'DIVINE MERCY' IS ACTUALLY CULTISH HUMAN ERROR

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

Are all the Divine Mercy Devotion devotees out there suffering from cognitive dissonance? Or do they not know their Catholic faith? Or that 'Divine Mercy' was condemned by two popes, and what two popes condemn cannot later be approved?  The Holy Office declared that “There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations." Pius XII and even the Modernist John XXIII were speaking 'ex cathedra', i.e. infallibly, which means they spoke the truth - and the very nature of truth is that it does not change.

 

A reader of this blog confesses she still has a framed pic on her wall of John Paul II, who instituted Divine Mercy Sunday. So infatuated was she with JPII that she led the Divine Mercy service for her Novus Ordo (NO) parish. The PP stayed away, but lent his tape player and Divine Mercy poster, meaning his approval. She credits her subsequent wake-up call to a conversion to the traditional Latin Mass.   

Our reader fell out of love with John Paul II at Assisi when he kissed the Q'ran. Or maybe it was the way he promoted the principles of the French revolution. Or because he excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, basically for preaching the Gospel Christ preached rather than the one imposed by most of his peers at and after Vatican II. Or because JP II gave permission to bishops to administer Communion in the hand and thereby desecrate the Holy Eucharist. 

As a fruit of the Vatican II NO, 'Divine Mercy' exhibits a few of its fatal flaws. In particular, pride, which places priest and people in the public eye by celebrating Mass versus populum instead of ad orientem (towards the East, or Christ) and admits female 'ministers' to the sanctuary but fails to admit of our need to make reparation for sin. But Divine Mercy betrays its conciliar origins above all in its promotion of mercy at the expense of justice. 

A cultish devotion, born of foolish presumption, Divine Mercy militates against the only solution to the horrors of the 21st century - the restoration of the social reign of Our Sovereign and King, Jesus Christ.

Monsignor Patrick Perez RIP, promoter of Our Lady of Fatima, with Fr Gruner

Transcribed by the website Tradition in Action from a sermon by Monsignor Patrick Perez:

 

The Divine Mercy devotion was re-launched by John Paul II. During his long pontificate he established a feast day in honor of this devotion. During his homily at the canonization of Sr. Faustina on April 30, 2000, he declared that the Second Sunday of Easter would henceforth be called Divine Mercy Sunday.

Consequently, every year on the Sunday following Easter, which is called Low Sunday - in Latin it is called Dominica in Albis, Sunday in White - I am asked this question, “Father, why don't we celebrate the Divine Mercy Sunday?”

Now, the easy answer would be, “We don't do it because it's not in the traditional calendar.” But, then, the feast of Padre Pio also is not in the traditional calendar, but we celebrate it. We do it as prescribed in the Common of the Missal, which allows us to honor recently canonized saints. So, the question returns: Why don’t we celebrate the Divine Mercy Sunday?

I have analyzed the prayers of the Divine Mercy devotion and found nothing wrong with them. But there is something wrong with what surrounds this new devotion.

 

Cultish - and creepy

 

Let me acknowledge that there are persons who have received graces from doing the Divine Mercy devotion. That is not an indication that the devotion itself is necessarily from Heaven.

 

Remember God always answers our prayers. You always receive some grace by your prayers. For example, let’s imagine you made a pilgrimage to visit the burial place of a saint. You made the pilgrimage and thought you were kneeling at the correct grave venerating that saint. In fact, however, he was not buried in that cemetery, but in a church nearby. Nonetheless, God gives you graces because of your effort and your desire to please Him and make reparation for your sins.

You made that pilgrimage; you will not leave it without grace. God does not take a position like, “Well, you're at the wrong grave. Sorry, you travelled 6,000 miles for nothing and now you receive nothing.” No, God will always answer your prayers. So, please, remember when you hear people say, “Well, I have received graces from this devotion.”

 

This in itself is not an indication that the devotion is from Heaven. Certainly the graces are always from Heaven. But the devotion may not be.

Condemnations of this devotion

What is wrong with the Divine Mercy devotion?

 

 

'I demand' is hardly characteristic of Jesus Christ, meek and humble of heart

 

First, when this devotion fell under the attention of Pius XII, he was concerned not with the prayers of the devotion, but with the circumstances of the so-called apparitions to Sr. Faustina and their content. That is, he was concerned with what Our Lord supposedly told Sr. Faustina and what he told her to make public.

 

Pius XII, then, placed this devotion, including the apparitions and the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books). That list no longer exists, since it was formally abolished on June 14, 1966, by Paul VI. On the one hand, it is unfortunate that it no longer exists.

 

But, on the other hand, if that list were to exist today it would be so vast that it would fill this room. Practically everything that is written today has something objectionable to the Catholic Faith.

 

JPII supported the thrice-condemned devotion

 

So, Pius XII put the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index of Prohibited Books. That meant that he considered that their content would lead Catholics astray or in the wrong direction.

Next, came other prohibitions made by Pope John XXIII. Twice in his pontificate, the Holy Office issued condemnations of the Divine Mercy writings.

Today the Holy Office is called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But before it was called the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Its name has changed over several years.

This Office - placed under the direct control of the Pope - is responsible for maintaining the purity of the doctrine and, therefore, it watches over the dissemination of different documents in the Church.

If the Pope wants to correct the faithful on a particular topic, he usually does this through the Holy Office. So, the proclamations, declarations and documents issued by the Holy Office may be seen as coming from the Pope himself.

Not once, but twice under Pope John XXIII, this particular devotion was condemned through the Holy Office. The first condemnation was in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958. The declaration from the Holy Office issued these three statements about this devotion:

1. There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations. This means that the members of the Holy Office examined the content and decided that there was nothing there to indicate the apparitions were supernatural. In an authentic apparition - Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima, for example - you can look at the content and affirm it can not be definitively said they are of divine origin, but there is enough evidence to say that it is possibly so. On the other hand, in the Divine Mercy apparitions, they said definitively that there is no evidence whatsoever that they are supernatural. This translates, “We do not think that these apparitions come from God.”

2. No feast of Divine Mercy should be instituted. Why? Because if it is based on apparitions that are not clearly coming from God, then it would be rash and temerarious to institute a feast in the Church based on something that is a false apparition.

 

3. It is forbidden to disseminate writings propagating this devotion under the form received by Sr. Faustina, as well as the image typical of it. So, it was forbidden to even publish the image of Our Lord as Divine Mercy.

 

Now, you have all seen this image (below), even if in passing, and you would know and recognize it. It shows a strange picture of Jesus that makes me uneasy. I cannot really tell you why. I do not like it. I don't like the face, I don't like the gesture, I don't like the posture, I don't like anything. This was my first impression of this image. I don't want it around because it is, for lack of a better term, creepy to me when I look at it.

The image shows multicolored rays, I think they are red, white and blue, coming from His chest region - no heart, just these rays. You have all seen this. Well, that was the image that was forbidden to be published or spread.

On March 6, 1959, the Holy Office issued a second decree on the order of Pope John XXIII. It forbade, once again, spreading the images of Divine Mercy and the writings of Sr. Faustina propagating this devotion. It also stated that it was up to the bishops to decide how they were going to remove the images that had already been displayed for public honor.

I do not need to say much more about these declarations. Two Popes strongly warned the faithful of a danger in this devotion. Pius XII put it on the Index; John XXIII issued two condemnations through the Holy Office about the spiritual danger this devotion presented to the faithful. Not much more needs to be said on that.

Principal error: It presents an unconditional mercy

 

Let me present you with a parallel thought.

 

 A majestic Jesus with the halo of divinity and a well-defined Sacred Heart gives a clear blessing

 

Consider the true image of Christ Our Savior. Probably the most symbolically rich and accurate representation of Him, besides the Crucifix, is the image of the Sacred Heart, because the image of Our Lord with the Sacred Heart summarizes the whole theology of Redemption.

They pierced His Hands, His Feet and His Sacred Heart; the crown of thorns encircles the Heart, which burns with love for man. This was the price He paid, the sacrifice He made for our redemption. He offered Himself because of His burning love for us despite the fact we are ungrateful creatures who rebelled against our Creator. Think about it. He created us and then we nailed Him to a cross even though He was God and completely innocent of any guilt. So, the Sacred Heart encapsulates all this.

In the images of the Sacred Heart, He points to this symbolic font of love and mercy for us. The devotions to the Sacred Heart always suppose reparation for our sins. We are sinners, we must make reparation. Despite the promises from Our Lord and the fact that He paid an infinite price for our Redemption, we must make reparation. We should always do penance for our sins and make various kinds of reparation.

 

 

Now, consider the image of Our Lord representing the Divine Mercy. It is an imitation of the Sacred Heart without the heart. When you pay attention, you notice that in the image there is no heart. There are simply rays coming out of a point above His waist. This symbolizes the error of the Divine Mercy devotion. It preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever. This is not the message of Christ.

Christ is merciful. Time and time again, His mercy pardons our repeated sins in the Sacrament of Penance, always taking us back no matter how bad our sins are. And what happens in the Sacrament of Penance? The very name of the Sacrament tells us exactly what happens: to be effective the Sacrament supposes penance. Not only are you there at the Sacrament recognizing your full submission to the Church and your dependence on the Sacraments for forgiveness, but you walk out of the confessional with an imposed penance.

You are also often reminded from this pulpit that you must not only fulfill that penance, but you must continually do penance, your own penance. You don't just say a decade of the Rosary and say, “Well, I've done my penance. Now, I can go merrily on my way.” You must always have the spirit of penance for your past sins; you must live with it.

The central error of the Divine Mercy is that it promises lots of spiritual rewards with no requirement of penance, no mention of reparation, no mention of any condition.

 

 

In 1986, with due permission of John Paul II, a Buddha (top photo) was placed above the tabernacle in the church of St Peter in Assisi

 

Unfortunately, this corresponds very much with what Pope John Paul II wrote in the Encyclical Dives in misericordia. I do not recommend reading it to any of you, except the most prepared, because it has many misleading things. It re-echoes this mercy with no price, gifts from heaven with no requirements, God's mercy with no mention of penance or reparation for sin whatsoever.

Anticipating that encyclical Pope John Paul II already in 1978, the very first year of his pontificate, set in motion the canonization of Sr. Faustina and the institution of a Divine Mercy Sunday feast. As I said before, both Sr. Faustina’s writings and the very idea of having a Divine Mercy feast day had been prohibited and condemned by two previous Popes.

Presumption in Sr. Faustina’s writings

The writings of the Polish Sr. Faustina herself, published in English in 2007, pose cause for concern. The work has 640 pages and transcribes frequent supposed apparitions and messages from Our Lord.

 

A new "save-yourself-without-effort" devotion

 

This long thread of statements supposedly from Our Lord to Sr. Faustina has some things that would make a correct-thinking Catholic very uneasy, to say the least. I will exemplify by taking a few quotes from her writings.

On October 2, 1936, she states that the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “Now, I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love Me, but because My Will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina, Stockbridge, MA: Marian Press, 1987, p. 288).

How can we believe that Our Lord has united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with the Blessed Virgin Mary? At first, we might read this and think, “Oh, that's beautiful.“ But later it may hit you, “Wait a minute, Our Lord united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with any other creature? Our Lady was the Immaculate Conception, but she was also His creature, she was created by Him as the rest of us were, albeit with the greatest exalted position free from original sin from the very beginning.

 

And now are we expected to believe that Our Lord told Sr. Faustina that He is more united to her than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other Saints? This affirmation smacks of pride in itself, let alone the assertion that it came from Heaven.

This type of presumption is present in many other cases.

Our Lord supposedly addressed Sr. Faustina on May 23, 1937, with these words: “Beloved pearl of My Heart.” What bothers me about this is that it is pure saccharine. Look how Our Lady speaks to Sr. Lucia or to St. Bernadette. It is not as “beloved pearl of My Heart.” It is impossible to imagine Our Lord stooping to saccharine language. Our Lord is Christ the King, Creator of the universe, and ruler of all that is. He does not say things like “beloved pearl of My Heart.”

 

Let me continue. Then, He said: “I see your love so pure; purer than that of the angels, and all the more so because you keep fighting. For your sake, I bless the world.” (ibid., p. 400) First of all, except for the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are not free from original sin and, therefore, we are not capable of a love purer than the angels.

As for blessing the world, that might be fine. If we had one real saint in the world, then the Lord will give us blessings for that one real saint. This is not my objection.

 

My objection is that this revelation was in 1937; the world was on the verge of World War II, which Sr. Lucy had already been forewarned of by Our Lady at Fatima: if Russia is not consecrated, and man does not convert, then this big disaster will befall mankind for their evil ways and their sins.

 

Nazi soldiers invaded Poland after Sr. Faustina announced a blessed world - above, they are marching on Warsaw

At that moment, we were about to see that disaster descend from Heaven, yet Our Lord tells Sr. Faustina, “For your sake, I am going to bless the world.” Was World War II a blessing on the world? Since her native Poland did not go unscathed by the German invasion, it does not seem likely that He actually blessed the world.

 

Another example: Sr. Faustina claimed that Our Lord told her that she was exempt from judgment, every judgment - particular judgment and the general judgment. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul, “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (ibid., p. 168)

Now, nobody but the Blessed Virgin, as far as I know, is free from the general and particular judgment. St. Thomas Aquinas, according to the pious story, had to genuflect in Purgatory before going to Heaven. I don’t know if this is fact, but it is a lesson for us that nobody is exempt from any kind of judgment.

And add to these examples the preposterous affirmation that the Host jumped out of the Tabernacle three times and placed itself in her hands, so that she had to open up the Tabernacle and place it back herself: “And the host came out of the Tabernacle and came to rest in my hands and I, with joy, placed it back in the Tabernacle. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time.” (ibid., p. 23)

 

It makes it sound like a hamster that has gotten out of its cage. “Oh, no, here it is again. I have to go put this back now.”

How many times has the Church declared that the hands of a priest are consecrated to handle the Sacred Species, and what kind of lesson would you be giving to the world by this example of the Host leaping into her hands so that she had to place it back in the Tabernacle herself?

Our Lord does not contradict His Church by word or by gesture. And this would be a little bit by both. She related what happened, but the gesture itself would be Our Lord contradicting the Real Presence and everything it represents.

A lack of Catholic spirit

In short, the whole Divine Mercy devotion does not represent a Catholic spirit. The Catholic spirit is one of making constant reparation in penance for our sins, of praying for the graces of God, for the mercy of God in this life.

Let me close by saying that it is the background of this devotion that is questionable. You do not just institute a particular devotion with its own feast day based on something that has been condemned for very good reasons in the recent past.

When you look at the prayers of the Divine Mercy devotions, they are perfectly orthodox. There is nothing heretical or presumptuous in these prayers. But just remember the reason why it has been condemned and why we do not recognize Divine Mercy Sunday is because of its past, not because of the content of the prayers.

It is very important to know this, because it is one of many things that were brought back in modern times that were condemned in the past. And this is not a case of the Church changing her mind. It is a case of a representative of the Church doing something he should not be doing.  

https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm

 

 

Our Lady of Fatima, please pray for the Church

TRUMP SAVING IRAN'S GAYS, CHARLES SIMPING FOR ISLAM

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

Astonishing? Not really

 

Everyone knows US President Donald Trump is the king of bombast. When he threatens to "drop a nuke on Iran" tonight (Tuesday in the northern hemisphere), surely no one takes him seriously. When he threatens to wipe out Iran to save "the gays" no one really believes this is the first war in history launched to protect male anal intercourse. 

But when he issues the UK's Keir Starmer with the ultimatum, "You BETTER do something about immigration! If you don't get them out, you're not gonna have a country left", he strikes a chord that resonates throughout the Western world. The trouble is, Sir Keir Starmer is a Fabian, a globalist who promotes the slow creep of communism - and his King, Charles III, and Charles' heir Prince William, simp for Islam.

Charles, while failing to give his subjects an Easter message, hosted a Ramadan Iftar at Windsor Castle for 350+ Muslims complete with a muezzin's call to prayer. But the title British monarchs hold is “Defender of the Faith” – as in THEY, and NOT the successor of Peter, are the earthly head of the church and state religion. It's not as astonishing as it sounds: Britain has been pretty much ruled by foreigners since 1066; Queen Elizabeth I was the 'popess' of A SCHISMATIC MONSTROSITY founded to justify the adulterous sexual appetites of the syphilitic madman Henry VIII, who  abandoned that faith just as Charles and William seem to have done.

As for Queen Elizabeth II, in 1968 she gave her royal assent to a law preventing landlords from refusing to house the 100,000 immigrants who had already flooded Britain. But for the demise of the British Empire it was Winston Churchill (in many ways not unlike Donald Trump), and his pursuit of an unnecessary war, who was infinitely more responsible than was Elizabeth II.

For more home truths unpalatable to 'patriots' and Protestants please click on the link and read the story.

Heir to the British throne, Prince William

Prince William and Kate visit a mosque

 

From an English amateur historian commenting on a post by American Catholic commentator Ann Barnhardt (Barnhardt's statements in quote marks):

  

 https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/10/06/incredibly-sad-blunt-words-on-queen-elizabeth-ii/),

 

"Queen Elizabeth, and all British monarchs since Henry VIII openly, proudly claim to be the “pope” of the Anglican schismatic sect."

 

There is one very notable exception to this rule: Henry VIII’s eldest daughter, Mary Tudor (by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon).

Following the death of Henry’s sickly son and successor, Edward VI (born of his third and ‘favourite’ wife, Jane Seymour), Henry’s eldest daughter became queen as Mary I. Mary had been reared as a future queen, even being sent to be educated at Ludlow Castle, where previous princes of Wales (the title bestowed upon the eldest sons of the King of England since 1301) had been sent for their princely instruction. 

However, following Henry’s ‘divorce’ from Catherine of Aragon, not only was poor Mary forbidden from seeing her devoutly Catholic mother, she subsequently was forced to serve as a nanny to her infant half-sister, Elizabeth, who was the offspring of the adulterous ‘marriage’ between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (wife no.2). 

Mary’s Catholic devotion was consistent and outward, despite the persecution of Catholics in England begun by her father and continued by her half-brother, Edward VI; for instance, at the height of Edward’s vicious persecution of Catholics, Mary rode into the city of London (where her mother, Catherine of Aragon, had always been exceptionally well-loved) with over a hundred retainers, each symbolically wearing rosary beads. 

As queen, Mary I (r.1553-1558) restored England to the Catholic faith it had held for almost a thousand years prior to Henry VIII’s ‘Reformation’, despite provoking the wrath of many noble families in England who were furious to see much of their land (which had originally belonged to the Church, but had been confiscated by Henry VIII and gifted to them in reward for their loyalty) given back to the Church!

 

Mary’s defiant behaviour against all odds can be contrasted with that of her half-sister, Elizabeth, who pretended to be a Catholic for the duration of Mary’s reign (in order to trick Mary into making her the next queen, on the pretext that she would keep England Catholic) but began killing Catholics in England as soon as she became Queen Elizabeth I.

 

The utter irony is that generations of Protestant historians from the reign of Elizabeth I onwards have ominously dubbed Mary I ‘Bloody Mary’ (due to her burning of heretics), whilst nicknaming her murderoushalf-sister ‘Good Queen Bess’! Elizabeth I was a notorious devil-worshipper who hired magicians in her court and openly admitted to caring more about preserving her grip on power than saving her soul and, for that matter, the souls of her subjects. 

 

Charles II did personally convert on his deathbed (in 1685), and James II (r.1685-1688) converted whilst on the throne – for this he was overthrown in the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688; an utterly misnamed event in which a corrupt Parliament imported a foreign Protestant king, knowing full-well that no self-respecting Englishman would want to be ruled by a foreigner, therefore transferring the reins of power to – wait for it – Parliament (themselves)!  

 

The English have pretty much been ruled by foreigners since the Norman Conquest of 1066. Since 1688 we have had a royal family of largely German stock (culminating in the current ‘House of Windsor’), who seem to have always had very little affinity with nor affection for Britain’s native inhabitants. 

 

The ridiculous renaming of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the House of Windsor (a transparent attempt to make the royal family seem less German at the height of WW1) prompted Kaiser Willhelm II of Germany (George V’s cousin) to joke that he was keen to see a production of Shakespeare’s wonderful comedy, ‘The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’.]

 

"Queen Elizabeth was the “popess” of A SCHISMATIC MONSTROSITY founded in order to justify the adulterous sexual appetites of a syphilitic madman – Henry VIII." 

 

There were other reasons for the ‘Reformation’ (correction: ‘Deformation’) in England.

 

Henry Tudor took the throne in 1485 as Henry VII, Henry VIII’s father and predecessor. As the Tudors’ claim to the throne was unbelievably tenuous, Henry VIII was desperate for a male heir to ensure the continuance of his dynasty; as Catherine of Aragon, his older brother’s widow, experienced repeated failed pregnancies, not once giving birth to a healthy boy, King Henry’s attempted solution was to find a new wife. [It may well be divine provenance that, even after six marriages, Henry did not once father a healthy male heir].

 

Henry’s dogged determination to break with Rome, despite widespread rebellion (such as the Pilgrimage of Grace in deeply Catholic northern England), shows the extent of the man’s selfishness, certainly worsened by his madness, and Elizabeth I changed tack. She realised that, as the product of the illegitimate marriage between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, her reign would never receive papal approval.

 

As Elizabeth cared far more about staying on the throne than about the salvation of her soul, she decided to break her oath to Mary (in which she swore to preserve England’s Catholicism after Mary’s example) thus bringing about a second harvest of English martyrs. Elizabeth also recognised that, by making herself the head of the Church of England, any religious crimes (i.e. Catholic recusancy) could be labelled ‘treasonous’ and would warrant the death penalty.

 

The title that British monarchs hold is “Defender of the Faith” – as in THEY, and NOT the successor of Peter, are the earthly head of the church and state religion.

 

Interestingly enough, ‘Defender of the Faith’ was a title bestowed upon Henry VIII … by the Pope! Although he is now remembered as the corpulent, greedy, adulterous whale he became in middle age, as a youngster Henry VIII seemed full of promise – he was a veritable Renaissance Man, whose intelligence, charm and stature were famed throughout Europe (there was even talk of electing him Holy Roman Emperor…).

 

In 1521 Pope Leo X granted Henry VIII the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ in response to a book the young king had written against the heresies of Luther, the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. Monarchs of England since the ‘Reformation’ have kept this title granted by the Catholic Church, appropriating and utterly distorting its true meaning.

 

Queen Elizabeth II, already being called “Elizabeth the Great”, presided as monarch over the most rapid and profound societal, cultural, religious and imperial collapse in human history. This is a plain fact which can be supported by a short conversation with any person who remembers what England was before 1960.

 

The collapse of the British Empire happened alongside the gates of Europe being opened to the rest of the world – it truly makes one wonder whether all of this happening together could possibly have been a coincidence. In Britain specifically, the laws which initially allowed immigration from overseas British territories (such as Kenya, Rhodesia, etc.) had the specific purpose of allowing British settlers in those regions to return to their homeland prior to the empire’s imminent collapse.

 

For an unknown reason (and I don’t believe that this possibly could have been an accident), there was never any stipulation preventing the native inhabitants of the overseas territories from moving to Britain as well… thus, a rain-lashed island in the North Atlantic smaller than the American state of Oregon was suddenly open to the inhabitants of a quarter of the world’s land mass, including India, Pakistan, the West Indies and huge portions of Africa. In 1958, when already over 100,000 immigrants had come to Britain, Lord Halisham reviewed the immigration situation and deliberately decided not to do anything about it despite the British public begging for something to be done. 

 

In 1968, a law was passed (with full royal assent from Queen Elizabeth II) which made it illegal for British landlords to refuse to provide housing for the rapidly increasing immigrant population in protest to the situation. That same year, Enoch Powell, the only MP with the courage, integrity and honesty to address the dire situation and stand up for the common people, was dismissed from the shadow cabinet by Conservative leader and future Prime Minister Edward Heath (who, it later transpired, was a serial paedophile, so very probably blackmailed into doing so).

 

"When Elizabeth took the throne, it was literally true that “the sun never set” on the British Empire ..."

 

Whilst Elizabeth II did happen to be monarch during the collapse of the Empire, the events which led to the empire’s dissolution occurred before her reign, and can be attributed to another ‘great Briton’: Sir Winston Churchill. In the 1930s, Churchill was in the midst of his ‘Wilderness Years’, a broke, failed politician whose disastrous Dardanelles Campaign of WW1 had left his reputation in tatters.

 

Then, at a dinner on the 22nd of July 1936, Sir Robert Wale Cohen and several other prominent bankers and businessmen (known for their Zionist advocacy), offered to pay Churchill £50,000 if he turned his literary and oratory skills away from his targets at the time (India, defence spending, etc.) and directed his efforts towards a new enemy: Nazi Germany.

 

This mysterious group which funded the future Prime Minister was known as ‘The Focus’. Although Hitler repeatedly offered terms of peace to Britain, expressing admiration and respect for the British Empire, Churchill (after his eventual appointment as Prime Minister) went out of his way to bankrupt Britain in his pursuit of an unnecessary war.

 

In order to turn British public opinion (which was largely against fighting another huge war with Germany) to his favour, Churchill, furious that Hitler had placed an embargo on the Luftwaffe (preventing the dropping of bombs on any civilian areas in Britain), bombed Berlin for several consecutive nights, deliberately goading the Germans into lifting their embargo and subsequently bombing Britain. 

 

Churchill, unlike the poor Londoners and inhabitants of Coventry, had the benefit of receiving prior warning whenever British Intelligence anticipated a bombing raid – he thus left the capital and retired to the Oxfordshire countryside for the night, returning in the morning to inspect the urban wreckage, wearing his familiar bulldog expression.

 

There was no talk whatsoever about crushing Naziism; the two reasons given to the British public in order to justify the war effort were, firstly, defending Poland, and secondly, defending the British Empire… as Poland was handed over to Stalin following the war, and the British Empire was left crumbling, it seems that Churchill may have had ulterior motives.

 

A couple of years into the war, Britain’s fate was sealed; in December 1940, an American naval ship collected Britain’s gold reserves (worth £50,000,000 in 1940) which Churchill had siphoned off to help bribe the Americans into joining his futile war.

 

As historian Michael Walsh observed: ‘From that moment on Britain’s independence and her empire were in the Washington pawn shop. Britain’s territories and trading arrangements were compromised by half-American Winston Churchill. The debt would burden the British people for decades to come. Britain’s bankruptcy and subsequent dependency on the US ensured America’s entry into the war to protect its investment. Winston Churchill was jubilant.’

 

Churchill, who for mysterious reasons was so desperate for an unnecessary war which would certainly bankrupt his country and her empire (not to mention the millions of soldiers and civilians killed in Europe) was infinitely more responsible for the demise of the British Empire than was Elizabeth II; the wheels had already been set in motion by the time of Elizabeth’s coronation in the ’50s.

 

However, [she passively gave] royal assent to the myriad horrific laws passed during her reign (particularly in the 1960s), as well as remaining silent whilst her subjects’ towns and cities were made unrecognisable. Winston Churchill, Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II are all figures whose lives are celebrated in Britain and, for all I know, elsewhere too, (in New Zealand, for instance) but whose true legacies to Britain, and to the world, have certainly been nothing to celebrate.

 

 

"And the only thing keeping Argentina from invading and taking the Falklands is the fact that Argentina is such a broke, incompetent kakistocracy that they can’t. But the Royal Navy today could NOT defend the Falklands, and everyone knows it." 

 

The extent of the Royal Navy’s decline is a wonder which is actually quite incredible – in 1939, on the eve of WW2, the First Lord of the Admiralty commanded no less than 1,400 ships. Compare this with the number of ships the Royal Navy has at its disposal today … 62! …Many of which are barely seaworthy!

 

Additionally, the number of young recruits for all branches of the military has sharply declined; how many young Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen would actually volunteer to fight for a country which so evidently despises them?

 

"Queen Elizabeth also signed off as “popess” (“Defender of the Faith”, remember?) on the monstrosity of female “clergy” and “bishops”, and on sodomite unions in her allegedly Christian sect."

 

The outrages of the ‘Church of England’ in recent years have been numerous and entropic; however, as a church which was founded as a political instrument, it seems perfectly natural that it should spinelessly adhere to the newest political trends. What else is to be expected?

 

After all, Elizabeth I, who was probably more influential than Henry VIII in creating the Anglican church in its current form, was completely aware that her church was bogus – on her deathbed in 1603, when the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury came to administer the last rites, she reportedly exclaimed: ‘Get out, for you are nothing but a hedge priest!’ She is also said to have made a deal with the devil whereby, in return for a long reign, she was perfectly happy for her soul to be eternally damned.

 

The inevitable collapse of the Church of England does seem to be yielding some desirable effects; rumour has it that more and more young people in the country (as elsewhere) are turning to Traditional Catholicism.

 

"Can you imagine having a $20 billion fortune at your disposal, knowing that your eldest son would be heir to the throne and so-called “defender of the faith”, and completely, totally failing to instill any sort of Christian morality in him, never mind your other three children?"

 

More worrying than his disregard for Christianity in any form is his bizarre sympathy for Islam – perhaps he is rueful that, rather than simply adding Camilla to his harem, he had to undergo the inconvenient ordeal of divorcing Diana before marrying a second time. An interesting fact: the former royal chaplain, Gavin Ashenden, left his position and converted to Catholicism, having expressed concern regarding Charles’ theology and morality.

 

Charles has said that he will defend “faith” in whatever sense. So he is defender of faith in satan under the name “allah”, and defender of faith in demons masquerading as Hindu deities, and defender of faith in “mother earth”, and defender of faith in oneself as “god”.

 

In the time which has elapsed since you wrote this article, Charles has done much worse than this. His apparent affinity with Islam has led him – as head of the Church of England – to wish his subjects a happy ramadan and eid, rather than make any mention whatsoever of Easter or Lent. As king so far, he has hosted a post-ramadan meal in Windsor Castle, as well as using the (almost millennium-old) royal residence as a venue for an ‘LGBT+ History Month Lecture’.

 

" The British Monarchy no longer exists in the sense that every Anglo and Anglophile will swear up and down that the British monarch “HAS NO REAL POWER OF GOVERNANCE,” that the British crown is a “PURELY CEREMONIAL FIGUREHEAD POSITION THAT FUNCTIONS MERELY AS A MASCOT OF UNITY. But NOBODY actually BELIEVES that the Queen/King has any REAL authority.” "

 

Since the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694, the Crown has been practically impotent. In 1815, Nathan Meyer Rothschild boldly boasted: “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”

 

Time and time again, for over 300 years now, the flower of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish youth has been sent to die to protect the interests of international finance, having been deceived into believing they were fighting to defend their country and empire.

 

Countless young lads from these islands have been used as cannon-fodder by powers that elude us, just as many young American men have been disposed of in a similar manner. It very much looks as though the same will be happening again in the near future. (Redacted.) https://www.barnhardt.biz/

 

 

The Resurrection, Francesco Buoneri (Cecco del Caravaggio)

Resurrexit, sicut dixit