentimental and shallow. Very little "mainstream" Traditional commentary seems written by grown-ups, by the spiritually adult. No wonder tens of millions of Catholics have left the Church since all things Vatican II manifested, because since then everything seems wrought in children's fat crayon and cheap polyester. Its art is cartoonish – very much in the pathetic style of that rapist favorite of Bergoglio's, Marko Rupnik's – and its theology is tasteless baby food that babies would reject. I was recently in a modernist Catholic church shaped like a "cow patti", a lump of manure in a pasture, and was being showed around. Same sick Rubnik-like "art" but they also had a totally creeped-out statue of Padre Pio, life-size, standing on a stair corner, sculpted like he was coming forward to grab you with both arms, his face frozen in an "evil-clown" grin. It actually made me jump. How utterly, utterly opposite anything the actual saint represented!

Scott Hahn, a professor, a Ph.D. teacher of theology, often seems just like this. So does his University of Steubenville, which for decades was a Catholic "holy-roller" hothouse. (I've been to a couple of Catholic "Charismatic" events over the years, dragged along by friends: nothing, I repeat nothing, is more fake and pathetic.)

Now, decades ago I used to read and listen (via tapes) to a lot of Scott Hahn. He comes across as a "nice guy" in the earnest American fashion, and has had some good theological insights, especially regarding "Covenant Theology"; but I now understand Hahn to also be Opus Dei. As far as I am concerned, Opus Dei is a cult, more Freemason than Catholic, certainly so in its cult-like secrecy and manipulation more than any regular Catholic order ever remotely was – except the Templars. Like the modern-day Jesuits, it needs squished out of existence.

But Hahn in his old age is certainly acting the gushy, sappy contemporary Catholic man here in this movie, from what I can tell. And the "insight" Fr. Nix praises him for I find mawkish and cloying. Little boy-like. A living Rupnik cartoon with more human eyes, as it were.

We Catholics have the problem of too few men in the Catholic world. The world itself has that problem. Look at the average American political leader (Trump being an exception, and thus loathed) or European leaders (Emmanuel Macron or Olaf Scholz, for example) and compare them to Vladimir Putin. You may hate Putin, but he's a man's man, at least. Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyła, was very much a man's man. Review his life. Amazing what he went through. And he single-handedly made the Vatican II Church seem at least plausible – for a while. (I believe Hahn initially converted after being inspired by JPII.) Compare him to Paul VI, very much the emotional effeminate "metrosexual" type we are inundated with today.

What Our Mother needs

The Blessed Virgin Mary, the August Queen of Heaven and Seat of Wisdom, Mother of Our Eternal Lord and King Jesus Christ, doesn't need boyfriends or cloying teen "groupies". She needs sons who will put on the armor of God and do battle for her and her Son. But the time seems to have run out. Review this prophetic article from John-Henry Westen.

As Anthony Stine says, get to Confession as soon as possible, or at least make a serious act of contrition. The Ides of March, after all, are come.

  An Préachán

Important article about what disasters Americans can expect this year

Friends,

When the handwriting appears on the wall, you'd better take it seriously.

The article is 'America’s Destruction and the Ghosts of Revolutions Past', by Vince Coyner at American Thinker. And see also this article, which is another version of the same idea. Highly readable. I encourage all Americans and Europeans of good will to read both. Even if this shocking revelation was based on the Soviet agent Bezmenov, and even if he had somehow been a double-agent/"disinformationist", what he described many decades ago is just too mirror to what we're experiencing now. Handwriting on the wall, indeed.

In the article linked, Coyner writes about one Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet Defector from obviously before the USSR fell, who explained in detail the KGB's plan to bring down the U.S.A. It dovetails exactly what we're experiencing today. This has all been long planned and we can expect an American Armageddon, most likely before this year is out. Further below, I suggest how the sequence of events might play out. It will be bloody, at the very least.

For myself, I notice how closely what's happening affirms the prophesies of the Blessed Mother over these past many years and decades, and I always thought it just too coincidental that the Second Vatican Council, which ran from October 11 1962 to December 8, 1965, occurred simultaneously with upheavals in the U.S.A.'s government. For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred between October 16 to 28 of 1962, and the American CIA used Vietnamese military bosses to assassinate South Vietnam's Catholic president (cum dictator) Ngô Đình Diệm on November 2, 1963, and (quasi-Catholic) Jack Kennedy himself on November 22 of the same year, with the insane and utterly corrupt Lyndon Johnson thereafter sending U.S. regular ground forces into Vietnam. Fifteen months later, on March 8, 1965, 3,500 Marines of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade landed to protect an American airbase at Da Nang. Some 20,000 American military advisors were in Vietnam by that time, and 400 Americans were already dead.

Vatican II only ended in December of 1965.

Then we suffered an endlessly stupid war – look, I challenge anyone to read a Korean War history, say Max Hastings' The Korean War, An Epic Conflict 1950-1963, and tell me that after what they obviously learned at GREAT COST from that fiasco, why we were then entering into an even WORSE scenario in Vietnam only a dozen years later. You can't. It was insane. Utter madness. 

• Lyndon Johnson made a killing, however, off his fat Defense Contract kickbacks. (The famous Huey helicopter – Bell UH-1 Iroquois – was made by a crony of his in Texas, Larry Bell, who had courted Johnson early on in Johnson's congressional rise – precisely, as Bell himself said, to get lucrative government contracts, Bell Helicopter became one of "Johnson's Companies" profiteering hugely from the Vietnam War.) 
• It took no less an individual than Dwight Eisenhower to (secretly but clearly) threaten the Chinese and Russians with nuclear war in order to get them in their turn to force the North Koreans to negotiate.

Anyway, again, notice the parallels? Utter social and political and cultural chaos erupted in the U.S. during the later 1960s and early 1970s exactly mirrored in the concurrent religious, theological, and faith crisis in the Catholic Church. Afterward, John Paul II and Ronald Reagan seemed to restore a bit of sanity to both Church and Country, though subsequent to them, the rot returned until we wallow in the Satanic madness of Bergoglio and Biden.

Clearly, none of this is happenstance. Simultaneously, Communism's greatest secular enemy and its greatest religious enemy are both crippled exactly when they are so desperately needed the most? We all know of the dire warnings about Communist infiltration in the administrations of both Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Also important to know are the revelations Bella Dodd publicized about Communist infiltration on the Catholic Church; Dodd testified to the Joe McCarthy HUAC committee in the 1950s, and wrote about it in her book "School of Darkness", while today a new book on this, titled "The Devil and Bella Dodd: One Woman's Struggle Against Communism and Her Redemption" (2022). And some of you might remember an earlier book, "Good-bye Good Men", which charts a dolorous tale indeed.

So, all this is some coincidence, all right.

Possible Scenario 2024

Below are my very pessimistic predictions for 2024. I'll give one caveat now: everything that's happening points to some combination of events developing as below, yet I hope and pray there exist enough Patriots in the U.S. to fight what's coming. The federal and state "Deep State" security combines definitely think there is. Should a true shoot out start, myself, I'd bet on the Patriots, except for Point 7 below. That's the kicker. The tie-breaker. The unimaginable. So, we'll see.

Assuming President Trump gets to November 5 alive, what with his recent primary wins showing him to be a popular vote juggernaut, the Democrat-Communists will try to steal the election to prevent him from taking office. They may be able to do so, and the feckless Republican Party (Establishment-branch) hate Trump and seem to be sitting on their hands.

1. But before the election actually occurs, there's 110 percent chance of more race riots, à la George Floyd/summer of 2016. These will be much stronger this time, and with Democrat-Communists in control, not the federalist-minded Donald Trump, martial law might get declared with the election "postponed", as in Ukraine recently. Any excuse to postpone it will do: banking crisis, etc.
   
2. Or a new mass "contagion" might be declared, as well. Same result as with Covid: Lockdown: Vote counting fraud. People isolated and driven from their jobs.
   
3. If they can steal it, they'll strengthen their police state grip on power (that's one reason to let in millions of ignorant illegals, to turn the entire U.S. into one-party California).
   
4. If they can't actually pull off a steal this time, and should the Democrats be in control of Congress in January 2025, they shall do a Jan 6 2021 in actuality and refuse to verify that Trump won the election. Tables turned.
   
5. Conversely, if the Republicans manage to hold on to the House of Representatives, look for the RINOs to side with the Democrat-Communists to not verify Trump's election. Believe me, they can't wait for that betrayal if they can pull it off.
   
6. If either option 4 or 5 eventuate, expect the Democrats and the media to whip up the fury of average Americans into large protests, which will give the Junta (whoever is actually running the country) the excuse for martial law.
7. The Elephant in the Room For each of these levels, foreign mercenaries are ready to deploy and seize control of the U.S.A., including its nuclear arsenal from the current feckless "Woke" military. Remember: the Democrats-Communists have imported 30 million or more illegal aliens under Biden, over 10 million of which, maybe 15-20 million, are military-aged men. Chinese, Iranian, Latin Americans, you name it. We really don't know how many they are, and have released them to roam about freely. Expect this mob to suddenly show up armed and ready to seize the works, especially a good part of the nuclear arsenal. With that Armageddon weapon in their pocket, how can we fight them? They can blackmail the entire nation into abject servitude.
   
8. If the question was who would win between the feckless, feral masses of the Blue cities, using Antifa idiots and Black Lives Matter thugs, and a Tranny military that has sent all its ammo to the Ukraine, the average Americans would soon win. There's at least a 100 million of us. No question. But if the Democrat-Communists unleash a terror army, their "Sardaukar" terror troops – and of course they're going to grab the nukes; they'd be fools not to – then they win.
   

Addendum A: Notice how George Soros has been buying up U.S. radio stations? Naturally he would because the radio station is the first thing a junta takes over when they seize power. It makes perfect sense for them to do so now.

Addendum B: Something not often thought about: Mass starvation. Food delivery will soon cease to the Blue cities. (To any urban areas of any size, of course.) I think even now large urban areas, especially those that are "war zones', have only a week's supply of food on hand. If that. Any sort of food delivery interruption will begin the starvation of tens of millions. They shall try to swarm locust-like out of the cities, only to be killed by rural people or the mercenaries.

Addendum C: I know it sounds insane, but many "signs of the times" exist. For example, the super rich of all stripes are building retreats and underground bunkers, state-of-the-art, in Hawaii and many other remote places. If the bad guys win, then (whatever type of Communist they are) they will kill all the idiot super-rich, cement their bunkers shut, or pour gasoline and then grenades down air shafts. They also certainly kill the "Useful Idiots" (Lenin's term) for the "fellow-travelers"; i.e. the Trannies, the Gays, the Black Lives Matter people, certainly Antifa. Democrats and RINOs of all sorts will be high on that death list. Lenin and Mao stood theirs against the wall and shot them once they no longer needed them. All of those Red-Guard, true-believing Commie students of Mao's "Cultural Revolution". All of them. No quarter. Expect no less now.

So much for my guessing. Read the articles, think for yourself, and prepare as best you can.

        AnP