Once again: Jenner's smallpox vaccination did NOT stop smallpox in England

Friends, 

It's time to "think the unthinkable". What with all the lies our governments our spreading, lies about war, food production, "green" energy, Global Warming (now the even more vague "Climate Change"), and of course the grotesque authoritarianism in the U.S. Federal Government, not to mention the most putrid lies of all that come from the Bergoglioan hierarchy of Church destroyers, it is time to review just how long and how thoroughly we are lied to. It is time to "think the unthinkable". Scotsman Neil Oliver has a great talk on that here. 

To that end, here is Part I of a series I am endeavoring to start on how we've been lied to, let's consider medicine, specifically vaccines.

I had sent something similar to this around months ago, but it is time to consider it again. We've been told for two hundred years the legend of Edward Jenner, a plucky English physician eliminating the dreaded smallpox plague via vaccination, beginning this work in the 1790s. Jenner, 1749 to 1823, is known as "Father of Immunology".

It is an old story, and a hallowed one. But it is not true.

Despite Jenner's inoculations, Smallpox reigned in England in the mid-1800s, and they suffered the worst Smallpox outbreak in their (recorded) history between 1871 and 1880, but it has been like finding hen's teeth to uncover information on it. The bottom line is that Jenner's Smallpox "vaccine" did not work. IT DID NOT work, not the way it has been historically related. 

What got rid of the pox, then? Sanitation. Installing urban sanitation systems, sewers, what the Brits have always called "water closets" (toilets with drains to sewers) and other "boring, nuts-and-bolts" civil engineering stuff. Urban sanitation. 

So, despite the fame of Edward Jenner and his smallpox vaccine (called "inoculation" in 1796, a somewhat different protocol from vaccination, per se), smallpox remained a plague in England for a long lifetime. Contrary to the Jenner legend, and despite of – or because of – England's vaccination laws, between 1871 and 1880, 57,016 smallpox deaths occurred in Britain. 57,016 people in nine years, mind you, with a version of the famous vaccine BEING REQUIRED BY LAW. Smallpox was so common in the early 1800s that Parliament passed laws mandating the use of vaccination. (Sound familiar?) Smallpox looked as inevitable as ever.

• It looks as though the anti-smallpox inoculations caused more smallpox than they stopped. Actually, this was noted simultaneously in France regarding Louis Pasteur's anti-rabies inoculations. Back in 1909, a Dr. Montague R. Leverson wrote that Pasteur's anti-rabies inoculations "afford the most decided test of the pernicious character of that method of treatment. During the 23 years preceding the use of anti-rabic serum, there were 685 deaths from rabies in all France, or an average of 30 per annum...with a continually increasing number each year, so that according to the official returns the number of death from rabies in France for the year ending in June, 1907, was just about 300. In truth, as Professor Peter said, in his address to the Academy of Medicine in Paris, on the 11th of January, 1887, "M. Pasteur does not cure rabies, he imparts it!" (13:20 of https://odysee.com/@hipsterious:3/Dr.-Sam-Bailey---What-About-Rabies:c)

Regarding smallpox in England, something major changed dramatically, however, for between 1911 and 1920, only 110 English deaths occurred from smallpox. By that time, vaccination had evaporated as a national policy. But as noted, for years vaccination had been national policy for the British government made Smallpox vaccination a requirement in 1853, with the Compulsory Vaccination Act, with a more stringent version in 1867.

A Dr. Hadwen wrote: "After about 40 years of compulsory vaccination, Britain suffered the worst smallpox epidemic in its entire history, with the highest death rate in history." What vaccine brought smallpox to an end? No vaccine at all. Rather, sanitation policies brought smallpox to an end. City reformers in Leicester set the example: they rejected vaccination in favor of sanitation. Yes, friends, this is true. Sanitation. Boring. Unexciting. "Un-legendable". I've always said that the invention and use of soap saved more human lives than any other thing in all history. With sewers and indoor plumbing and a ban on vaccination, smallpox disappeared from Leicester, and eventually from England. 

The same thing happened in Cleveland (of all places!). A Dr. Friedrich, in charge of the Health Board of Cleveland, abolished vaccination "absolutely" and promoted sanitation. Smallpox vanished. (As reported by a Dr. John Hodge in 1902.) Clearly, sanitation played the major role in ending Smallpox. Everyone, and I mean EVERYBODY, needs to know these facts. Please, pass it on, folks. Vaccination has NEVER BEEN the panacea it has been cracked up to be, and it is time this info gets broadcasted. (Same with polio, which did not come from a virus but arsenic/lead-based fruit tree insecticide, and later DDT; once these were discontinued, so vanished the polio, or it was just renamed: "Acute Flaccid Paralysis", which is formally said to be clinically indistinguishable from polio.)

In fact, most important to comprehend of all: we have been as consistently lied to about vaccination and the Germ Theory of Illness as we have been lied to about every other category I opened this essay with.

Another name for Hell is "The Kingdom of Lies" and we've been long-term residents therein. 

An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

Answering queries from a Protestant friend

Amici,

You write about religious questions, so here's my responses.

First query was what is going on in the Catholic Church? Bergoglio seems a heretic, according to you, but also this Taylor Marshall guy. So, what gives. 

My friend, you write about religious questions, so here's my responses.

Thanks for the Taylor Marshall video about The Beast Bergi at that Candlemass address back in February of this year, where the layman stood up and contradicted Bergoglio. (And got himself escorted out for his efforts.) In his presentation, Marshall early on made a common sense observation, to wit, either Bergoglio is right in 2022 and Pius XII was wrong in 1943, or Pius was right in 1943 and Bergoglio is wrong in 2022. They can't both be right.

Indeed.

In general, one has to wonder just what Bergoglio thinks like, or what he knows, or whether he cares a whit about the Trad Catholics he is trashing out? One can ask the same question about Joe Biden, too. Or any of our governing elites in many countries. Ever listen to Neil Oliver? He discusses just this here. (Neil Oliver, When You Accept That Modern Western Government Considers Citizens Their Enemy, Then All the Outcomes Make Sense.) 

AnP: And this is true in the Churches, too.

This bizarre hated of the followers of the Modernists founders has long roots in the ecclesiastical field. "Modernist" Reformers of the 1960s on, I think, are necessarily damned. Plain and simple. They put their theories before actual people. That's evil. They did not care that the living Hell they were about to unleash would drive most Catholics from the Church. (The Church lost well over half its population of 1960.) Did they think the people would just "suffer through" and "grin and bear it"? Did they think people would just stay stuck in the pews when in the Church of their parents and grandparents sacrificed (back 2,000 years, ultimately), being decomposed into a lame imitation of modern mainstream Anglican or Luthernism.

These 1960s-1970s reformers lied and stole, breaking a number of basic commandments. Certainly, if nothing else, God had commanded them to feed His sheep, but they instead tried experiments on His flock. 

1. Yet by far the nastiest thing they did was use Traditional Catholics' deep-seated sense of duty to obey the Church as a tool they could use against such Trad Catholics. 
2. As they trashed all of Traditional Catholicism, incrementally, the one thing they kept was the traditional duty of obedience. "You have to obey us!" Yeah, right.
3. They essentially said, "You have to obey our orders to tear down the churches your grandparents sacrificed to build." In essence, "You have to obey our order to shoot yourselves." A great many did. But many did not.

This heightened the "cognitive dissonance" that has since remained far, far too strong in the Church.

Some cognitive dissonance examples:

• You're at Mass to begin with to worship God, but the priest faces you over (what's technically called) a Cranmer table. You all look at each other, like a customer and a clerk in a store.
  
• God is vertical, above us; He had to incarnate Himself to be among us, and in all its actions and prayers, the sacred liturgy promotes this – something obvious in the Traditional Latin Mass or the Eastern Liturgies. The veil between earth and heaven is pulled back and we're in the the Divine Presence.
• Yet in the "new" Mass (Novus Ordo), that is not clear at all. We do not face "East" toward God but inward, toward ourselves.
  
• Also, used to be the Incarnate God in the form of consecrated bread and wine was kept in the tabernacle on the altar, center, high, for all to see; but now He is shunted off to the side, or out in the hall. Massive cognitive dissonance. Textbook, really.
  
• The new Mass went to a three-year Biblical reading cycle so that Catholics would hear more of the Bible read at Mass, yet ironically, the new cycles leave out all the Hellfire and Damnation passages!
  
• Ironically too, the new form of the Novus Order in itself took out a HUGE portion of the daily Scripture readings that used to serve throughout the liturgy in every Mass! They took out the variable readings and much of the standing Sunday readings. (N.B. I'm always amazed at how much Holy Writ I can read in the various places it is used in every Sunday TLM Mass. So, therefore, how could they remotely claim to be promoting Bible verses when they intentionally vanished or watered down thousands of already in place Scripture verses?
• In general, nothing in the new Mass is vertical; all is horizontal. The simple message is "We're here to reaffirm ourselves and feel good about ourselves and to socialize by sharing a ceremonial meal together." They even modeled the new Offertory prayers (before the Consecration) on the old Jewish meal prayers!
  
• The sermons are certainly all as though written by some crappy psychology major in the "I'm ok, you're ok" school of psychology.
  
• On and on it goes, all pouring rivers of cognitive dissonance upon us as occurred in Noah's flood.
  

You write about Luther, Martin, doctor of theology

As for the Reformation of the 16th century, sometimes called "The Great Reformation", two things to note that most people raised Protestant don't know.

First, the Church continually cycles through "reformations" historically, about every four or five generations, sometimes more, sometimes less. Before Luther and Calvin in the 16th century, there were Sts Dominic and Francis in the 12th century. That was a very successful "reformation" that swept through the entire 13th century and only began to wane after 1300, where, in the century of the 100 Years War, the Black Death, and the Mongol invasions, and peasant revolts, you begin to see dismal, dour thinkers (William of Occam and Marsilius of Padua to name two) who would eventually lead intellectually to Luther.

• They were called Nominalists, and they believed a lot like Muslim philosophers did, such as the amazing 11th-century genius al-Ghazali (Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad aṭ-Ṭūsiyy al-Ġazzālīy) that God was capricious, alien, utterly "Other". (When you think of the dire times they lived it, this isn't so odd a development!)
• They believed God was unknowable, cruel, and damning. Modern-day "Modernists", on the other hand, believe "God" is just as remote, but not because He is Allah, but rather because he is evolving like everything else, and that ultimately we basically make Him up; it is this that would be Bergoglio's true belief if anyone could pry it out of him.)

But before the 11-12th century Reformation, there was a major reformation in the 10th century. The popes of that era (9th-early 10th centuries), made the Renaissance popes ALL look like saints! For example:

1. Popes John X and John XII (both 10th century) had many women and lived dissolute lifestyles, with John XII being known as a rapist, and even infamous for incest!
   
2. They called him "a Christian Caligula". And like that depraved emperor, John XII was knifed to death by an outraged husband in the midst of carnal relations with the husband's wife.
   
3. Or compare John XII with Pope Stephen VI, who, in 897, dug up his predecessor and put the corpse on trial! (Not surprisingly, the corpse lost his case!) This ended up being called the Cadaver Synod! Pope Stephen VI was later strangled to death.
   
4. As Wikipedia puts it, "Between 872 and 965, two dozen popes were appointed, and between 896 and 904 there was a new pope every year. Often, these brief papal reigns were the result of the political machinations of local Roman factions, about which few sources survive."
5. While all that was going on in Rome, in the provinces a great monastic reform was gathering steam – the Clunaic Reform – and it eventually swept into Rome.
   

So the reformation of the 10th century involved cleaning all this insanity up and establishing the College of Cardinals, who would henceforward elect a pope, rather than having him be a product of Italian Mafia-like machinations.

The Great Reformation

Now for the second point I mentioned earlier. You never hear of this stuff because The Great Reformation started in the 16th century, and the reformers of that one were not saints – Luther claimed a Christian "saint" was someone who ate hearty, pleasured the ladies with gusto, and who despite all that felt "saved"! I.e. Saved by faith alone. He boasted he could sin 100 – or was it 1000? – and doing what, exactly) times a day and it would not affect his salvation.

So those reformers harped on the Renaissance popes to justify their actions and ignored the long history of the Church. But those Renaissance popes were not depraved like the 10th century guys. None of them departed from orthodox Christian (Catholic) teachings. Personally lax, they still maintained the Deposit of Faith. They may have fought wars (like Julius II, "the warrior pope") or had long-standing mistresses and fathered children (Alexander VI had about seven kids by two different long-time mistresses, all of whom he openly acknowledged), but they didn't promote heretical teachings, as does Bergoglio today.

• Alexander VI, the second Borgia pope (family from Spain, originally) is probably the most notorious Renaissance pope. Like the other popes of that time, he was very learned and a patron of art and promoted Latin and learning in general. The historically significant writer Machiavelli dedicated his famous political essay "The Prince" to Alexander's son Cesare Borgia, himself a classic Renaissance ruler. The pope's daughter Lucrezia was famous for her blonde beauty and brilliant politics (being a governor of a city for some time) and for her many husbands, important princes. However, some modern scholars have argued that given Alexander's location at the time these were children born, they almost certainly weren't his actual kids. Before you judge him, also consider this. A visitor to Rome asked him if all the rumors about his affairs and political intrigues didn't upset him. And do you know what he said? He said, "Rome is a free city, and the citizens of Rome are free to speak their minds and say what they want." Pretty amazing, isn't it?
  

But Luther did not go the route St. Francis of Assisi went, or Saint Dominic Guzman, Luther had little (or no) patience and instead of getting local problems fixed, he kept pushing ever more extreme positions till he destroyed the Church and replaced it with his Lutheran Church creation, a state church controlled not by churchman (whether good ones or bad) but by secular princes. Mimicking him, Henry VIII did the same in England. John Calvin took over the Swiss town of Geneva and ran it like a Mideastern mullah! NO separation between Church and State.

Keep in mind, too, that the Reformers kept complaining of the Church selling indulgences (something that indeed, needed reformation) and taxing people, but the Medieval Church was the SOLE provider of welfare for the people, maintaining hospitals, old-folk homes (hospices), schools galore, including universities (something the Church created). The Church also provided work to thousands of craftsmen and masons, continually building or rebuilding ecclesiastical buildings. Millions of serfs lived safely on Church lands (treated better than secular rulers treated their own peasants), while non-serfs rented their farms from the Church.

Shakespeare has King Henry V say in Henry V, Act 4, scene 1,

Not to-day, O Lord,

O, not to-day, think not upon the fault

My father made in compassing the crown!

I Richard's body have interred anew;

And on it have bestow'd more contrite tears

Than from it issued forced drops of blood:

Five hundred poor I have in yearly pay,

Who twice a-day their wither'd hands hold up

Toward heaven, to pardon blood; and I have built

Two chantries, where the sad and solemn priests

Sing still for Richard's soul. More will I do;

Though all that I can do is nothing worth,

Since that my penitence comes after all,

Imploring pardon.

It was thus the Medieval World was built, the great cathedrals, the endless churchs, the beautiful art, schools endowed, hospitals established, the poor maintained, all indulgences pleading for the penitent giver. 

Luther's doctrine of grace destoryed it all. 

After the Reformation, the secular state took over all this and usually sold it off to rich laymen, who either ejected the free-born tenants or cracked down the serfs who couldn't leave. "Clearances" began, as in England, where the poor farmers and tradesmen where thrown off their estates.  Occasionally, the new state bureaucracies tried to provide schooling and so on, but it was nothing like it had been. Charles I of England tried to push hard for government charity and got beheaded for his troubles. And no new churches were built for a 100 years or more, either, though about half or so of Europe's artistic heritage (most of it ecclesiastical) was destroyed by Protestant mobs acting in a true Islamic spirit.

We saw the same occur after Vatican II, BTW, only with Catholic bureaucrats doing the destroying. It is called "iconoclasm": the intentional destruction of Church-related art. As part of all iconoclasm, churches are simply robbed, not just of their art, but their gold and silver, their lands, their incomes (reduced to state-provided handouts), and so on. Beautiful windows were removed. The Trappists ruling the Kentucky monastery Thomas Merton attended took out the church's windows and stored them away. 

The Reformation-era Catholic churches were truly smashed. What makes me especially angry is the destruction of the old monastic libraries. God only knows what was lost. A good example is the Beowulf Old English epic. It was found in only one manuscript written about the year 1000 (the poem itself could be 200 years older). It came to the attention of the literary world about 1650, when it was found in a private library. No one has ANY idea of where it came from. Apparently the family that had it had no clue. It's a complete mystery. But you can imagine that some Medieval Monastic library had it, and that it was looted. How many more Beowulf's were lost? We know the libraries were scattered when the secular owners who bought them from Henry VIII took them over. They didn't want old books; they wanted the land and the buildings. (Or just the lands; roofs were taken off the churches and they were left to deteriorate.) 

Of course, the big issue in the 16th century Reformation was theology; specifically, just how one is "saved"? How did that work? By "grace" or by "faith" and faith in conjunction (or not at all) with "works".

Luther came up with a novel way of understanding how Faith works, or even what it is. He had a new idea of what grace was, and of course he damned all "works" root and branch. In short, Martin Luther simply rewrote the source code of the Christian Faith. When in public debate, Johann Eck got him to say he, Luther, would trust his own judgement of Scripture over a Church Council, every jaw in the room had to drop open. One guy, a youngish academic with no parochial experience, and with a narrow Nominalist university education in a corner of Germany, claimed to know more than a parliament of Churchman, many of whom were far older and more learned, than he? Many of whom would be from wide-spread countries, too.

But that is Martin Luther in a nutshell. ("Tell them Doctor Martin Luther would have it so!" he would write later.) And when at the imperial Diet in Worms in 1521, the emperor, Kaiser Karl, Charles V himself, the most powerful ruler in all Europe, asked Luther in astonishment, "What of all our ancestors who believed in the old Faith, as it was for centuries?" Luther literally answered, "Who cares!" (Well, literally, he said, "What is that to us?" but the drift was plain as a smack in the face.)

Such was Luther.

Since he was one who started the Reformation (Jan Huss and John Wycliffe tried to do so a generation or so earlier, but the secular princes did not think to use them against the Church, as they would do with Luther), historians have painted him the best they could. But he really was neither wise nor faithful. At one point, he approved of a German prince's committing bigamy! (That got out – of course it did – and has tarnished Luther's reputation ever since.)

The Core Christian Teaching

The core Christian idea is that God incarnated Himself into the human race so that those humans who accepted Him could in turn be incarnated into God. God takes over a person via Grace, a transforming spiritual substance, changing his fundamental nature, and creating a New Creation in Christ.

This teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament. Examples:
•    John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation) And of course the whole "You must be born again" colloquy in John 3.

•    2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.

In Romans 8, St. Paul talks about receiving the spirit of sonship so that you can call God Himself "Abba", a Hebrew word meaning 'father' but specifically 'my particular father'. Obviously, to be able to do that, one is a new creation indeed.

Or obviously in the Gospel of John, chapter 1:

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Once you know what to look for, this truly becoming a new creation in Christ, "children of God not of natural descent...but born of God" is everywhere in the New Testament.

For two thousand years, the Church has taught the "infusion" of grace via baptism and the sacraments. Luther and Calvin, etc., taught that God merely "imputed" or "assigned" the grace of His Son to those who professed Faith in Christ. But the Historical Church, East and West, and Further East and Deep South (Egypt and Ethiopia) taught St. Paul's and St. John's New Creation in Christ as the way of salvation. The Greeks have always called it Theosis.

But Martin Luther never felt a "new creation in Christ". He always felt like old sinful Martin Luther. Nothing he did helped, no prayer, no confession, no penance. When he said Mass, he admitted he felt terrified. He hated God for not making him feel a new creation. He hated himself for being so messed up. His confessor, Johann von Staupitz said to him, "Martin, God is not angry with you, you are angry with God." All-in-all, Martin Luther is not really the kind of guy one wants to base Faith in Christ on.

Romans 3:28: "The verse that launched the Reformation"

Finally, one more bit of detail Biblical reading and we're done. Reading Roman 3, specifically verse 28: "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law," Luther took this "works of the law" set phrase to mean doing any good thing, whatsoever. None of it helps or is necessary for salvation. Therefore, one did not have to do good things to be saved. Indeed, one could "sin a 1000 times a day" and it not affect one's salvation. (Isn't that an example of cognitive dissonance in itself, though?)

The phrase "works of the law" had been debated before, however, by no one less than St. Augustine back in the Fifth Century, who argued it meant all moral law (10 Commandments or whatever). St. Jerome, his contemporary but who had wider experience and who had lived and studied with Jews at one point in his long career, said no, "works of the law" meant Jewish temple ceremony, eating kosher, being circumcised, and so on. As the phrase only appeared in St. Paul, there was no way to get a handle on it until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, one of which, dealing with ceremonial law, uses the exact phrase! This is 4QMMT, (Miqsat Ma'asei ha-Torah: Some of the Works of the Law). It was a letter written by the Essenes (a very strict Jewish sect) to the Pharisees, in order to correct the Pharisees in some of their teaching. In the title and in the letter, "works of the law" definitely means ceremonial law. So, St. Jerome was right and Augustine wrong! And of course, therefore Martin Luther was wrong. Flat out.

We also know he was wrong because of how he read New Testament authors who quoted from Old Testament writings. Luther interpreted the Romans 3:28 in light of his reading of the earlier part of Romans 3, where a succession of verses lament, "(10) There is no one righteous, not even one; (11) there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. (12) All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (This is only a partial quote.)

Luther took these to mean no ONE PERSON in the all world was worthy, all fallen and failed. No one had sufficient grace from God! But each of these verses are from the Psalms (with one from Isaiah) and when a New Testament writer quotes an Old Testament verse, one is expected to recall the entire psalm or chapter it is in. A startling example is Our Lord on the Cross, reciting the first line from Psalm 22, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The idea is He recited the entire psalm, or a goodly portion of it (it is long). St. John expects his readers to know this detail. Sts Matthew and Mark do not have to explain it. That's how they wrote in those days. Everything is important. (And anyway, no chapter numbers or verse numbers existed until much later.)

And thus it is that the first lines above from St. Paul's chapter 3 lament originated from Psalm 14, the one that starts, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." But if you read the whole psalm (it isn't long), you get to this startling verse:

"(4) Do all these evildoers know nothing? They devour my people as though eating bread; they never call on the Lord. (5) But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous."

Whoa! If everyone is fallen and no good, who are these "company of the righteous"? Who are "my people"? Well, they're the good guys who keep the Faith! Not everyone everywhere is no good, then. That was in no way what old St. Paul meant. God has His righteous! (Actually, note that He always does. Remember First Kings, 19:18? "I have kept 7,000 in Israel who have not bent the knee to Ba'al".) And if you take the time and trouble to look up each psalm verse St. Paul quotes, and read the psalms they come from (and Isaiah), you'll find the SAME thing. Luther read chapter 3 COMPLETELY wrong and Protestantism was founded on a profound misunderstanding.

Now, I could go on, and will, upon request, but this is pretty long. For right now, then, Luther (and Calvin, who had in many ways a VERY different take on the Faith than Luther did, but isn't nearly as colorful or dramatic a character) were quite wrong in their Biblical exegesis.

Their sola scriptura doctrine soon split the Church into major pieces, and after the American Constitution of 1787, thousands of denominations have appeared and metastasized across the world. (The U.S. Constitution was the first to regulate religion to limbo, a personal eccentricity. The Iroquois told Ben Franklin – I read somewhere long ago – that the Founders were crazy to do this, but of course who listened to Indians?)

Hopes this helps set things in perspective.

An Préachán

"Do you really want to live in a country run by thugs?"

That's the question asked at the end of the article I've linked to further below. 

But really, thugs come in all sorts. Soros and Schwab and Gates all even look like joke Monty Python version of the Nazi leadership; the latters' collective IQ would have embarrassed a cockroach – yet they managed to kill millions. The WEF/Great Reset imbeciles will do the same.

Here, in this Naoim Wolf article at LifeSite, the issue is: CAN we live in a world run by Great Reset Thugs? Naomi Wolf takes no prisoners, nor should she.

Wolf writes:

I wish people would wake up sooner, honestly. I’ve been warning people for about six months that a war is being waged against us here in the United States. We are at war, even though we think we’re not. We don’t see bullets flying.

This is a new kind of war, and it’s a war that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has developed very skillfully. Stalinists also developed it skillfully. It’s never been done to us like this before, but look at the big picture please.

Friends,

We are definitely at war with our governments around the world. (Those of us who are Catholics are at war the the Church's government, that's for sure, and the Vatican wars on us in the exact way secular governments do!)

This is a must-listen to presentation by Neil Oliver about exactly this. 

N.B.Neil Oliver raises an interesting point out the Our Father, when "debts" was changed to "trespasses". But apparently, during the great Middle Ages, the Pater Noster was always said in Latin by everyone, and in Latin, the word is indeed "debts". The English version we're most familiar and using "trespasses" appears with William Tyndale (executed 1536 on orders –  more or less – from Henry VIII, for ironically, Tyndale opposed Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon!). Oliver's point is that without some safety-valve control mechanism to abolish all debts periodically, we end up enslaved to the wealthy. That, alas, is very true, indeed.

Today, though, thugs, and lawless mobs, sexual deviant devotees of Xōchipilli, slaves to Moloch rioting to slay babies and rejoicing in baby murders, not to mention society's "bottom feeders" like trannies forcing your kids to participate in "drag queen" "readings", Black Lives Matter/Antifa stormtroopers destroying entire cities, crime on a horrendous scale and ideological cretins running the local justice systems to the extent that even the far-gone people of San Francisco are voting them out. Attacks like this are getting be a daily scene.  

It is as though overnight the storm clouds of Armageddon have roiled madly into the sky. Will the USA survive to the November elections? Will Europe survive their collective governments' fawning to Ukraine when Russia simply stops supply any gas or food? (Putin could do that tomorrow, if he wants to. At least, in the US, if we overthrow the Democrats and "RINOs", at least the continent is totally self-sustaining in natural resources, unlike poor Europe.)

So.

I usually don't sent single articles around but this particular one below says plainly, and gives plenty of evidence, that the Democrat Party has become the realm of utter thugs, gorillas (I insult gorillas!) and perverted piranha.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/06/the_democrats_a_criminal_organization.html

It also includes fair-sized excerpts from other articles, with links.

Worth a read, definitely.

But the bottom line is that our governments have turned against their actual people, and seem hell-bent or destroying us all, via borderless immigration and demonic alchemy, for Covid and public medicine's response is nothing less than voodoo. (Alas, I insult voodoo!)

I'm just left wondering how long we'll be free to communicate like this.

An Péachán

Crows, druid lords reincarnated in latter days,

Haunting now the yellowed rows of dying maize

Yet ever praising Crom in their wizard lays.

WHO International Pandemic Treaty-Enslavement, Backed by China

Friends,

If you haven't been paying attention, the un-elected health junta known as the World Health Organization (WHO), currently the tail wagging the UN whipped puppy, is about to enshrine itself – with the help the illegal, un-elected, installed Biden Regime – as ruler of us all. (Trump tried to get us out of WHO, Biden got us back in; Trump tried to get us out of Somalia, Biden has just sent 700 U.S. Special Forces there – I thought we were supposed to fight Russia. Somalia? It's all lies, cheats, and murder with the current U.S. regime.)

Here's Daniel Horowitz on the upcoming WHO treaty. Horowitz provides a lot (a lot) of details; but there's little we can do except perhaps on a state and personal level. Here's a short excerpt on that part of it:

The solution is very simple. Every Republican running for state or local office must pledge to pass a resolution pre-emptively declaring these regulations null and void. Only something ratified by 67 senators has the force of law. Any international hocus-pocus is dead on arrival.

Notice how the Biden administration just held a “global Covid summit,” in which they all unanimously warned about the really bad pandemic this fall that will be worse than what we experienced.

Other articles have been flooding the conservative online venues. A good one is here at The Conservative Treehouse. The excellent Neil Oliver discusses the whole mess quite thoroughly.

Basically, this is the One World Government's advent, it will rule us all through health concerns and it will bypass national governments. (Legally, the U.S. Senate must approve, by a 2/3s margin, all treaties, but this health thing is technically an amendment to previous treaties and shady "accords", to which the evil Biden Regime has already given approval and its own amendments. No Senate vote required. Or so they say.)

Physical health dominates everyone who is a metaphysical materialist. The Communists tried to achieve this via preaching about the economic injustices inherent in the Capitalist system, but most people would rather participate in Capitalism than live in Communistic poverty and slavery. The Nazis had a narrower appeal, based on race. That is hardly a dated, old-fashioned idea. Modern-day racists like Antifa and BLM predicate their racist arguments on race, as well, a sort of mirror image of the Klu Klux Klan.

But everyone in this hedonistic, selfish, aborting, carnal-enthralled society wants health, mainly so they can continue their self-absorption as long as possible. Thus we saw a large percentage of the population in the West, even in the U.S., surrender to utter idiocy in the Covid lockdowns and the brutally stupid mask-wearing mandates. Dar Crom, we saw the Catholic Church surrender to this charlatanry. Anyway, Covid was a trial run. Now, in Australia, they're making it illegal for individual citizens to grow their own gardens. This is apparently going to be starting to be true in Michigan.

Obviously, the world has gone utterly mad, and unless people fight these trends, clear signals of what The-Powers-That-Be want to do to us, we'll all be slaves, chattel to androgynous elites. You know, like the homosexual Yuval Noah Harari, the "Israeli public intellectual, historian and a professor in the Department of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem." Harari, a "Futurist", is one of the "brains" behind that toad, Klaus Schwab.

Creatures like Harari and Schwab can be dealt with easily enough, one might think, but it is the Red Chinese who are behind this. They are not so easily put down. The Chinese Communist Party fights wars in VERY different ways than we understand. See: (Patrick Coffin episode #280): What China Has Planned For Us – Brig. Gen. Ret Robert Spalding

So, all in all, my friends, this is why I'm saying this, the summer of 2022, will be our last free summer before the horrors of a real-life 1984 smother us all to spiritual and intellectual death.

An Préachán

Neil Oliver outlines the fractured trust of the people with Government

Friends,

This is a commentary that must be heard: Neil Oliver outlines the fractured trust of the people with Government. Sundance has it posted at Conservartive Treehouse. 

It speaks for itself so I will say nothing except take the few minutes to listen to it.

AnP

Covid unraveling faster by the day...

Friends, Amici,

The Covid narrative is unraveling faster than a Covid model ball made of yarn. Basically, its 'spiel' has to bear too many conflicting narratives with too many people looking on while, like a telescoped time-frame of scooping 20 years of Global Warming into a mere 18 months, revelations come ever faster and 'furiouser'. 

I see Pfizer-BioNTech & Moderna are raising their prices. Time is running out on the Hoax and they're trying to rake in what they can before all the Inferno itself breaks loose. Fewer are buying their product, so each 'sell' has to bring more cash in. Also, as the Biden administration and governments in Europe and Australia/New Zealand try ever harder to get that "jab" into  your arm, people push back even harder. Old-style physics, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Did you see that video of the German police beating in the head of a child trying to protect its mother at a Berlin anti-lockdown protest yesterday? (The middle video of three at this Gateway Pundit article.) That blow to the child's head was utterly gratuitous and pure spite. The more governments do this monstrous idiocy, the more people will turn against them.

A great clarion call for freedom from this tyranny is Neil Oliver's historic speech here. Do yourself a favor and watch it. I've seen a number of Oliver's history documentaries on Scotland, and they're excellent. (And his Scottish brogue is a pleasure to listen to, of course.)

Some Canadian says the same thing. A Canadian, mind you: video here. 

We need that because we now have the infamous wretch Anthony Fauci saying because of Covid, there are no longer any such things as Civil Rights! 

There's quite a blow up over both the New York Times and Washington Post saying that the vaccines don't work in the sense of keeping one from getting Covid. Of course they don't do that. They're just supposed to make it milder for the vaccinated. (BTW, that is exactly what just infections are supposed to do in the first place! Get milder. So: WHY the vaccine?) Anyway, that is what they are supposed to do. Officially – though people just don't seem to "get" that. However, after both the NYTimes and WaPo fielded articles to this effect, the Biden White House exploded back in outrage! Streiff here at Redstate has the details. 

An excerpt:

As we all know by now, the CDC is a collection of amoral hacks who will do or say whatever it takes to push an anti-freedom agenda. Even so, these two stories fell much in line with the Biden bunch’s agenda of shutting down the nation again and making everyone reliant upon federal largesse to live. So a lot of us were more than a little astonished when the head of the White House Wuhan virus rapid response team, Ben Wakana (not to be confused with the mythical country with a similar name), came out swinging. Of the New York Times piece, he said,

VACCINATED PEOPLE DO NOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS AT THE SAME RATE AS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND IF YOU FAIL TO INCLUDE THAT CONTEXT YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
(This screed answering this: The New York Times
@nytimes
Breaking News: The Delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox and may be spread by vaccinated people as easily as the unvaccinated, an internal C.D.C. report said.)

This seems to be an aspect of the news I wrote about last, that the CDC would be coming out saying the "vaccines" "don't work". Well, for those paying attention, you've known for some time they were never intended to "work" like a typical vaccine is supposed to do. But admitting as much now, the CDC finds (and the NYT and WaPo), this is not what the powers-that-be want to hear.

Utter chaos, my friends. The "vaccines" were never supposed to "work" in Smallpox vaccine fashion, and they didn't and don't and won't. They don't stop you from getting Covid nor do they – apparently – stop you from spreading it (though plenty of experts argue the "vaccines" cause you to shed millions of spike proteins!). But those running the fraudulent Biden Administration thought they'd be reaping the praise of the Sheeple by now; alas, that's obviously blowing up in their faces. Hell hath no fury like a vaccinated person who realizes they been made a fool of. 

Another example of this was a recent CDC report that 74 percent of people infected with Covid in Massachusetts were fully vaccinated. What didn't get told was an important point rarely reported about this Massachusetts "outbreak" is that it occurred at some huge male homosexual "event" (i.e. sodomite bacchanalia, in Provincetown, out on Cape Cod: a major gay hangout), so we need to remember that little factoid, disgusting as it is.

After all, if you think about it, "Covid" was the absolute least dangerous thing they were "injecting" into each other at that "event".

The CDC said also said: "The Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible"...well, of course, it might be, were it to actually exist, which it doesn't. All "variants" are copy errors computers running genome programs produce. I keep saying this, quoting various experts like David Martin, and people ask me well, what did they die of?

Hmmm...maybe this will help answer that query:

Compared to this:

Think about it.

Finally, a word from Dr. Peter McCullough.

 

18:13 It's not natural for a human cell to produce this foreign spike protein. We've never asked the human body to produce a foreign protein, ever, in the history of mankind, so this is so radically new to do this, and to do this on a mass scale, let alone to have it expressed on the cell surface and to have the body start to attack its own cells. And then when it circulates in the bloodstream, where we know it damages blood cells and causes blood-clotting. So the mechanism of action in the human body is so alarmingly dangerous, that were we draw it out on a chalkboard two years ago, I don't think we could have got a human volunteer to sign up for this. I don't think I would not ever have brought it forward as a product idea, even on the drawing board. [18:58]   

McCullough says he would under no circumstances recommend this to a child. At this point in time, I would not recommend it to anyone. 

An Préachán