Antichrist’s Doctrinaire and Censorious Church of Communist Globalism

The adversary is very much at work in the midst of world that is suffering the logical, inevitable, and inexorable consequences of Protestantism’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King five centuries ago and the subsequent rise of the interrelated welter of secular, anthropocentric “philosophies” and ideologies, each promising some form of “secular salvation” in fact if not in name, that can be described by using the phrase “Judeo-Masonry.” The devil has been the architect of this new world order, and he is using his minions in the false opposites of the naturalist “right” and the “left” to build the superstructure and the infrastructure of the One World Government to which the One World Ecumenical Church (that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together and Fratelli Tutti are important building blocks) will be completely subservient. Indeed, the pestiential little and quite corpulent Argentine Apostate is busy right now in Indonesia preaching such bilge as follows:

A harmony in diversity is achieved when particular perspectives take into account the needs common to all and when each ethnic group and religious denomination acts in a spirit of fraternity, pursuing the noble goal of serving the good of all. The awareness of participating in a shared history, in which solidarity is essential and contributions are made by all, helps to identify the right solutions, to avoid the exasperation of contrasts and to transform opposition into effective cooperation.

This wise and delicate balance, between the multiplicity of cultures and different ideological visions, and the ideals that cement unity, must be continuously defended against imbalances. It is a work of craftsmanship, I repeat, a work of craftsmanship entrusted to everyone, but in a special way to those in political life, who should strive toward harmony, equity, respect for the fundamental rights of human beings, sustainable development, solidarity and the pursuit of peace, both within society and with other peoples and nations. From this comes the greatness of politics. A wise man once said that politics is the highest form of charity. This is beautiful.

In order to foster a peaceful and fruitful harmony that ensures peace and unites efforts to remove the imbalances and suffering that still persist in some areas, the Church desires to increase interreligious dialogue. In this way, prejudices can be eliminated and a climate of mutual respect and trust can grow. This is indispensable for meeting common challenges, including that of countering extremism and intolerance, which through the distortion of religion attempt to impose their views by using deception and violence. Closeness, on the other hand, listening to the opinion of others, creates a fraternal nation. This is something very, very beautiful.

The Catholic Church is at the service of the common good and wishes to strengthen cooperation with public institutions and other actors in civil society, but she never proselytises, and always the respects the faith of every person. The Church wishes to encourage the formation of a more balanced social fabric and ensure a more efficient and equitable distribution of social assistance.

In this regard, I would like to refer to the Preamble of your 1945 Constitution, which offers valuable insights into the path chosen by a democratic and independent Indonesia. This is a very beautiful history. Reading it, we can see that it was everyone’s choice.

Twice within a few lines, the Preamble refers to Almighty God and the need for his blessing to descend upon the nascent state of Indonesia. Similarly, the opening lines of your fundamental constitutional law refer to social justice twice: as the desired foundation for international order and as one of the main objectives to be achieved for the benefit of the entire Indonesian people.

Unity in multiplicity, social justice and divine blessing are thus the fundamental principles intended to inspire and guide the social order. They can be likened to a support structure, the solid base on which to build the house. How can we fail to notice that these principles fit very well with the motto of my visit to Indonesia: Faith, Fraternity, Compassion?

Unfortunately, however, we see in today’s world certain tendencies that hinder the development of universal fraternity (cf. Encyclical Letter, Fratelli Tutti, 9). In various regions we see the emergence of violent conflicts, which are often the result of a lack of mutual respect, of the intolerant desire to let one’s own interests, one’s own position, or one’s own partial historical narrative prevail at all costs, even when this leads to endless suffering for entire communities and results in wars and much bloodshed.

Sometimes violent tensions arise within countries because those in power want to make everything uniform, imposing their vision even in matters that should be left to the autonomy of individuals or groups.

Furthermore, despite impressive declarations of policy, there is also a lack of true and forward-looking commitment to implement the principles of social justice. As a result, a considerable part of humanity is left on the margins, without the means for a dignified existence and no defence against the serious and growing social imbalances that trigger acute conflicts. How is this often resolved? With a law of death, that is by limiting births, limiting the greatest richness that a nation can have, its births. Your country, meanwhile, has families with three, four, and five children. This is seen in the average age of the nation. Keep going like this. It is an example for all countries. It may seem funny that perhaps some families prefer to have a cat or a small dog, and not a child, but this is not right.

In other contexts, people believe they can or should disregard the need to seek God’s blessing, judging it to be superfluous for human beings and civil society. They promote instead their own efforts, but this often leads them to encounter frustration and failure. Yet, there are times when faith in God is continually placed in the forefront, but is sadly manipulated to foment divisions and hatred instead of furthering peace, communion, dialogue, respect, cooperation and fraternity for building up the nation.

Brothers and sisters, in the face of the above challenges, it is encouraging that the philosophy guiding the organization of the Indonesian State is both balanced and wise. In this regard, I make my own the words of Saint John Paul II during his 1989 visit to this very palace. Among other things, he said: “In acknowledging the presence of legitimate diversity, in respecting the human and political rights of all citizens, and in encouraging the growth of national unity based on tolerance and respect for others, you lay the foundations for that just and peaceful society which all Indonesians wish for themselves and long to bequeath to their children” (Address to the President of the Indonesian Republic and the Authorities, Jakarta, 9 October 1989).

If at times in the past the principles mentioned above have not always been implemented, they remain valid and reliable, like a beacon that illuminates the path to be taken and that warns of the most dangerous mistakes to be avoided. (Meeting with the Authorities, Civil Society and the Diplomatic Corps in the Istana Negara Presidential Palace Hall Jakarta, 4 September 2024.)

Although I will write a commentary on all this religious indifferentism once Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s current anti-apostolic journey has come to a conclusion, suffice it to say for the moment that, quite in line with longstanding policy of the globalist elites, “Pope Francis” knows how to censor himself from uttering the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in “mixed company.” He is truly ashamed of Christ the King and His Holy Doctrine before men as he, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, seeks the praise of men and to build a world of “solidarity” that ignores the true Faith and pretends that men can know any kind of peace and justice without referencing all things to the Divine Redeemer as Has revealed Himself to men exclusively through His Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no just social order within nations or a genuine peace among them.

Then again, globalism is premised upon putting aside “differences” as mere mortals whose bodies are one day destined for the corruption of the grave until the Second Coming of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead while the globalist elites arrogate unto themselves the aura of Holy Mother Church’s infallibility and proclaim “doctrines” from which no one can legitimately dissent without being termed an “enemy” of globalist “brotherhood” and “solidarity.”

The One World Government will probably not be named as such as supposedly sovereign nations surrender what little remains of their national sovereignty to supranational governing bodies such as the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Court, et al. No matter what it calls itself and what its ultimate structure will look like, though, this one world system of governance will be an instrument of preparing the way for the Antichrist. As such, therefore, it is absolutely necessary to quash all dissenting voices and to enforce what is considered to be, well, at the least for the moment, its doctrinal orthodoxy until such time as the Mister Bigs in Central Control decide in favor of a new orthodoxy to which all must submit.

In other words, the One World Government or One World System of Governance that is already very much a reality in fact but will have increasing powers in the years ahead is a secular “church” with its own hierarchy and established dogmas that are meant to control the lives of the masses and even to determine the “usefulness” of those lives and whether the “useless” must be “terminated” in the advancement of “social evolution.” This one world system of governance, therefore, will be a universal ape of the Catholic Church in what can be called the “social reign of satan” to mock the Universal Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is an inversion of reality that sets up falsehood as true and seeks to silence, persecute and, if necessary, “eliminate” those who stand up for Truth Himself and His Catholic Church, which is not, of course, the entity that calls itself by that name but is an anti-church headed by antipope who does the work of Antichrist.

It is perhaps useful to provide a bit of historical perspective to the efforts of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Kamala Harris to pressure the censorshiop of true information by terming it in an Orwellian sense as "disinformation," something that Facebook founder Mark Zukerberg has reluctantly admitted while not exactly assuring anyone that this censorship will not continue in the future as Big Tech and the mainslime media continue to use the modern concept of "freedom of speech" to destroy it in the name of "national security" or "public health" or "preserving democracy." 

Constitutional law attorney and law professor Jonathan Turley, a liberal Democrat, dismissed Zuckerberg's admission as follows in a recent column"

“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.” Those words from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg came this week with an admission in a letter that his company, Facebook, did yield to pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor American citizens on a wide array of subjects.

For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg’s belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret of a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.

Zuckerberg’s sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the House Judiciary Committee.

Now forced to admit what many of us have long alleged, Zuckerberg is really, really sorry.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss Facebook’s record at length as a critical player in the anti-free speech alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces.

In prior testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and other congressional committees, I noted that Zuckerberg continued to refuse to release this information after Elon Musk exposed this system in his release of the “Twitter Files.”

Zuckerberg stayed silent as Musk was viciously attacked by anti-free speech figures in Congress and the media. He was fully aware of his own company’s similar conduct but stayed silent.

When the White House and President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, Facebook continued to withhold evidence that they too were pressured to suppress the story before the election.

When the censorship system was recently put before the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, the justices asked about evidence of coordination and pressure from the government. In Murthy, states successfully showed lower courts that there was coercion from the government in securing an injunction. The Biden administration denied such pressure and the Court rejected the standing of plaintiffs, blocked an order to stop the censorship, and sent the case back down to the lower court.

Zuckerberg still remained silent.

But Facebook was not silent when it came to censorship, or “content moderation” as the company prefers to call it. While Zuckerberg now expresses “regret” at not speaking out sooner, his company previously sought to sell Americans on censorship.

In 2021, I wrote about the Facebook commercial campaign in which the company attempted to rally young people to embrace censorship.

The commercials show people like “Joshan” who says that he “grew up with the internet.” Joshan mocks how much computers have changed and then objects how privacy and censorship has not evolved as much as our technology. As Joshan calls for “the blending of the real world and the internet world,” content moderation is presented as part of this not-so-brave new world.

Joshan and his equally eager colleagues Chava and Adam were presented by Facebook as the shiny happy faces of young people longing to be content modified.  They were all born in 1996 — the sweet spot for censors who saw young people as allies to reduce free speech.

For years, young people have been taught that free speech is harmful and triggering. We are raising a generation of speech-phobics and Zuckerberg and Facebook wanted to tap into that generation to get people to stop fearing the censor and love “content modification.”  It was time, as Joshan and his friends told us, to “change” with our computers.

Now, Zuckerberg and Meta want people to know that they were “pressured” to censor and really regret their role in silencing opposing voices.

It is the feigned regret that comes with forced exposure.

The Facebook files now put the lie to past claims of the Biden administration and many Democrats in Congress. For years, members attacked some of us who testified that we had no evidence of coordination or pressure from the government. At the same time, they opposed any effort to investigate and release such evidence.

The evidence is now undeniable.

The Biden administration has long demanded the removal of opposing views on a wide array of subjects. Democrats in Congress pushed Zuckerberg to expand the scope of censorship to include areas like climate change denial.

Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is an example of the chilling scope of this effort.  Her agency was created to work on our critical infrastructure, but Easterly declared that the mandate would now include policing “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes combating “malinformation,” or information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

Consider that for a second: true facts are censorable if the government views them as misleading.

As I write in my book, President Joe Biden is arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. His administration helped create a censorship system that was described by one federal judge as “Orwellian.” Vice President Kamala Harris has been entirely supportive of that effort.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was one of the principal campaign issues. It should be so again. Harris should have to take ownership of the censorship system maintained by the administration.

In my book, I propose a federal law that would bar the government from using any federal funds to support efforts to censor, blacklist, or suppress individuals or groups. It would take the government out of the censorship business. Harris should be asked if she would oppose such a law and dismantle the current censorship apparatus in the federal government.

Democracy is not on the ballot in 2024, as many have claimed, but free speech is. (Zuckerberg’s Censorship Admission is More Contrived than Contrite. Also see Mark Zuckerberg needs to spill all on how FBI censored Americans.)

This is all very good as far as it goes. However, Professor Turley does not understand that the American founding itself contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction as it is impossible for men to avoid totaltiarianism without submitting themselves, both individually and collectively, to Christ the King and His Holy Church in all that pertains to the good souls. The vainglorious American founders believed that it was possible for men to pursue "civic virtue" and thus to maintain social order without belief in, access to, and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace, a delusion that must lead over time to the triumph of total government control to curb the problems caused by human licentiousness exercised in the name of "freedom."

Alas, even the open state-sponsored censorship at this time is nothing new as the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, explained the system of unofficial censorship that existed in the United States of America at the time he gave his famous commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons - maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)

This censorship has become officially sanctioned on college/university campuses, in corporate boardrooms, and in every nook and cranny of the Deep State at all levels of government (state, local, national, provincial, globalist).

Freedom?

It is an illusion. There can be no authentic freedom for the individual or for the state that is not founded in the Kingship of Jesus Christ as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church in all pertains to the good of souls, upon which depends the entire fate of nations.

Speaking out against blasphemies committed by the motion picture and related "entertainment" industries?

A crime.

Defending the inviolability of innocent human life?

A crime.

Far-fetched?

What about Mark Houck, a peaceful pro-life husband and father who was arrested in a siege upon his residence on Friday, September 23, 2022, as he was arrested for violating the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act while protecting his son from being bullied by a profanely abusive pro-death escort in front of Philadelphia area killing mill? (See Fear Not Those Who Can Destroy the Body, Fear Not the Likes of Merrick Garland.)

What about the brave rescuers who have been sentenced to monstrous sentences in Federal prison for nonviolently attempting to save preborn babies from execution and their mothers from becoming complicit in their murders? (See Divided by Error, United in Amorality, part two.)

What about the physicians who have had been denied privileges at hospitals where they had served patients for decades and/or have had their board certifications revoked because they documented the truth about the harm being caused by the abortion tainted, disease causing biological weapons called "vaccines" to allegedly prevent the contraction and/or to mitigate the effects of the Wuhan Virus, which is not a mortal threat to most people who are not otherwise suffering from a comorbidity or have a compromised autoimmune system?

Two doctors who spoke out about vaccines and alternative treatments for COVID-19 received notice that their medical certifications were revoked, while another doctor said her certification was revoked without her knowledge.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) last week revoked the certifications of Drs. Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, following a two-year investigation into their promotion of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as treatments for COVID-19 and their statements questioning the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

According to The Washington Post, the two physicians continued “to promote ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication, as a treatment for COVID long after the medical community found it to be ineffective.”

Kory and Marik are co-founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which promotes alternative treatments for COVID-19.

Citing unnamed experts, the Post claimed the FLCCC “spread misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic.”

MedPageToday quoted an ABIM spokesperson, who said the organization “does not comment publicly on the reasons for the revocation of certification.”

However, in a summary of the ABIM’s decision reviewed by The Defender, the organization stated that the doctors’ “conduct poses serious concerns for patient safety and undermines the trust that the public and the medical profession place in the meaning of ABIM board certification.”

In a press release, the FLCCC Alliance said it “categorically disagrees” with ABIM’s decision.

“We believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundational principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations,” the press release states.

Marik told The Defender:

“The bottom line is we’re disappointed because we stand up for the truth. To censor science is to censor progress. Science is based on dialogue and people can have different points of view. That is the principle of science: it’s people having different points of view.

“We’ve never been in a situation before where physicians who have opposing points of view are silenced … It sets a really bad precedent that you can’t really challenge the status quo, and as we know, in medicine, there have been very dramatic changes based on changing understandings of science.”

In the FLCCC Alliance press release, Kory said, “This fight is about more than just our right to speak — it’s about protecting the future of healthcare. When doctors are silenced for questioning the prevailing narrative, we all lose.”

Kory and Marik participated in an ABIM hearing in May, but internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that ABIM revoked her certification without her knowledge.

Nass said she was blindsided by ABIM’s decision to revoke her license, which she said she found out about only when she searched for herself in the organization’s database of certified physicians.

Nass told The Defender:

“After the Maine Medical Board suspended my license illegally — even though none of my alleged transgressions met the statutory requirement for an immediate suspension — the board later found me guilty of things I had not done and continued the suspension … All of this with never a single patient complaint.

“Now I learn, by chance, that the ABIM has suspended me without ever informing me I was even under an investigation, which is illegal according to the ABIM’s process.”

Dr. Peter McCullough also faced similar difficulties with the ABIM over his positions on COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. According to MedPageToday, ABIM revoked his certifications in 2022 — although, as of today, ABIM lists him as certified.

McCullough told The Defender, “The ABIM is violating principles of equal protection, due process, rules of evidence and has gone ex post facto to find reasons to attack qualified ABIM-certified doctors who innovated and saved lives early in the pandemic.”

Science based on ‘different points of view’

Kory and Marik held ABIM certifications in internal and critical care medicine, while Kory was also certified in pulmonary disease, according to MedPageToday.

They were initially notified about the risk of losing their certification in May 2022. Last year, ABIM’s Credentials and Certification Committee recommended the revocation of their certification for disseminating “false or inaccurate medical information.” A hearing followed in May.

According to the FLCCC Alliance’s press release, Kory and Marik “tirelessly defended their positions.” However, despite “presenting over 170 references in a detailed 60-page response submitted in January 2023, the ABIM has chosen to dismiss these robust scientific contributions in favor of a narrow, ‘consensus-driven’ narrative.”

According to the summary of ABIM’s decision, Kory and Marik’s “statements about the safety and efficacy of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine” as treatments for COVID-19 “are false and inaccurate because they are unsupported by factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven medical information.”

The ABIM also addressed the doctors’ positions on the COVID-19 vaccines:

“[The doctors’] statements about the purported ineffectiveness and dangers of COVID-19 vaccines are false and inaccurate because they are unsupported by factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven medical information. …

“ There is extensive factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven medical information demonstrating that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, and lead to better health outcomes.”

Marik questioned the board’s assertions regarding ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and the vaccines.

“What they do is, they cherry-pick articles which support their point of view and then they go on to say the vaccine is safe and effective. We know that’s completely not true. There’s overwhelming data to question both the safety and efficacy of the vaccine,” Marik added.

McCullough said:

“ABIM never updated its members on important risks such as fatal vaccine adverse events, including myocarditis, nor failing theoretical efficacy necessitating boosters that skipped human testing altogether.

“Setting a new dark milestone, ABIM is decertifying highly qualified physicians for nonclinical reasons and ignoring the evidence for early therapeutics and COVID-19 vaccine safety.”

ABIM engaging in ‘medical lawfare’

According to the Post, Kory maintains a license to practice medicine in California, New York and Wisconsin, where “there are no disciplinary actions listed against him.” Marik has retired and his medical license expired in 2022.

Revocation of their ABIM certification “effectively prevents them from practicing at large hospitals and academic institutions,” the Post reported.

Marik and Nass outlined the difficulties of practicing medicine without certification.

“It doesn’t affect us directly, but it affects us indirectly because we’re being accused of committing offenses that are just not true,” Marik said. “The indirect impact to our reputation … it’s a slap in the face, basically, for all the hard work we’ve done.”

Accusing the ABIM of being part of the “medical-industrial complex,” Marik said, “They seem more interested in making money than in protecting physicians. There have been a number of lawsuits against ABIM, so they don’t have the best of reputations. But unfortunately, they are the main certifying organization in the U.S., so they have enormous power and leverage.”

“If I get my license back — a big if, without board certification, I would have great difficulty getting hospital privileges and collecting insurance reimbursements. In other words, I would be unemployable, though I could potentially work on my own if patients paid me directly,” Nass said.

In 2021, ABIM and the Federation of State Medical Boards collaborated to draft the statement used to discipline Nass.

Nass said organizations like ABIM are engaging in “medical lawfare.” She said they are:

“Creating crimes that do not exist, using procedures that do not exist, to try and silence people like me. What did I do wrong? I read the literature and told the truth about what it said, publicly. The COVID vaccines are very dangerous. They don’t prevent COVID. Drugs can effectively treat COVID. And I prescribed those drugs and helped hundreds of Maine citizens. That was my crime.” (Medical Warfare’: Doctors Who Questioned COVID Shots, Promoted Ivermectin Lose Certification.)

I will just start by saying that I believe that the ABIM’s decision was 100% predetermined even before we first received their accusation in June 2022. There was no way they were going to declare us innocent of misinformation, even though a good portion of this country knows how effective and accurate our deeply evidence-based Covid treatment guidance was (and still is).

One of the reasons why they were never gonna let us off is that, if they declared us “innocent,” (i.e. accurate) that action would have immediately imperiled the decisions by medical boards across the country who persecuted hundreds of doctors for using ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or for recommending against Covid-19 mRNA gene therapy products. More importantly, it could potentially launch hundreds of thousands of lawsuits by the families of patients who died due to lack of early treatments offerred by clinics and hospitals or filled by pharmacies.

The above examples which led to the deaths of so many shows the sheer power of mega-corporations that put their financial interests ahead of our health and our lives. Through their overwhelming influence over nearly every institution of society and Science (media, journals, health agencies, politicians, medical schools, physicians etc), they literally succeeded in depriving a whole country (and world) of the most effective, inexpensive, safe, and widely available treatments for Covid. My biggest worry is that this crime against humanity may never enter the history books and thus will be eventually erased from memory. Which is looking probable.

The massive financial opportunities that Covid immediately presented to Big Pharma were threatened by the “inconvenient truths” Paul and I put out there. This ABIM action is one way in which Big Pharma punishes those who are foolish enough to do so. Foolish is not quite the right word in our case as I would argue we were simply naive to the consequences of advocating publicly for the use of off-patent medicines for an immensely profitable disease. It wasn’t heroism as some think, but rather extreme naivete.

I really never thought I would have to lose/leave three jobs and now three Board certifications for speaking truths. Recall that I was very well known in my specialty prior to Covid and was about to become Full Professor when I resigned as Chief of the Critical Care Service at the University of Wisconsin (where I was also the Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center). Reading that Washington Post article above was a pretty sobering reminder of how far I have supposedly “fallen” (Not so fun fact: they completely overstated my salary as the money I received in 2022 included retroactive pay for 2021).

But I am still standing folks. I am happily practicing medicine at my Leading Edge Clinic with my amazing partner Scott Marsland. As many know, we specialize in treating vaccine injury syndromes and Long Covid, and I believe we are soon closing in on having treated our 1,400th patient.

Thank God I managed to build a private, fee-based practice two and half years ago. At the time I suspected this was coming while also already aware that I was “unemployable” by the system. I got fired by my last hospital for a 100% made up complaint, despite the fact they desperately needed me. I was an independent contractor at the time and my ICU partners and all the nurses really liked me. But my partners were telling me that they were under increasing pressure by the Chief Medical Officer to “get rid of Kory.” Although they initially resisted, my stance on vaccines started to cause even more problems for them. When the ICU Director, who was both a friend and a colleague, called to fire me, his last words were, “Pierre, I know there is a war going on and unfortunately you are a casualty.” Truer words were never spoken :).

Just know that Board certification is not a license to practice medicine (that comes from state medical licensing Boards of which I have more than a few still). But this ABIM action now puts a definitive end to any hope of me returning to an academic or “system” position (not that I have that hope anymore). Why is that? Well, because Board Certification was originally just a badge of distinction that doctors could use to impress each other and their patients. But they have since weaponized and monetized Board Certification in that currently you cannot obtain a faculty appointment at an academic medical center without one. Nor can you work for most hospitals without one. Even worse, insurance plans will not put you on their provider panels without it. So, although I have been fully excommunicated from “the system,” I cannot be happier about it.

Understand that what happened to me this week was a devastating censorship action, plain and simple. It was done for two reasons; the first was to destroy my reputation and credibility so that my voice will no longer carry (essentially silencing me) and the other was to send a message to doctors that if they stray from consensus, no matter how scientifically absurd (e.g. mRNA vaccines for a coronavirus), dangerous (e.g. remdesivir, mRNA jabs), or ineffective (Paxlovid), they will be punished.

The damage that will result to patients again, is incalculable. No longer will “system” doctors be able to practice medicine with the autonomy they require to arrive at the best decision for each individual patient. Nearly everything they do will be protocolized with society guideline recommended treatments (i.e. consensus manufactured by Pharma). No longer will they be able to “think out of the box” or use treatments which although known effective, do not have the blessing of those in control of that system. I am as terrified as ever of needing a hospital.

Not to overstate the importance of their actions, but Medicine as I knew it, or thought I knew it, is even more dead if that is possible. If you can’t have a differing scientific opinion without losing your career over it, then how is that Medicine or Science? In fact, in our repeated written defenses, we challenged the ABIM, asking them where “the line” is between legitimate scientific debate driven by a differing emphasis on or interpretation of data and outright misinformation.

Misnformation, as I understand it, is defined as “incorrect or misleading” information. For us to be misinformationists, in my mind, would mean that all the data from trials and studies that exist for therapeutics in Covid;

1. the overwhelming preponderance of data for the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in Covid shows it to be ineffective and dangerous
2. the overwhelming preponderance of data for the vaccines show they are safe and effective

Basically, it comes down to how you interpret the body of evidence which currently exists. Paul and I adhered rigidly to a “totality of the evidence” approach, drawing from in-vitro, in-vivo, clinical and epidemiologic data. All of it lined up in a truly magnificent, inspiring, and unprecedented way. Well, except for the “Big 7 RCT’s” which manipulated the design, conduct and analyses to conclude ivermectin was ineffective. I spent literally hundreds of hours (along with others like Alexandros Marinos), publishing critiques which exposed the most absurd scientific misconduct I had ever witnessed. If interested, here are just some of those critiques, e.g. Oxfords’ PRINCIPLE trial, the TOGETHER trial (three parts, here, here, and here, and the NIH ACTIV-6 trial )

We also evolved with the data, unlike the agencies who had quickly determined in December of 2020 that the vaccines were safe and effective and never, ever veered from that stance up until this day. In contrast, the founding members of the FLCCC, for quite a long time, differed in respect to the efficacy, safety, and need for the mRNA vaccines. I was the first and most vocal against the mRNA vaccines (starting in April 2021) which actually almost led to the breakup of the FLCCC or at least the membership of the original 5.

Prior to April 2021 I was simply neutral/skeptical. That skepticisim was due to what I thought might be folly in trying to vaccinate against a coronavirus (I knew that historically coronavirus vaccines had failed because the vaccinated animals developed antibody dependent enhancement and also that coronaviruses mutate rapidly). Then I did my first deep dive on VAERS and the epidemiologic data showing massive spikes in mortality and hospitalizations timed with the rollout of the jabs across dozens of countries. Voila, I was now “anti-vaxx.”

I continued to track and analyze the ever-emerging data and the horrors they revealed. This work ultimately led the FLCCC to reach an internal “consensus” that the vaccines should be avoided at all costs (literally at all costs as none of the costs incurred by taking the jab were worth someones life). Anyway, I just wanted to show that we evolved with the data, always questioning and reviewing as new data emerged.

I will end by reminding all of how dangerous the ABIM’s actions will be to all of our lives because it will further erode and/or literally destroy the patient-physician relationship. As I wrote in a previous Op-ED in the Daily Caller on January 31, 2023, “A War Is Still Being Waged Against Doctors Who Question Covid Orthodoxy:”

By virtue of their professional training, doctors must advise patients on available treatments and known risks of any treatment or procedure. By threatening doctors who might provide information different than their preferred worldview, ABIM is disrupting the doctor-patient relationship.

When allowed to practice their craft freely, physicians can prevent societal disaster by focusing on individual patients, informed by clinical experience.

Groups like the ABIM, and public medical officials like Fauci, should support and encourage evidence-based debate and patient-centered care.

Instead, they have suppressed both that debate and treatment approach by persecuting its proponents. This campaign must be stopped, its origins and evolution must be thoroughly documented, and it must never be allowed to recur. Physician autonomy must be restored lest all patients suffer. (The American Board of Internal Medicine Revoked All 3 Of My Board Certifications.)

What Aleksandr I. Solzhnenitsyn saw was happening in the so-called "free" and "civilized" West forty-six years ago has become as institutionalized as it was in the Soviet Union whose leaders had imprisoned him for making a satirical remark about Joseph Stalin?

Western "freedom"?

Think again, ladies and gentlemen.

Think again.

Lest the very few readers who remain on this site think that this kind of contempt by one set of “naturalists” for those who disagree with them is anything “new” or that the deep state effort to portray candidate Donald John Trump as a Russian puppet eight years ago and then to undermine the legitimacy and the very conduct of his presidency,thereafter, and then the campaign against all dissent that began in earnest on January 20, 2021, permit me to provide you with a bit of historical perspective that may or may not be familiar to longtime readers of this site.

A Long History of Repressing and Censoring Political Dissent in the Land of the “Free”

As initial overview, it must be remembered that tyrants have sought to silence Catholics from the very birth of the Church on Pentecost Sunday, starting with the thugs who composed the Sanhedrin. Roman Emperors and the kings of barbaric tribes tried with all of their might to get Catholics to deny the Faith during the early part First Millennium. Mohammedans have tried to do so from the Seventh Century to this very day. Protestants and Freemasons and social revolutionaries have tried to do so with varying degrees of ferocity since 1517. The names of these perpetrators have ranged from Nero to Trajan to Diocletian to Mohammed to Luther to Henry to Cranmer to Calvin to Cromwell to Danton to Robespierre to Garibaldi and Bismarck to Lenin to Hitler to Mao to Ho to Castro to Ortega and to all of the petty little men and women, many of them apostate Catholics, who have served in our own government in the past thirty to forty years, ever eager to sell out the Faith for their thirty pieces of silver of popularity and political power.

Tyrants never learn their lessons. Inspired by the adversary, who hates God and who hates us because our souls made in the image and likeness of God, new generations of tyrants arise to try to silence the voice of Catholics. This is why the accommodation of the Church in her human elements to the spirit of the world has made it more possible for the witches' brew of forces that has been coalescing and mutating and re-coalescing since the Sixteenth Century to be victorious in all aspects of the popular culture of most of the countries in the so-called "developed" world. The devil and his minions grow bolder when Catholics begin to speak with the voice of the world, something that the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” have done for over sixty years now.

In particular, of course, the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King that began five hundred three years ago on October 31, 1517, was an effort to “provide” “evangelical liberty” to those who had been “enslaved” by a supposedly “dictatorial” hierarchical Church that had “corrupted” the Gospel message for her own purposes. This “evangelical liberty,” however, quickly descended into rank libertinage to the extent that even Martin Luther himself was aghast at what the decline in morals that took place once he had “liberated” men from the true Church, the Catholic Church, and set them “free” as “equals” to decide for themselves the meaning of Sacred Scripture and to sack and pillage Catholic churches, monasteries and convents. 

King Henry VIII, of course, was so intent on crushing all opposition to his taking England out of the Catholic Faith that he engaged in a bloodbath of 72,000 Catholics between 1534 and the tyrant's death in 1547, a little over three percent of the population of England at that time. The killing of over 72,000 people, the seizure of the monastery and convent lands and the other discriminatory measures imposed upon Roman Catholics in the wake of the English Protestant Revolt were undertaken done quite legally, thank you. Judges sentenced Catholics to death quite routinely. The England of the Anglican Church just went about its business as though anyone who resisted the new order of things was a disloyal extremist.

This lawless desire to crush opposition transcended the waters of the Atlantic Ocean and infected many of those who believed that the English colonies situated upon and down the Atlantic seaboard of the United States of America should break from England. Those arguing against such a break did so frequently at the very threat of their lives.

To wit, Jonathan Boucher, a Anglican preacher in England and in the Colony of Virginia in the years before the Revolutionary War in the Eighteenth Century, argued in very eloquent terms against a break of the thirteen English colonies from the British Crown by reminding his listeners that true freedom comes only from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour. Boucher made some very fine points in his sermon (On Civil Liberty, Passive Obedience and Nonresistance), which should be studied if for no other reason than to realize that there was some effort made by "conservative" colonists to stem the tide of rebellion and to prevent a war for "independence," which was, after all, an act of high treason against King George III.

Boucher, who sometimes packed two single-shot pistols and kept them in his pulpit when he preached so that "patriots" would not attack him, argued against what could be called "liberation theology," urging Anglicans and other colonists to accept whatever sufferings were being imposed by King George III and to offer them up to God, stating that one should not seek to rebel from the authority which God has seen fit in His Providence to provide for the governance of men. The "disconnect" of Protestantism was such, however, that Boucher could not see that his own false "church" was born in a violent, bloody rebellion against the true authority given by God Himself over men in the form of the Church that He created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. It was incongruous to argue that a rebellion against civil authority was unjust when one's very "church" was created as a result of a rebellion against God Himself.

Similarly, Americans have long fashioned their nation to be one of laws, not of men. However, this is simply not true. This is a fantasy. This is delusional.

The laws of God have been broken on these shores by the proliferation of unbridled error under the false slogans of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" from the very beginning.

President after president has engaged in activities designed to suppress legitimate dissent and opposition.

It was within a decade of the inauguration of the first President of the United States of America, George Washington, that a Congress controlled by Federalist Party members during the administration of Washington's successor, the Catholic-hating John Adams (see A Founding Hatred for Christ the King), who was, of course, the first Vice President of the United States of America, that the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed on July 14, 1798, made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious" writing against the government of the United States of America and its officials.

The sixteenth President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln, did not exactly "cotton" to political opposition during the War Between the States from 1861 to 1865, as he intimidated judges, shut down newspapers, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without an Act of Congress, held opponents in prison without trial and put civilians on trial in military courts at a time when civilian courts were open. And this is just a partial listing of what led John Wilkes Booth to cry out, "Sic temper tyrannis!" as he jumped onto the stage of the Ford Theater in Washington, District of Columbia, on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, from the balcony where he had just shot Lincoln in the head, a wound that would take Lincoln's life early the next morning, Holy Saturday, April 15, 1865.

Suppression of opposition to American involvement in World War I under the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson was so extensive that Senator Hiram Johnson of California, who had run as former President Theodore Roosevelt's Vice Presidential running-mate on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket in 1912 when Wilson was running for his first term as President against Roosevelt and then President William Howard Taft, who had defeated Roosevelt, to say on the floor of the United States Senate: "It is now a crime for anyone to say anything or print anything against the government of the United States. The punishment for doing so is to go to jail" (quoted in Dr. Paul Johnson's Modern Times). (See also my Fascists for Freedom.)

Just as an aside, President Thomas Woodrow Wilson wanted to use the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, created in an act passed by the Congress of the United States of America and signed into law by Wilson on December 23, 1913, as the means to centralize the banking and monetary systems under the authority of the government of the United States of America in order to restrict the legitimate freedom of Americans to control their own private property and to make private industry dependent upon the "direction" provided it by governmental regulators and overseers. It was for this reason as well that Wilson saw to it that Congress enacted legislation, following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, to create our current system of confiscatory taxation on our incomes. And it was Wilson, of course, who believed that the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, aping the "example" established by the French Revolutionaries, could "build" or "engineer" the "better" society in Our Lady's country by the killing of thousands upon thousands of Catholics:

Wilson replied [in 1915, to Father Francis Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'

"Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries. All efforts of Catholic to succor their coreligionists across the border were to prove fruitless, as they were to prove once again in 1924, when the fiercest persecution of all was begun by Plutarco Calles. In this systematic pogrom, all public worship came to an end in Mexico an priests were methodically hunted down and executed like outlaws. It was of this travail which Graham Greene wrote in The Power and the Glory. Generally, however, the world press ignored the Calles persecution in a “conspiracy of silence” which the American hierarchy and Pope after Pope were powerless to break. (Robert Leckie American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 274.)

In other words, Thomas Woodrow Wilson really believed that it was "necessary" for the Freemsaonic/Communist Mexican government that enjoyed his favor to kill Catholics, whose "backward" beliefs were impediments to the institutionalization of "liberal values" that required him to suppress all opposition to his policies right here in the United States of America.

It was a scant twelve years after the stroke-disabled Wilson left office on March 4, 1921, that the thirty-third Freemason named Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the Internal Revenue Service to audit his "enemies." He contravened the law in numerous ways as he used the legislative powers illicitly given to regulatory agencies by Congress during the Great Depression and during World War II to set the stage for Barack Hussein Obama's rule by decree and presidential fiat. Roosevelt, the fifth cousin of the Republican statist and fellow thirty-third degree Freemason, Theodore Roosevelt, the uncle of Eleanor Roosevelt, even ordered his Attorney General, Robert Jackson, to engage in domestic espionage. Roosevelt’s directive took the form of a memorandum dated May 21, 1940.

Robert Jackson, who was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on July 11, 1941, did not like the directive as he believed that Franklin Roosevelt had authorized domestic surveillance on anyone suspected of being subversive. Jackson’s successor, however, Francis Biddle, who took office as the Attorney General of the United States of America on August 25, 1941, had no qualms about the directive, delegating the task of carrying it out to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Edgar Hoover, who was more than happy to run with this new expansion of his authority to investigate anyone at any time for any reason. The history of the Federal government’s surveillance since that time is one of completely unchecked growth.

Do not think for a single moment that abuses of deep state bureaucrats being exposed at this time is anything new. Illegal surveillance by the Federal government has been on the rise since World War II and the establishment of permanent intelligence agencies. Modern technology has advanced to such a point that these agencies, acting both legally and illegally, monitor every means of human communication today save for those done with an old-fashioned typewriter that has not connection of any kind to the internet or to a telephone line.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation itself, as noted just above, has long seen itself as a “check” upon elected officials, and John Edgar Hoover, who served as Director of the Bureau of Investigation from May 10, 1924, to March 22, 1935, and then as the founding Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from March 23, 1935, until the time of his death on May 2, 1972, believed in the suppression of political dissent dating back to his days as the head of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson’s “War Emergency Division’s” “Alien Enemy Bureau” one hundred years ago. Please, what is going on now, although certainly shocking to those not conversant with the darker sides of American history, is really nothing new at all.

Although Presidents Harry S. Truman and John Fitzgerald Kennedy each considered firing Hoover, the latter had amassed too much information on too many people. This information, most of it gathered quite illegally and/or by the improper use of Federal Bureau of Investigation field agents, was Hoover’s own kind of “insurance policy.”

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, on the other hand, knowing what kind of “insurance policy” that Hoover had on him, whetted Hoover’s appetite for domestic surveillance under the thinnest of legal pretexts, including wiretapping his own vice president, the garrulous spendthrift with taxpayer dollars named Hubert Horatio Humphrey:

Resigned to Humphrey's candidacy [in 1968], Johnson pressed his Vice President throughout the campaign not to stray too far from the Administration's position on Vietnam.

Humphrey largely complied. But at the end of September, when he showed greater flexibility than the White House on how to end the war, Johnson reacted angrily. He told Clark Clifford that he doubted Humphrey's ability to be President. He lacked the guts for the job. After Humphrey had become Vice President and expressed doubts about the war, the White House, according to a Humphrey aide, Ted Van Dyk, had arranged for wiretaps on Humphrey's office phones. Van Dyk learned this from two Secret Service agents on the vice-presidential detail. Neither Van Dyk nor Humphrey was surprised. Though Johnson in principle disliked taping and wiretaps, he secretly taped more than 7,500 of his own telephone conversations as President. Moreover, during the 1964 campaign, after a visit to the White House, Richard Russell wrote, "Hoover has apparently been turned loose and is tapping everything.... [Johnson] stated it took him hours each night to read them all (but he loves this)." The speed with which Johnson had information about Humphrey's presidential campaign suggested to Van Dyk that the White House was still tapping Humphrey's phones in 1968. Johnson apparently wanted the taps to gain advance notice and a chance to dissuade him should Humphrey decide to break away on the war. (Three New Revelations about Lyndon Baines Johnson.)

It should be noted, however, that the liberal Robert Dallek, who authored the synopsis of his own book about Lyndon Baines Johnson, did not include the following fact about Johnson’s wiretapping in 1968 that is covered in another book:

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson ordered Hoover to tap the phone of Republican vice- presidential nominee Spiro Agnew on the suspicion that Agnew was telling the South Vietnamese that they would get a better peace agreement from Nixon if he were elected president. The taps did not reveal that Agnew ever made such a deal. (Henry M. Holden, FBI 100 Years: An Unofficial History, Zenith Press, an imprint of MBI Publishing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2008, p. 218.)

Mind you, this is only a partial listing of abuses that have been committed in this alleged land of "laws and not men," a land where over fifty-five million innocent babies have been butchered by surgical means (hundreds of millions more by chemical means) since, most of those having taken place in the forty-seven years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. That staggering figure does not include those babies who were killed by surgical means in their mothers' wombs between 1967 and 1973 when various states, including Colorado, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Alaska, and Washington (and Washington, District of Columbia) decriminalized surgical baby-killing in some or all cases at various stages of a baby's development in his mother's womb.

A "civilized" nation of "laws?"

I don't think so.

The lawless imposition of policies even in violation of constitutions and civil code or statutory law and the suppression of opposition to the policies of statists of one stripe or another is nothing new, you see. It has been around for a long, long time. There is even a certain "logic" to the efforts on the part of naturalists to suppress opposition as those committed to their own acquisition and retention of personal power as an ultimate end/or who are committed ideologues of one system of "secular salvation" or another ape, pervert, invert and distort the Catholic Church's teaching that the civil state is is "acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue" (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) Statists believe their anyone who opposes their schemes and their firmly-held ideological beliefs is leading "minds away from truth" and must be denounced and threatened with fines and imprisonment.

You see, good readers, those who believe in the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity that must degenerate into full-blown statists who cannot ever "coexist" peacefully with Catholics who believe in the immutable doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King and who are devoted to the restoration of Our Lord's Social Kingship as the fundamental precondition of a rightly ordered civil government that pursues the common temporal good in light of man's Last End. These statists must seek to make war upon believing Catholics, especially those who reject the Modernism of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has made its "reconciliation" with the diabolical principles of Modernity.

This degenerative process is unstoppable by merely natural means. Only a very tiny percentage of people in the United States of America understand even the rudimentary elements of the immutable doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King, no less accept the truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. No matter where they fall along the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide, most Catholics in the United States of America have had their world view shaped by the naturalism of Americanism, a naturalism that has been aided and abetted by the view of Church-State relations held and advanced by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, who are rather tyrannical in their own right in seeking to obliterate opposition to their own revolutionary schemes that are contrary to the Catholic Faith and thus to the good of both men and their nations.

We Have Been Warned

Our true popes have warned us that the falsehoods of Modernity would send men and their nations into the abyss. Here are a few reminders:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only passport to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

The entire premise of unfettered “freedom of speech,” freedom of press” and of Modernity and Modernism’s embrace “religious liberty” gives free rein to the devil, who has been using the veneer of “liberty” to sow such chaos and confusion as to make inevitable the triumph of a brutal totalitarianism. The adversary uses different means to accomplish his nefarious goals, and thus it has been and continues to be in the “free” United States of America that has never been as “free” as Americans have been convinced while they were lulled to sleep by an endless array of “bread circuses” (entertainment, good restaurants, competitive sports, etc.) while the coercive power of the civil state was being used to advance evil here and abroad in a manner that is almost unsurpassed in human history.

The putsch of the Big Tech giants to help Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., win the presidency was simply a foretaste of what life turned out to be like under the administration of a President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The high priests and priestesses who make Silicon Valley’s magisterial decisions about who and what to censor banked on a Biden victory on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, in the firm knowledge that the Biden-Harris administration would do everything imaginable to end all political dissent and “free speech,” such as it has ever been in the United States of America, by indemnifying the long-established practices of schools, colleges, universities, corporations, so-called journalists and their media outlets, and professional sports of imposing a creeds of belief and codes of speech that carry with them career-ending punishments and social shame, although the Biden-Harris administration may not settle for shame and seek to create Red Chinese and Soviet style “re-education” centers (concentration camps) for those guilty of thought and speech “crimes.” We have seen this come true and the Supreme Court of the United States of America chose not to stop this unconstitutional suppression of dissent a little over two months ago (see Supreme Delusions Enable Supreme Tyrants to Supremely Crush Dissent ).

Perhaps even more immediately in our future is state-imposed version of a Red Chinese system of “social credits,” something that major corporations, including some health insurers, are using sub rosa at this time. It will probably be the case that one can view his “social credit” score on Experian, Transunion, or Equifax the same way one views his financial credit score. This is all just a beginning for the combined efforts of the forces of Modernity and of Modernism, whose lords are working overtime to get Kamala Harris and Manchurian Candidate Timothy James Walz elected Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., elected and will be among the first to congratulate them if they do win the election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, to make us all the slaves of a new technocratic oligarchy that has about as much respect for the authentic liberty of human beings as they have for the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, meaning none, of course.

There are several ironies in all of this.

First, as has been noted so many times before on this website, the very people who deny that there are any truths that exist in the very nature of things and/or have been revealed definitively solely by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for their infallible explication and eternal safekeeping believe that they, mere mortals whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave, are the arbiters of truth, which is, in effect, whatever it is they decide it to be at any given time. This means that all opposition to the chemical and/or surgical execution of babies, the “science” of “brain death,” the “safety” of vaccinations containing all manner of gene-altering poisons over and above the use of fetal tissue cells derived from butchered babies, statism, the “science” of “global warming” and the “necessity” of raising the cost of fossil fuels as a prelude to eliminating their use entirely, the “science” of “social distancing” and, of course, the ever-widening scope of the hedonistic demands of those engaged in perverse practices, whether natural or unnatural, in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments will be strictly restricted if not prohibited entirely.

Second, the very people who have denounced Holy Mother Church for censoring heretics, correcting erroneous theological opinions and censoring books, publications, motion pictures, magazines and journals that pose threats to the good of souls have always been censorious. Believe me, I know this from my three decades plus of college teaching, not including a brief return to the classroom in 2014 that was cut short because I refused to be “neutral” on matters of right and wrong and thus follow slavishly the dictates of a computerized program written by our new censors who believe in all that passes for “truth” in an era of falsehood masquerading as truth, an era in which vice is portrayed as virtue.

Censorship and the manipulation of language has been one of the foundational building blocks of the entire anti-Incarnational era of Modernity. Alas, the embrace of such censorship by the entire welter of the forces of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry is but an inversion of the fact the Catholic Church has long taught that error has no rights and that whatever is injurious to men and that it is thus illegitimate to bring forth ideas and beliefs that tickle the ears and make men believe the old lie of the serpent, namely, that they can be like unto God, knowing good and evil.

Pope Leo XIII explained in Officiorum Ac Munerum, January 25, 1897, that the Catholic Church not only believes in censorship of the sort of theological heresies and philosophical errors upon which the modern nation-state is founded but has the right to demand that Catholics obey her injunctions prohibiting the reading and distribution of material propagandizing in behalf of those heresies and errors.

Here the entirety of Pope Leo XIII’s introduction to Officiorum Ac Munerum that precedes specific canonical remedies to be imposed against various publications and books:

Of all the Official Duties which We are bound most carefully and most diligently to fulfill in this Supreme Position of the Apostolate, the Chief and Principal Duty is to watch assiduously and earnestly to strive that the Integrity of Christian Faith and Morals may suffer no diminution.  And this, more than at any other times, is especially necessary in these days, when men's minds and characters are so unrestrained that almost every Doctrine which Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, has committed to the custody of His Church, for the welfare of the human race, is daily called into question and doubt.  In this warfare, many and varied are the stratagems and hurtful devices of the enemy; but most perilous of all is the uncurbed freedom of writing and publishing noxious literature.  Nothing can be conceived more pernicious, more apt to defile souls, through its contempt of Religion, and its manifold allurements to sin.  Wherefore the Church, who is the custodian and vindicator of the Integrity of Faith and Morals, fearful of so great an evil, has from an early date realized that remedies must be applied against this plague; and for this reason she has ever striven, as far as lay in her Power, to restrain men from the reading of bad books, as from a deadly poison.  The early days of the Church were witnesses to the earnest zeal of St. Paul in this respect; and every subsequent age has witnessed the vigilance of the Fathers, the commands of the Bishops, and the Decrees of Councils in a similar direction.

Historical Documents bear special witness to the care and diligence with which the Roman Pontiffs have vigilantly endeavored to prevent the unchecked spread of heretical writings detrimental to the public.  History is full of examples.  Anastasius I solemnly condemned the more dangerous writings of Origen, Innocent I those of Pelagius, Leo the Great all the works of the Manicheans.  The decretal letters, opportunely issued by Gelasius, concerning books to be received and rejected, are well known.  And so, in the course of centuries, the Holy See condemned the pestilent writings of the Monothelites, of Abelard, Marsilius Patavinus, Wycliff and Hus.

In the fifteenth century, after the invention of the art of printing, not only were bad publications which had already appeared condemned, but precautions began to be taken against the publication of similar works in the future.  These prudent measures were called for by no slight cause, but rather by the need of protecting the public Morals and welfare at the time; for too many had rapidly perverted into a mighty engine of destruction an art excellent in itself, productive of immense advantages, and naturally destined for the advancement of Christian culture.  Owing to the rapid process of publication, the great evil of bad books had been multiplied and accelerated.  Wherefore Our predecessors, Alexander VI and Leo X, most wisely promulgated certain definite Laws, well suited to the character of the times, in order to restrain printers and publishers within the limits of their duty.

The tempest soon became more violent, and it was necessary to check the contagion of heresy with still more vigilance and severity.  Hence Leo X, and afterwards Clement VII, severely prohibited the reading or retaining of the books of Luther.  But as, owing to the unhappy circumstances of that epoch, the foul flood of pernicious books had increased beyond measure and spread in all directions, there appeared to be need of a more complete and efficacious remedy.  This remedy Our predecessor, Paul IV, was the first to employ, by opportunely publishing a list of books and other writings against which the faithful should be warned.  A little later the Council of Trent took steps to restrain the ever-growing license of writing and reading by a new measure.  At its command and desire, certain chosen Prelates and Theologians not only applied themselves to increasing and perfecting the Index which Paul IV had published, but also drew up certain Rules to be observed in the publishing, reading, and use of books; to which Rules, Pius IV added the Sanction of his Apostolic Authority.

The interests of the public welfare, which had given rise to the Tridentine Rules, necessitated in the course of time certain alterations.  For which reason the Roman Pontiffs, especially Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV, mindful of the circumstances of the period and the dictates of prudence, issued several Decrees calculated to elucidate these Rules and to accommodate them to the times.

The above facts clearly prove that the Chief Care of the Roman Pontiffs has always been to protect civil society from erroneous beliefs and corrupt morals, the twin causes of the decline and ruin of States, which commonly owes its origin and its progress to bad books. Their labors were not unfruitful, so long as the Divine Law regulated the commands and prohibitions of civil government, and the Rulers of States acted in unison with the Ecclesiastical Authority.

Every one is aware of the subsequent course of events.  As circumstances and men's minds gradually altered, the Church, with her wonted prudence, observing the character of the period, took those steps which appeared most expedient and best calculated to promote the salvation of men.  Several prescriptions of the Rules of the Index, which appeared to have lost their original opportuneness, she either abolished by Decree, or, with equal gentleness and Wisdom, permitted them to grow obsolete.  In recent times, Pius IX, in a Letter to the Archbishops and Bishops of the States of the Church, considerably mitigated Rule X.  Moreover, on the eve of the Vatican Council, he instructed the learned men of the Preparatory Commission to examine and revise all the Rules of the Index, and to advise how they should be dealt with.  They unanimously decided that the Rules required alteration; and several of the Fathers of the Council openly professed their agreement with this opinion and desire.  A Letter of the French Bishops exists urging the necessity of immediate action in "republishing the Rules and whole Scheme of the Index in an entirely new form, better suited to our times and easier to observe."  A similar opinion was expressed at the same time by the Bishops of Germany, who definitely petitioned that "the Rules of the Index might be submitted to a fresh revision and a rearrangement."  With these Bishops many Bishops of Italy and other countries have agreed.

Taking into account the circumstances of our times, the conditions of society, and popular customs, all these requests are certainly justified and in accordance with the maternal affection of Holy Church.  In the rapid race of intellect, there is no field of knowledge in which Literature has not run riot, hence the daily inundation of most pernicious books.  Worst of all, the civil laws not only connive at this serious evil but allow it the widest license.  Thus, on the one hand, many minds are in a state of anxiety; whilst, on the other, there is unlimited opportunity for every kind of reading. (Officiorum Ac Munerum, January 25, 1897.)

Well, the new censors believe that anyone who is a believing Catholic must be censored and their works either confiscated or made inaccessible to public view. We will find out soon whether this censorship will have the full backing of the civil state starting on January 20, 2021, or four years later. However, with or without the official backing of the civil state, the caste of high tech’s high priests and priestesses means business and they will ruthlessly unapologetic in their quashing of our voices and, in the case of those of us who understand the conciliar church to be a false religious sect headed by figures of Antichrist, will be effected with the full approval of the “big guy” at the Santa Casa Marta who is already waiting by the phone to place to call to congratulate the “big guy” with whom Hunter Biden shared his booty from trafficking on the family name should the seventy-seven year-old reprobate win on November 3, 2020.

To Remain Calm in the Midst of the Agitation

In the midst of all this, however, we must remain ever in the hands of Our Lady and ever reliant upon her Most Rosary as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful  and Immaculate Heart. This is a time for Catholic heroes who are willing to pray and to fast for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, and for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter.

Although it may sound trite as I have repeated this endlessly in my writing over the past few decades, this is the time that God has known from all eternity that we would be alive. The graces His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in atonement for our sins and that flow into our souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are more than sufficient for us to prosper under the yoke of overt persecution and censorship.

Remember, the Sanhedrin demanded that the Apostles be silent about the Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They refused to do and rejoiced that we were deemed worthy to suffer for sake of His Holy Name.

What are we afraid of now?

Remember, the first Catholics were told by Roman emperors and their minions to make sacrifices to idols and abandon the Catholic Faith. According to Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, nearly eleven million Catholics gave up their lives in order to avoid even the appearance of doing apostatizing.

What’s wrong with us?

Remember, Catholics in England and Ireland hid priests in priest-holes and were willing to lose everything they hand, including their lives, to remain faithful to the true Church during the persecutions of King Henry VIII and his own daughter and granddaughter, Elizabeth I, whose mother, Anne Boleyn, was Henry’s illegitimate daughter.

We are afraid of the Red Chinese-bought and paid for high priests and priestesses of Silicon Valley?

Remember, Catholics suffered during the French Revolution, under Otto von Bismarck’s Kulturkampf in Germany, and the suffered at the hands of the Soviet Bolsheviks, the Chinese Maoists, the Cuban Castroists and the Mexican Freemasons.

With Our Lady and Saint Joseph so near to us every day, why are we so agitated and afraid?

Why?

This is a time for Catholic heroes, and the heroic life of Saint Lawrence Justinian, the first Patriarch of Venice, whose feast we celebrate today, Thursday, September 5, 2024, provides us with sterling examples of Saint Lawrence's self-abnegation in the face of mockery and as well his steadfast desire to all those under his pastoral care advance in holiness and thus to salvation:

This Lawrence was born at Venice, in the year 1380, of the noble family of the Giustiniani, and was an exceedingly sober lad even from his childhood. He passed a godly boyhood, and feeling the Divine Wisdom calling him to a pure marriage between his own soul and the Word of God, he began to think of becoming a monk. He therefore tried in private some of the exercises of this new warfare, and, among other afflictions of his body, used to sleep upon the bare boards. As he thus sat weighing on the one hand the pleasures of the world, and a marriage which his mother wished to bring about for him, and, on the other, the hardness of the cloister, he turned his eyes upon the Cross of the suffering Christ, and said: "Thou, O Lord, art my trust; there hast Thou made my surest refuge." He entered among the Canons of St-George's-in-the-sea-weed, where he devised new tortures and declared war against himself as his own worst enemy. He allowed himself no enjoyment, so that he would not even go into the private garden of the house, neither did he ever go thenceforth into the house of his own father, except when his mother was dying, and he went there with dry eyes to pay her the last offices of a son's duty and affection. His obedience, gentleness, and especially his lowliness were very great. He went out of his way to take the meanest pieces of work about the house. He used to go to the most public places of the city, seeking, not so much for food as for mockery, and bore unmoved and in silence the insults and slanders which were cast upon him. He found his ever-present help in prayer, wherein he became often beside himself and rapt in God, and such was the warmth that burned in his heart, that he stirred up failing comrades to hold bravely on and to love Jesus Christ.

In the year 1433, Eugene IV named him Bishop of Venice, an office which he very earnestly struggled to avoid, and which he discharged with great honour. He changed in no wise way of living, but kept always to his beloved poverty in his table, his furniture, and his bed. He kept but a small household, saying that he had another very large one, in Christ's poor. At what hour soever any one came to see him, he was always ready to receive them, he helped all with the tenderness of a father, not refusing to charge himself with debts, that he might have wherewith to relieve misery. When he was asked with what hope he incurred these liabilities, he answered: "With hope in my Master, Who can easily meet them for me." And the Providence of God put not his hope to shame, but helped him amply with unexpected funds. He built several Convents of nuns, for whom his watchful care ordered a more perfect way of living. He laboured much to wean married women from worldly folly and display, and to reform the discipline of the Church and the lives of all. He was indeed worthy that Eugene should call him in the presence of the Cardinals "the glory and ornament of the Episcopate," and that his successor Nicholas V should transfer the title of Patriarch from Grado, and create him, in 1451, the first Patriarch of Venice.

He was eminent for the gift of tears, in which he offered up to God every day the Sacrifice of atonement. When he was so doing one Christmas Midnight, he won to see Christ Jesus in the form of a little Child exceeding fair to look upon. Such was his care of the flock committed to his charge, that it was sometime revealed from heaven that the Commonwealth had been saved by the prayers of her Bishop. He was inspired with the spirit of prophecy, and fore-told many things which no wit of man could have perceived. By his prayers he often put diseases and devils to flight. Though very ignorant of letters, he wrote books which breathe heavenly teaching and godliness. When he fell into his last deadly sickness, his servants got ready a more comfortable bed for the suffering old man, but he turned away from such ease as so different from the hardness of the Cross upon which his Master had died. He ordered himself to be laid upon the planks to which he was accustomed, and when he knew that the end of his life was come, he looked up to heaven and said: "O good Jesus, I am coming to thee," and so fell asleep in the Lord on the 8th day of January, in the year 1455. How precious was his death was attested by this, that some Charterhouse monks heard Angels singing and that the hallowed corpse, remaining unburied for two months, was whole and uncorrupted, always yielding a sweet smell, and rosy in the face. New miracles took place after his death, whereby Pope Alexander VIII was moved to enroll his name among those of the Saints. Innocent XII appointed for his Feast the 5th day of September, being that upon which he had first been enthroned in his Cathedral Church. (Matins, Feast of Saint Lawrence Justinian, September 5.)

Most of us cannot even begin to approach the perfection reached by Saint Lawrence Justinian and the penances that he imposed upon himself that equipped him at all times to see Our Lord in all others and thus to treat them as He would treat Our Lord in the very Flesh.

What, pray tell, is our excuse, for fearing the outcome of an election and a persecution that will follow if our modern censors have their way in it?

Is not God still God before and after an election?

Taking our inspiration from the glorious sanctity of Saint Lawrence Justinian, let us remain ever reliant upon Our Lady as we pray in reparation for our own sins and those of others, including the sins of our nation, and for the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart and the restoration of right order in Holy Mother Church and the world.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Lawrence Justinian, pray for us.