Thursday, 17 December 2020

VATICAN STATE OF TERMINAL BEWILDERMENT

To comment please open your gmail account or use FaceBook Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down to see other comments.





The massive lightning bolt that struck the dome of St Peter's the night of Pope Benedict's resignation seems in hindsight to have fractured the Vatican, splitting the heart of the Church in two. And not only in two - traditional and modern - but a splintering process then ensued, reducing the hierarchy by now to what seems like a state of terminal bewilderment.


Take the latest from the Congregation for Divine Workship: their rejection of a petition against a US bishop's temporary ban on Communion on the tongue. The Secretary of the Congregation quoted the Prefect of same, Robert Cardinal Sarah: “In times of difficulty (e.g. wars, pandemics), Bishops and Episcopal Conferences can give provisional norms which must be obeyed … These measures given by the Bishops and Episcopal Conferences expire when the situation returns to normal.”

Pardon me? A Church Militant story in May quoted Cardinal Sarah as saying in a recent interview: "There is already a rule in the Church and this must be respected: the faithful are free to receive Communion in the mouth or hand."

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/strickland-adds-his-support-to

The rule of thumb with regard to a bishop's authority is that he should not forbid what the universal law permits, nor permit what the universal law forbids.

To this we could add a corollary that he may not legally introduce liturgical novelties. Not introducing novelties means just that — no bishop has the authority to introduce any new liturgical practice. The above-mentioned response of the U.S. bishops comments: "With the exception of these and other modifications of the law explicitly assigned to the Diocesan Bishop, no additional changes to liturgical law may be introduced to Diocesan liturgical practice without the specific prior approval of the Holy See."

The question of blessing children in the Communion line is more difficult because here we are dealing with a novelty.

It's a novelty and a side-show, as is inviting the "children to come forward for a blessing" straight after Communion, when communicants are or should be making their thanksgiving, not being totally distracted by the adorable infants being paraded by proud parents to the priest.

Blessing children in the Communion line in these days of COVID hysteria is more than a novelty and a side-show, it's preposterous. Here we are, debating whether it's more dangerous to receive on the tongue than in the hand, when Father places the sacred Host o the tongue or in the hand with fingers that have just patted some kid's head.

Several sources indicate that the Holy See is less than favorable. Bishops' conferences and individual bishops, however, give mixed signals.

From the legislative point of view, I would say that, being a novelty, a bishop would be within his authority to forbid the practice. If so convinced, he would be able to recommend it as a pastorally useful custom, unless the Holy See eventually decrees otherwise. He could not, however, legally impose the practice on his priests as this would be to attempt to introduce a novelty.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/bishops-interpretations-of-liturgical-laws-4678

When the swine flu panicdemic was on, the same Congregation for Divine Worship responded to the same issue (of Communion in the hand) by quoting the 2004 instruction Redemptionis sacramentum which “clearly stipulates” that each of the faithful always has the right to receive on the tongue, and that it is illicit to deny Communion to any of the faithful who are not impeded by law (that is, not in a state of serious sin).

And then there's the US bishop who in May announced officially that  “Holy Communion on the tongue is discontinued until health conditions improve” - and later the same day on his diocese’s Facebook Page beat his breast, said he'd acted out of an “abundance of caution”. He'd been rapped over the knuckles, obviously, for being out of line with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose stated policy is that "Every Catholic has a right to receive Holy Communion in the most reverent way they deem, in the hand or on the tongue.”

The USCCB’s instructions say,Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not the person distributing Communion.”

In March, the Archdiocese of Portland Oregon consulted experts on this issue and concluded that the risk of transmitting infection when receiving on the tongue or hand is “more or less equal.” Thank God for a bit of sanity.

Please God, could you persuade Cardinal CallMeJohn Dew to rescind his preposterous ban on Communion on the tongue in the Land of Mordor.

And speaking of the hierarchy being reduced to a state of terminal bewilderment, Cardinal George Pell is now speaking of some in the Vatican being reduced to a state of terminus, period.


Vatican figures framed me: Pell

George Pell says everyone who tried to reform Vatican finances has been subjected to reputational attacks and even murder.


By the way - the dome of St Peter's Basilica was struck by a massive lightning bolt also on the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary in 2016.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.


Tuesday, 15 December 2020

THE POPE PUTS UP HIS NATIVITY SET - A POST-MODERN MONSTROSITY

 

To comment please open your gmail account, or use Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. To see other comments, scroll down.

 

The Vatican's rendition of the traditional  Nativity scene for St Peter's Square this Christmas, grotesque as it is, speaks to faithful Catholics and Christians throughout the world of the hideous misrepresentation of the truths of the One, Holy and Apostolic Church manifested by the papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. 

 

 

In storage, presumably. Shame it didn't stay there 


One can only shudder, not only at its ugliness but at its cause for scandal among Catholics and non-Catholics alike. For example, the first comment from a Protestant on this pic, posted on Facebook last night was "Catholicism stinks".

We may turn to the widely respected Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Review for a rather more enlightened and in-depth commentary:

 This year’s Vatican Nativity scene has drawn fierce criticism for its post-modern artistic look, which critics say radically breaks with traditional Nativity scenes and fails to evangelize or inspire others about the mystery of the Incarnation. 

The Christmas presepio in St. Peter’s Square contains 20 modernistic ceramic objects, including the main figures in the story of the Nativity but with toy-like faces alongside the presence of an astronaut and a morbid, satanic-looking executioner — but no manger.

The figures, which include Our Lady depicted with blonde, curly hair, are spaced out on a minimalist stage with no landscape, cave, trees or streams that characterize usual Nativity scenes. 

 


Our Lady with blonde hair, without a veil

 

Reaction on social media and elsewhere has mostly ranged from “hideous,” “abhorrent” and a “disgrace,” to “demonic,” an “embarrassment” and a “mockery” of Christ’s birth. Tim Stanley, a well-known columnist for the UK’s Daily Telegraphcalled it “absolutely terrifying,” while Vatican News’ Facebook page was filled with criticism even before it had been unveiled. 

Just a few appeared to like it, with one on Facebook calling the scene “gorgeous” and a Twitter user saying it was “by far the Church’s best effort to bring me back into the fold.” (Another said he was considering becoming Catholic but said he’d remain Protestant after seeing it.)

Not since Pope St. John Paul II began the tradition in 1982 has the Vatican’s Nativity scene drawn such ire or departed so far from the conventional image of a manger and larger-than-life sized figures of Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the Magi and accompanying animals.

The 2017 Nativity scene was previously the most controversial, causing an outcry after it featured a semi-naked man (which some viewed as homoerotic), a corpse and no sheep or oxen in front of what appeared to be a bombed-out church. The scene, called a “Nativity of Mercy,” came from an Italian abbey that turned out to be a favorite pilgrimage destination of LGBT activists. 

 

Origin of the Figures

This year, the Vatican has called the Nativity scene “contemporary and unconventional,” but it actually contains figures that were originally made from 1965 to 1975 in the town of Castelli, in the Teramo diocese of Abruzzo in central Italy — a region hit by earthquakes in 2006 and 2016. 

God will not be mocked ...  

Famous for its ceramics, the idea for this presepio was conceived by Stefano Mattucci, the then-director of the town’s F.A. Grue Institute of Art, and designed by two artistic professors, Gianfranco Trucchia and Roberto Bentini. The scene was first exhibited in December 1965, then displayed at Trajan’s Market in Rome in 1970, and a few years later in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Tel Aviv. Various figures were added, including a Muslim and a Jewish rabbi, increasing the total number to 54. 

Fausto Cheng, one of the students at that time who helped create the figures, said in a 2018 interview that “revolutionary aspects” characterized its creation, “from breaking the classic patterns of ceramic art, the use of color, the representation of the Nativity in an original way.” He added that the scene had been “infused with contemporary events from recent years” that included “setting foot on the moon, the Second Vatican Council and the abolition of the death penalty” (the latter two themes reflecting matters being close to Pope Francis’ heart). 

What did I tell you? The nativity set is symbolic of the vagaries of Vat II and those of Bergoglio, typified by his arbitrary abolition of the death penalty in defiance of the Magisterium of the Church.

The decision to bring the figures to the Vatican two years later was the fruit of meetings between Bishop Lorenzo Leuzzi of Teramo and a group of artists and technicians, according to Marcello Mancini, vice president of the F.A. Grue Institute. They wished to bring some of the figures not only “related to Christianity” but also “related to some themes that are dear to our Pope,” he said. These included themes not only connected with science but also the environment with the inclusion of many animals. It is a “naturalistic crib,” he told local television, containing a “goat, sheep, a swan,” all of which are “objects that have an elegance and an incomparable stylistic interpretation.” 

Beauty, of course, being in the eye of the beholder.

 


Darth Vader? Neil Armstrong? Give up?

 

Striking a Nerve

But this year’s effort, coming in a year of trial for many families and individuals due to the COVID-19 crisis, appears to have struck a particular nerve. “It’s so divisive, I don’t hear a lot of people defending it,” said Rome-based art historian Elizabeth Lev who teaches at Duquesne University. People look to the Vatican in particular “for the tradition of beauty,” she added. “We keep beautiful things in there so that no matter how awful your life is, you can walk into St. Peter’s and that’s yours, that’s part of who you are, and it reflects who you are and the glory of who you are.” 

“I don’t understand why we’d turn our back on that,” Lev added. “It seems to be part of this strange, modern loathing and rejection of our traditions.” 

In its description of the Nativity scene, the Vatican said it was influenced by ancient Greek, Egyptian and Sumerian sculpture — something art historian Andrea Cionci, writing in the Italian daily Libero Quotidiano, traces back to the “liberal historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture” that “took over after the Second Vatican Council.” That approach, he said, has a “tendency to demystify everything that is supernatural in the Catholic faith.” Dogmas, miracles and divine interventions, he explained, are “assimilated into the residues of pre-existing pagan cults.”

All in 'The Spirit of Vatican II'. 

Ottavio Bucarelli, pro-director of the cultural heritage department at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, nevertheless sees the Nativity scene as “entirely legitimate” as it originates from an artistic institute that studies not only “ancient techniques” but also “innovative proposals in the artistic field, new ways to be experimented which today, in our eyes, can be perceived as a break with well-established tradition of the representation of the Nativity.” 

So it's legit because it's innovative? Que?  

He told ACI Stampa Dec. 14 that it is “therefore necessary to bring back our reflection to that historical-artistic reality” and look upon the figures “with those eyes,” and stressed the need to contextualize the “historical period and the environment in which it was created” — namely the ’60s and ’70s which were decades of “political, cultural and religious ferment.” 

Yes. Revolution. The sexual revolution and Vat II, "the 1769 of the Church".  

 Lev agreed that the desire to bring such a Nativity scene to the Vatican is primarily a “question of innovation,” even though she believed the last thing people want in such a year of hardship and separation of families is “experimenting with the image of the Holy Family.” One possibility, she said, is that it could serve to “shock us into longing for a traditional Nativity” just as some argued that denying the sacraments this year due to the lockdown makes people long for them. 

Yeah right. We would hazard a guess that since Ardern let us back into church, NZ Mass counts have dropped. 

But Lev recalled that when St. Francis of Assisi began the tradition of Nativity scenes, he asked for the pope’s permission precisely because he did not want such a custom to be “misunderstood as innovation, just for the sake of innovation” but rather to “invoke the mystery of the Incarnation.” St. Bonaventure, she added, later made the point in the 1220s when people were wealthy and had all they needed, that he wished to “reawaken the sluggish faith in the heart of Christians.”

“I would propose to you that I haven’t seen anyone say they feel more Christian because they’ve seen it [this year’s Vatican Nativity scene],” Lev said. “I’ve seen people laugh at it, people have been throwing the word demonic around way, way too much, but it’s not awakening a sluggish faith. If anything it’s burying a sluggish, half-dead faith under a heap of mockery – and it really looks like innovation for innovation’s sake.” 

The Register asked the Holy See Press Office if it might replace the Nativity scene in view of the widespread criticism, but has yet to receive a reply.

Lev doesn’t think it should be removed, but said that some regret and admission that it was an “ill-considered choice” would be welcome given the “division and hurt it has caused,” but she is not optimistic that will happen.

 

In St Peter's Square, a reason not to regret that missed Roman Christmas


 

Let's leave the last word to Sharon Crooks of Palmerston North, commenting on Facebook (as you see, FB isn't all rubbish):

"All I can think is that Our Lord came for everyone including whoever created this monstrosity that looks like Stars Wars gone awry. Our Lord’s humility and His Love, Mercy, and perseverance with us is unbelievable and it makes me just love Him all the more!

"Thanks Pope Francis for continuously giving us reasons throughout 2020 to reach out to console Our Lord!"

 

 

Monday, 14 December 2020

THE DEVIL DOESN'T TAKE MONDAYS OFF SO WHY DO PRIESTS?

 To comment please open your gmail account, or use Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for other comments.w


"Monday is Father's day off." Father doesn't say Mass on Mondays. But why not?

It's an innocent enquiry, a genuine question, which nevertheless may raise clerical hackles.

But it seems to me that priests should have a day off on the day the Devil has a day off. 

Fathers of families don't have days off from being fathers. Mothers don't have days off from being mothers, any more than they have days off from being wives, and husbands don't have days off from being husbands. Fathers and mothers are fathers and mothers full-time. Period. So should priests be Fathers full-time - and full-time Spouses of their Bride, the Church.

And before you go, oh but priests are different or, they need time off or they'll 'burn out', reflect that yes they are certainly different, but they differ by being divinely called to become divine - as we all are - but they become divine chiefly by celebrating Holy Mass and the Sacraments, just as we become divinised chiefly by attending Mass and receiving the Sacraments.

A lay person who belongs to a third order like the Carmelites, Dominicans or Benedictines commits to a life of prayer which includes daily Mass (Dominicans and Benedictines, correct me if I'm wrong) but certainly the Discalced Carmelites commit to daily Mass along with the Divine Office, meditation and spiritual reading. I know because for seven years I was a Discalced Lay Carmelite in-the-making, until one week before my Final Profession I received a Dear John letter - and started all over again with the original Order, of Our Lady of Mt Carmel.

This is not an argument against priests having time off. They absolutely must have time off, just as fathers of families must, for their mental and spiritual health. But what causes priests to 'burn out' is not a lot of hard work, but not enough prayer time, of which daily Mass is the supremely important feature (followed closely by daily meditation/contemplation). 

But I'm getting side-tracked, as is my wont. I'm spurred to write this by St John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church, whose feast we celebrate today. And what lay Carmelite worth her salt, of either the Discalced or O Carm variety, would not celebrate the Feast of that exemplar of Carmelites by attending Holy Mass? 

But I had to be in Palmerston North today, and in Palmerston North there is only one Mass on a Monday, at St Mary's at 9 a m. 

Palmy is an hour and a half's drive from here, and like all mothers and wives I had the duties of my state in life to attend to (not to mention the Divine Office) before going to Mass. So first I drove 20 minutes in the opposite direction, to St Patrick's Waipawa, where the parish priest, in his eighties, did not take this Monday off, as he never does take a Monday off. Till recently he celebrated Mass every day, cancelling Tuesday evening's Mass only because it was attended by a congregation of one.


The Cathedral of the Holy Spirit where there are two priests, no bishop and no Mass on Mondays 

It is beyond belief that the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit does not offer Mass on Mondays. 

There are two priests at the cathedral - Fr Joe Grayland and Monsignor David Bell. Fr Grayland is very innovative; Monsignor Bell believes in saying Mass as quickly as possible. 

There should also be a bishop, of course, seated metaphorically in the cathedra for which the church building is named, but the bishop left long ago, under a cloud as they say. It is the Pope's task to appoint bishops - his most important task, according to Bishop Athanasius Schneider who knows a thing or two - but the Pope has been busy.

Among other things, the Pope has cancelled the public Christmas Masses at St Peter's Basilica. 

Also he has authorised the installation of the traditional St Peter's Nativity Scene which this year is anything but traditional. 

In fact one could go so far as to say it's a good thing public Mass at St Peter's is cancelled because there will be fewer of the faithful to be stunned, perplexed, dismayed or downright horrified at the Vatican's idea of what the Blessed Virgin Mary, St Joseph and the Christ Child should look like:



St Joseph and Our Lady flanking an angel (apparently) with a rather precocious Baby Jesus


There I go again, getting side-tracked. But I thought these pix, of the more than life-sized figures which are fairly described by some as blasphemous, might induce you to get your own Nativity sets out pronto, and pray to them for the Holy Father and the Church.


Two of the 3 Wise Men, perhaps? Your guess is as good as mine


I had been assured by a friend that there was no Mass on Monday at the cathedral, and that "it's been like that for years". There was a Communion Service, lay-led of course (feminists of the Church, please note spelling: if you must be lay-led be that, and not 'lay-lead'). I preferred to add another 40 minutes to my journey to Palmy. 

Did St John of the Cross take Mondays off? Did St John Vianney? Did Jesus Christ?




“Strive to preserve your heart in peace; let no event of this world disturb it”
-St John of the Cross


Friday, 11 December 2020

ARDERN HAS NO RIGHT TO FORBID HOLY MASS: CARDINAL MULLER

To comment please open your gmail account, or use Facebook Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down to see other comments.


"Politicians don't have the right to forbid the Holy Mass and celebration of the sacraments,” says Cardinal Gerhard Muller, a prince of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Politician Jacinda Ardern, before you inflict any further unjust (because unjustified) lockdowns, please take note. Bishops of New Zealand, please do likewise. 


Cardinal Gerhard Muller - no pushover prince

Cardinal Muller was head of the Vatican's powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until ousted by Pope Francis, who replaced him with the Jesuit Archbishop Luis Ladaria (thus ridding himself of the last of Benedict's big boys.)

While the cardinal did say that the Church willingly accepts some security measures to guard against the coronavirus, he noted that some governments and politicians are taking this as an “opportunity to suppress the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Muller may never have heard of Jacinda Ardern (we may feebly hope that he has been spared) but certainly as a onetime leader of Socialist Youth and now leader of a socialist Government, Ardern et al are only too pleased to suppress the Catholic Church in New Zealand. 




And she (the Church) didn't take much suppressing, did she? The moment Ardern crooked her little finger, she rolled over and played dead, with Masses cancelled and churches locked and Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament abandoned at the PM's good pleasure.

”The cardinal criticized the approach of various governments as “incoherent” since while allowing mass gatherings and tightly-packed public transit, they are forbidding Masses in large churches.

'Incoherent' is a kind way of putting it, your Eminence. 

“We must fight for our basic rights, the rights of freedom of religion in order to practice our religion,” he said. We must be very firm to give priority to the worship to God and to come together as the members of the body of Jesus Christ which is the Church. 

As Father Celatus (the name means 'hidden') wrote, in June: "As was the case with the ancient Jews, a majority of the Catholic faithful have been misled by corrupt religious leaders,whose behavior includes sexual perversity, apostasy, heresy and idolatry all the way to the top of the hierarchical ladder. And like the ancient Jews, whose worship ceased with the destruction of the Temple, so now, much of Catholic worship has ceased with the closing of churches worldwide, often with the capitulation and complicity of corrupt Catholic clergy.

"But God always preserves a remnant of the faithful few who refuse to compromise true religion."

Father Celatus reminds us of the king of the Persians, Cyrus, who was raised up by God as a chosen instrument to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem, and likens him to President Donald Trump.

"So it was decreed and so it happened. Similarly did an American president ... decree that all churches should open immediately and worship should resume. Sadly, just as many religious leaders had ignored the example of the faithful prelates (in Minnesota),so too they ignored and even criticized the decree of the President, who sought to crush the wicked blue-state (Governors) and override their unjust statutes.

... "one thing is sure: our religious leaders, who brought this misery on the Church in the first place, will not be the ones who will rescue us."


The original 'Parking Lot Priest', St Paul, Mn 


To return to Cardinal Muller: 

And in response to politicians who would counsel Catholics to just “pray at home,” the former Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith said that Christ Himself called on the Church to come together in memory of Him.

In New Zealand, your Eminence, the work of the politicians was largely done for them by the bishops and priests who saw all kinds of spiritual beneficence in their flocks being denied Holy Mass and the Sacraments. 

Online Masses quickly became de rigueur, although as time went on, some priests were piqued to find that their performance was being critiqued as lacking somehow in personality, in  pewside manner, in pithy witticism - which would have been impossible with the Traditional Latin Mass. One wonders whether prelates and priests who doubt their own charisma might consider taking flight into the TLM, where it is the Personality of God Almighty which matters, and that of the priest entirely subsumed.

“We are not a spiritualistic religion,” (Cardinal Muller) said.

“The Word became Flesh, and we are beings of flesh and blood and soul. We are living in the reality of the material world – also created by God – and therefore we need this corporal visible mediation by the sacraments within the community of the believers.”

 

Adoration of the Magi by Leonardo da Vinci

 

 

 


 

Monday, 7 December 2020

SATANISTS' PLACARDS AT MARCH WERE RECYCLED LABOUR BILLBOARDS

To comment please open your gmail account, use Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for other comments.




This is one of the many faces of evil worn by Satan in New Zealand today. 

This is a teen satanist, advocating for the legal slaughter of babies, at the March for Life in Wellington on Saturday. 

Poor kid. Caught up and worked upon by her sinister satanist male companions (one old enough to be her grandfather) and having no idea, probably, that her slogan could equally be applied to the pro-life cause - although only, of course, in a Christian context. Her billboard is eloquent evidence not only of lack of intelligence (and who needs brains when you've got the father of lies on your side?) but of the fact that New Zealand is no longer Christian.

Stand up and take a bow, Christian churchmen and women, especially Catholic churchmen and women, especially priests, for your silence, your apathy, for the faith you keep at blood-heat.


 The bikies who showed, from Taupo, Tauranga. Te Awamutu, Auckland 


There were just two priests present at the March for Life in Wellington. Visible priests, that is. You know, the sort that are "the light of the world", whose light shines in the sight of men, so that seeing their good works we may give the praise to our Father in heaven. There may have been others, but Fr Michael Johnson and Fr Francois Laisney of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) were the only ones wearing the cassocks and roman collars which fit the description above, given by Jesus in Matthew 5:16.

Fr Laisney, I'm told, sleeps with his bedroom windows boarded up because he gets so many death threats from Satanists. At Parliament grounds on Saturday he made a beeline for them, the majority sub-teens by the look of them (I kid you not), hanging over the barriers screeching abortion slogans and death ditties on their megaphones, and he evangelised flat out, gesticulating Gallically throughout, until the demo was done. 

When I saw what him take off in their direction I followed Father, my grandfather's Irish horn rosary in hand, to support him in prayer, and prayed non-stop throughout. I was glad to do it, not least because I could lean against a wall. 

It was chilling to see how young were those satanists, almost all female and, to look at, just your average girls next door. They were so excited, so hyped-up, so in-your-face. But Fr Laisney would not be put off. On Saturday afternoon at the March for Life, Fr Laisney, "fisher of men" (Mt 4:19) was fisher of girls. I only hope they could understand his accent.

Bishop Michael Gielen, Auxiliary Bishop of Auckland and Baby Bishop of the NZCBC, may well have been there. I think he said, at the March for Life Vigil Mass and Adoration at St Mary of the Angels, that he would be there. He's not a big chap and could easily escape one's notice - but not in a cassock and roman collar, which is the main point of that get-up as I understand it. Visibility. Witness.

The SMOA parish newsletter states sternly (Wellington being the Land of Mordor) that seeing as how (yes I know that's not grammatical) it's 'Covid Alert Level 1' (sigh) there would be 'Communion in the hand only'. 

However, I reminded myself that Bishop Gielen is not of the Land of Mordor. He did not celebrate Holy Mass like he belongs to the Land of Mordor. I had my Latin Mass missal and with all the frills and furbelows going on I had time to read all the texts and get myself to the end of the Communion queue, on Bishop Gielen's side, and go down on my knees for Communion on the tongue. 

He gave me a tiny smile, and Our Lord. Thank God for good bishops.

As an aside, a reader of this blog asks me, "why the fixation with Communion on the tongue"? Because to receive Communion in the hand risks fragmentation and loss of particles of the Host and Their being trampled underfoot - and just as much of course when wearing gloves. Either way you're risking sacrilege. 

And what's more, Communion on the tongue is the mode of reception in the Mass of the Ages; It's the way Catholics received Our Lord for over 2000 years until after Vatican II; and what's even more is, It is our right. 

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. 

Wake up, you slumbering Church. It's Advent and as Father Peter McAfee SM reminded us at SMOA on Sunday morning, that's time for repentance. You know, Confession and all that.



The satanists, bringing up the rear. With no 'news' media behind them


The satanists at the start. The 'news' media weren't there either


And now take a gander at the backsides of the satanists' billboards. Especially the one in the centre. Whose smiling face do we see? Ardern's. What are the satanists' placards made of? Recycled Labour election billboards, that's what. 'Let's Keep Moving' folks - right along to the brink of hell. 

Quite clearly, the satanists are at the very least, if not sponsored by, then in bed with, the Labour Party. I said some time ago that the election of the atheist babykiller Ardern had given the satanists courage to emerge from under their stones, but even I did not dream that Ardern and her Labour Party would be providing for their publicity stunts. 

Is this not reminiscent of the scenario in the US, where the Democrats incited the Black Lives Matter mob to mayhem, and BLM reciprocated with millions of dollars of funding for the Democrat election campaign? 

What a revelation. What a give-away. What a disgrace for Labour. What a disgrace for the 'useful idiots' who voted Labour, especially the 'useful idiots' who call themselves Catholic, and especially the priests who know no better, apparently, than to vote for a socialist government, or to instruct their flock that as Catholics they can't do that except under pain of serious sin.

No wonder the 65-seat March for Life bus that was laid on - with a free lunch in Welly - by an extraordinarily generous Napier parishioner, was nearly cancelled. Last Thursday night it wasn't even half full. Every priest in the Napier and Hastings parishes who wasn't saying a vigil Mass that day should have been on that bus, and should have mustered enough of their parishioners to fill it to overflowing.

Only, if you'd voted for Ardern after she stage-managed the Abortion Legislation Act how would you have the hide to go to Wellington on a bus to protest against it?


"Oh Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee."



The March for Life: those in the van, with 1000+ between them and the satanists in the rear



Sunday, 6 December 2020

THE HEXAGON OF TYRANNY - FROM A KIWI ANGLE

To comment please open your gmail account, or use Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for other comments.


"We are facing a six-headed monster of tyranny.  Freedom is on the line, as Western, so-called democratic governments have trashed our basic human rights.  How much do we know, or care?" asks Paul Collits.

At Te Hauke in Hawke's Bay, a roadside sign at an organic vege grower's reads: "WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW, RESISTANCE BECOMES A DUTY". That organic vege grower (who by the way, has deserted the Greens) would have something in common with Sydney writer Paul Collits, as he has with me. 

In the interests of resisting tyranny and injustice, at St Mary of the Angels Wellington in the Archdiocese of Mordor (Wellington) where Cardinal call-me-John Dew has banned Communion on the tongue, at the Vigil Mass for the March for Life I presented at the end of the Communion queue for Holy Communion, on my knees, before the celebrant, Bishop Michael Gielen. 


Bishop Michael Gielen 


I've heard good things of Bishop Gielen, the 'baby bishop' of the NZCBC, and I had a presentiment that he wouldn't deny my right to the Sacrament. He gave me just the hint of a smile, and with that, Our Lord. Thank God for good bishops! Pray for good bishops! 

What's more, this morning once again at SMOA, where the parish newsletter announced sternly that there would be no Communion on the tongue, my daughter and I presented (I went first) again on our knees, to Father Peter McAfee SM. 

Once again, I had hopes. I'd prayed myself, and asked a holy friend to pray, for the priest who would say Mass this morning, and was privileged to hear a jolly good sermon on the beginnning of all the Gospels - St Mark's; a history lesson and solid orthodox doctrine too, bidding us to repent and confess our sins before Christmas. 

But as I'm still in Welly, I'll yield the floor now to my good friend Paul. 

The West now faces a hexagon of tyranny.  “Demonic” tyranny as Laura Perrins has called it.  For it is evil.

In full view, with no attempt by the ruling class to hide it.  And faithfully implemented by elected governments, ...

Like Ardern's Labour Government. 

... with only a few scattered voices raised in opposition to the emerging autocracy.  The great oppression of 2020 seems to have been welcomed by the masses ...

Half NZ's population (if the votes were counted and reported accurately - one still may hope that not 50% of Kiwis are 'useful idiots'.  

 ... with the only demur coming from those who argue that governments should have been more oppressive, earlier, and for longer.

Jean Jacques Rousseau famously (if misogynistically) said:

Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.

Paraphrasing Rousseau, we might say in 2020 that we were born free and everywhere now we live in the chains of Covid.

A hexagon of tyranny?  A hexagon is a polygon with six sides.  There are six dimensions to our newly arrived Covid-driven totalitarianism.  They are:

  • Ignoring science;
  • Lockdowns;
  • Propaganda;
  • Making protest illegal;
  • Censorship of alternate views ...

Ahem. I think the word is 'alternative'.

  • Freedom (vaccine) passports.

They may grow, of course, to even worse, perhaps octagonal, proportions, in time. 

Every one of these is a real and significant attack on freedom and fundamental rights.  In an informed and engaged liberal democracy, any one of these would normally give rise to popular unease, social protest, media pushback and vigorous political opposition.  You would think, but you would be wrong.

It would be bad enough if we had even one of these six forms of oppression.  But we have all six at once.

We do not have much resistance, either.

Instead, we have had from the state and its surrogates what Ivor Cummins has termed the “hysteria machine at full rev”.  And from a duped populace, we have had inexplicable ignorance, naivete, compliance, submission, a madness of crowds.  In short, the behaviour mostly associated with lemmings, or children in thrall to the Pied Piper.

Jonathan Barr has reported on the UK Government’s declaration that British families can actually meet for Christmas, with rules of course:

As the Mail on Sunday‘s political columnist Dan Hodges pointed out on Twitter, 12 months ago the idea that the Government would be “allowing” us to spend Christmas with our families and loved ones would have been unthinkable. Have we really been so cowed by the Government’s lurch into authoritarianism that this is good news?

One intuits that it would be welcomed as such in NZ, by Ardern's propagandists at TvOne 'News' at least. 

What would normally be thought of as unthinkable attacks on basic freedoms – speech, movement, association and responsibility for our own health – have been visited upon us with minimum outcry.

Shall we take a look at them in more detail?

Ignoring Science

Governments have been insisting (endlessly) that they are simply “following the science”. 

This is rubbish.  It is disturbing that “science” has been invoked in the cause of a quack science, crass political power grab.

It has been a double whammy.  Governments have been accepting without challenge bogus science, while ignoring real science.  All in the cause of politically driven medicine.

Apart from the fact that the very notion of “the science” (singular) is an emblematic disavowal of the scientific method, the evidence is in that governments are ignoring good science.  They are ignoring evidence that their policies are misplaced.  On masks.  On distancing.  On mass testing.  On vaccines.  On the efficacy of locking people up in their homes. 

Whatever the reasons for the initial March 2020 panic, ...

Like in NZ, serving as camouflage for the Abortion Legislation Act, which so many voters still don't know about, because they're kept in the dark by Ardern's media. 

... governments have NO excuse for ignoring the ample evidence about Covid that has since emerged.  Governments have ignored evidence in favour of self-protection.  Governments lied.  People died (not from Covid).  Economies died.  Freedom died.

Scientists who have presented contrary evidence and questioned the official line have been silenced, cancelled, ignored and insulted, by the state and its cheer squads in the legacy media and Big Tech.  World leaders in the fields of virology, immunology and cognate disciplines.  Carl Heneghan.  Mike Yeadon.  Sunetra Gupta.  Sucharit Bakdi.  John Ioannidis.  Karol Sikora.  These guys have forgotten more about coronaviruses than the politicised goons advising Western governments will ever know.

This is simply a disgrace.  As RJ Quinn has noted:

What if I told you that thousands of lives could be saved during this pandemic if we followed the science?

Instead of following the science, governments around the world are implementing the exact opposite of effective measures to combat the pandemic.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-greatest-scandal-of-our-lifetime/

The rejection of contrary evidence, repeatedly presented in compelling fashion by world experts in peer-reviewed journals, that the official approach is wrong and dangerous, speaks to an anti-science approach.  Governments are merely circling the wagons, while claiming that they are being scientific.  Public health officials on the government payroll, paid to toe the line, simply echo the party position.  This is what public officials do.  They are embedded.  If they question anything, they will be sacked or silenced.  Whatever this is, it ain’t science.

Ivor Cummins has belled the cat.

https://thefatemperor.com/ep77-is-lockdown-science-based-ivor-cummins-on-mark-dolans-talk-radio-show/

Governments have endlessly rolled out their “scientific” advisers.  They have led press conferences.  They have become minor media celebrities.

What do you mean, 'minor'? You can't get more major as a media celeb than Jacinda Jackboot Ardern.  

 This has created an impression of science leading policy.  A veneer of evidence-based decision-making.  Claiming that we have faced a global emergency and claiming that policy has “followed the science” have together amounted to a hoax perpetrated on the peoples of the Western world.  What has been foisted upon us is safetyist ideology, not science.

Lockdowns

Lockdowns have been one of the greatest attacks on freedom in history.  All done on our watch.  We should be ashamed of ourselves for letting this happen.

Panicked governments followed China.  It is as simple as that.  According to the Dubai Medical Journal:

China’s Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak [is] A Model for Epidemic Preparedness and Management

 

Ardern makes a deal with China's Premier Li Keqiang

There you have it.  We all followed China, the source of the outbreak and the country that enforced a brutal lockdown (a lockup) of its citizens as only China can.  A lockdown that would make Belt-and-Road man Daniel Andrews salivate.

All countries except the heroic Sweden and a couple of others have followed the Chinese Pied Piper. 

Lockdowns are an act of totalitarianism.  They are an attack on freedom.  That they have been proven (by science) to be totally ineffectual has not made a jot of difference to those committed to it.  Indeed, as Ivor Cummins has repeatedly pointed out, for forty years till March 2020 world public health experts (representing “the science”) have preached the uselessness and the harms of lockdowns.  Including the much fawned-upon World Health Organisation.  They were pressured by China to change their tune, but fortunately medical experts around the world have continued to publish papers demonstrating, despite the Sweden-haters among us, that lockdowns make no difference whatsoever to Covid outcomes.

https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-and-mask-mandates-do-not-lead-to-reduced-covid-transmission-rates-or-deaths-new-study-suggests/

Lockdowns have included curfews, restrictions on movement, the crushing of businesses through regulatory mandates, border closures, overseas travel bans, imprisoning students at universities, bans on exercise, household detention, banning Church services, cancelling weddings and funerals and ...

 Introducing ...

sinister contact tracing.

Worryingly, the media have only become interested in lockdowns when they are seen to go “too far” or when they have involved government bungling.  The imposition of Victoria’s severe and prolonged tyranny has gained attention the world over. 

 

Victorian fuzz arrest Zoe-Lee Buhler for posting online about a lockdown protest

 

But every other state of Australia has done similar, worthless things, only to have escaped media scrutiny.  Forty-three US States have locked down.  Some leaders, like the talentless NSW Premier, have even attracted praise simply for not being as bad as some of her peers.  Media observers wrongly believe that governments can suppress viruses, and that some are just better at it than others.

There has been no analysis by governments of the impacts of lockdown, despite evidence that lockdowns cause catastrophic harm to individuals, families and communities.  None whatsoever.  Why would they?  It might be embarrassing.

It has been up to investigative journalists to quantify systematically (and using government statistics) the impacts of the disastrous lockdowns of 2020.  One such example has occurred in the UK Daily Mail, and not before time.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8975765/The-true-cost-Covid-19-Read-RUTH-SUNDERLANDs-terrifying-dossier-economic-damage.html

In addition, the excellent Ross Clark has called out some of the lies told by government about the health threats of Covid and the state’s response to them.  Ross Clark is one of the world’s greatest fact checkers in relation to lockdown.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8971669/What-DONT-tell-Covid-facts-twisted-strike-fear-hearts.html

The British Government has simply ignored this story.  One government tweet called it “misleading”, then they took down the tweet.  Perhaps they are the ones doing the misleading.

Far too few Australians have beaten the drum.  Too few Australians even see lockdown as a freedom issue.  Yes, they, like Americans and Britons, do work-arounds and ignore the rules selectively, where and how they can.  But where is the public anger in the democratic West at the greatest threat to our rights in anyone of our lifetimes?

Propaganda

Governments have been at pains to create a Covid “narrative”, to press that narrative whenever and wherever possible, to enlist surrogates to press their messaging home, and always and everywhere to seek to suppress dissident views.  We could call it “project fear”.  And it has been beyond successful, with people who have been scared witless begging for ever greater, longer lockdowns.

The use of propaganda to enforce the destruction of our freedoms is beneath contempt.  It is also alarming.  It is something that Western countries often criticise China for doing.

 

Supermarket shopping in the UK

While the state has clamped down on the free speech of its citizens (see below), and sought to stop people from telling the truth about Covid, the willingness of the state and its surrogates to tell lies has been breathtaking during the Covid epidemic.  Let us be generous and call the government propaganda we have witnessed “misleading”.  They have:

  • Massively exaggerated the scare;
  • Kept important information from the public;
  • Politicised bureaucracies and weaponised them;
  • Used soft-sell advertising to nudge citizens in the direction of fear – ‘we are all in this together”;

In NZ, we're a 'team of 5 million'. Make that 4999999.  

  • Used statistics selectively;
  • Normalised the abnormal;
  • Used language to embed messaging, e.g. “you will die”, you will “kill granny”, “stay at home and save lives”;
  • Accused people of being “selfish”, being the problem if they disobey the rules, aka gaslighting;
  • Denied instances of their own incompetence and maladministration;
  • Used words like “crisis” and “pandemic” in order to create fear; and
  • Insisted that there is no alternative to lockdowns. 

Information kept from the public includes the fact that there is no evidence that either masks or lockdowns work, that cases are not the same as infections, that the idea of a “second wave” is bogus.  They have failed to disclose the true economic and health costs of lockdowns.  They have failed to acknowledge that many more will die from non-Covid causes as a result of lockdowns.

The propaganda from governments has been relentless, and often subtle.  Taxpayer funded, and billed as “Government Information”, of course.  And supported religiously by the legacy media and by the global elites.  The media have been useful idiots, ...

 In NZ they're paid to be. To the tune of $50m.

... the elites much more.

It works a treat with the low-information citizen.  Lord Sumption in the UK has been a constant critic of the UK Government’s approach.

By using “propaganda”, he said, the government had “to some extent been able to create its own public opinion – fear was deliberately stoked up by the government”.

The infomercials, the carefully orchestrated corporate messaging everywhere you go, ...

In NZ, even on motorway signs 

... the media compliance, the endless reporting of the casedemic at the top of the news, the press conferences with premiers and their ubiquitous officials, the guilt tripping of “covidiots”, the nightly reporting of death counts.  Big brother would be proud of the messaging, the narrative. 

1984 with Big Tech.

Peter Hitchens has argued that “all politically important statistics are fiddled”.  Well, it has certainly been the case with Covid.

The propaganda has worked.  The punters believe we face an existential crisis, and that conformism is required. 

Lord Sumption again:

The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country. Many, perhaps most of them don’t care, and won’t care until it is too late. They instinctively feel that the end justifies the means, the motto of every totalitarian government which has ever been … The government has discovered the power of public fear to let it get its way.

If the Gummint says it is true, then it must be true.  The hysteria machine has been brilliantly effective.  In the meantime, our rights and freedoms have eroded beyond that which those watching events closely could ever have feared.

Making Protest Illegal

Making protest illegal has been a masterstroke of the Covid state.  It has been achieved on the flimsiest of constitutional grounds, through ministerial fiat barely recognisable as belonging in a liberal democracy, and on the pretext of guaranteeing public safety.  For the sake of protection from a virus which will cause no harm – I am sorry but this must be endlessly repeated till it sinks in – to ninety-nine per cent of the population.

And chillingly, this is all done under the cover of protecting us all from “disinformation”.  Physical protest and online dissent are fundamental democratic rights.  Crushing them on the back of safetyism has been a core strategy of the Covid autocracy.

How better to silence dissent?  All on the back of constitutionally questionable, but unquestioned, authority.  Make it out to be war, then dissidents can be conveniently portrayed as quislings.  Covid quislings.

The Brits implemented ten thousand pound fines.  Made high profile arrests.  Employed brutal police enforcement to crush resistance.  The Victoria Police are now world famous for arresting pregnant mothers, for wrestling protesters to the ground with extreme force, for harassing grannies in parks, for confiscating mobile phones, for strutting their totalitarian stuff on Mainstreet, for turning up unannounced at the homes of dissenters.

Political and police enforcement has been selective, of course.  Mysteriously, polite lockdown meetings and marches are deemed to be sinister while non-socially-distanced, neo-marxist protests are fine.  The police will even take a knee with you.  Stopping marches by people who merely believe in freedom and fining organisers with steep fines is ok, though, in a free society.

Worryingly, one British lockdown opponent has voiced the view:

I suspect any ban on protesting will remain after lockdown …

This has been real, and successful.  The Covid thuggocracy.  Smashing opposition to the Covid state. 

As we know, the most successful dictatorships in history – many of them in the twentieth century – have survived through the silencing of dissent.  The greatest freedom fighters have been those, like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who have called this out, often at risk to their own lives.  Others, like the late Sir Roger Scruton, did similar heroic work by actually organising dissent, in Scruton’s case, behind the Iron Curtain.  Those who have been opposing the tyranny of lockdowns may, one day, come to be seen in a similar light.

Censorship of Alternate Views

 Um, 'alternative', Paul.

Big Tech has been an effective ally of the Covid state in enforcing the official narrative.  Platform companies have censored dissenting Covid views, routinely and with intent.  Government has watched on, without lifting a hand to support freedom of speech.

This Covid censorship crushes views that challenge the official narrative.  That governments have simply disregarded this censorship suggests that they have ignored it in order to profit from it.  This is repugnant to those who cherish freedom.

This has been death by algorithms for scientific dissent.  Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg call this “fact checking”, “community standards guidelines” and “misinformation”.  Hence world experts in epidemiology, pathology and other Covid-relevant disciplines have been silenced online.  The eminent authors of the Great Barrington Declaration were deemed persona non grata, and cancelled.  Silenced.  Anyone suggesting a “cure” for Covid other than that promised by Big Pharma and Bill Gates in the form of mandated vaccines. 

Anti-lockdown Facebook pages have been taken down.  Google has buried dissenting views, deliberately.  This has been demonstrated time and again.  As has YouTube, whose tools of suppression including shadow banning and the actual removal of video posts.  Just ask Dr Mike Yeadon, who recently had an interview taken down.

Dr Mike Yeadon has argued that the British government is using “lethally incompetent” scientific advice in its Covid-19 response. YouTube has mysteriously taken down a video in which the immunologist explains his point.

https://www.azerbaycan24.com/en/youtube-takes-down-lockdown-sceptical-interview-with-renowned-immunologist-dr-mike-yeadon-for-violating-terms-of-service/

Professor Carl Henighan of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (an irony here) is merely the latest.  He and a colleague wrote an article about the recent landmark Danish study, itself suppressed until a week ago, and this was the result:

Here’s what happened when I posted our latest @spectator article to Facebook – I’m aware this is happening to others – what has happened to academic freedom and freedom of speech? There is nothing in this article that is ‘false’.

The article is here.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-

The article and the study concluded that there was “no significant effect [on Covid] for mask wearers”.  Masks, along with distancing, mass testing, QR tracing and confinement, and (coming) compulsory vaccines, are core elements of the state’s Covid oppression.  Anything or anyone suggesting that any or all of these are bogus must be stopped, at all costs.  These messages might get out.  They might cause cynicism among the citizenry.  Dissent.  We cannot allow that.

One noted lockdown critic on British Talk Radio has advised that he is now being “followed” on Twitter by one of the UK’s police forces.  There is no evidence, so far, that they are physically following him.  He is merely a person of interest.  Problematic.  Concerning.

There has been not a murmur from Western governments against this censorship of scientific truth.  Of course not.  The censorship has worked in their favour.  It is yet another ace for governments to play.  This has been perhaps the greatest threat to freedom of expression in the West in our lifetimes.

Some political parties merely want to go in harder to kill freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.  Like the UK Labour Party, which wants to force social media companies to remove anti-Covid vaccine content:

Anti-vaccination content on social media is “poison” and “garbage” and should be “stamped out”, Labour has said.

With hopes rising of a COVID-19 jab being rolled out by the end of the year, the opposition has called for emergency legislation to remove “dangerous anti-vax content”, such as posts against the use of vaccines.

The party wants the government to bring forward laws that would include financial and criminal penalties for companies that fail to act against such content.

Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday that “dangerous nonsense” is being spread on social media by people who are against inoculations and it “erodes trust” in vaccines.

There is “poison, garbage (and) conspiracy theories” online and “it’s all nonsense”, he added.

Mr Ashworth said Labour wanted to work with the government to tackle the issue.

Then there is the UK’s top counter terrorism cop calling for a “national debate” on whether expressing doubts about Covid vaccines should be “criminalised”.

https://www.rt.com/uk/507207-vaccine-hesitancy-terrorism-question-basu/

Would the claim by Ivor Cummins that vaccines for Covid are simply “a placebo” be criminalised under British Labour?  Most people would think, I hope, that social media censorship has already gone way too far.

Vaccine Passports

Perhaps the most chilling development of all this year is the one to have emerged most recently.  You only get to go anywhere if you are Covid-free. 

This is the ace in the hole for Covid tyranny.  Despite the fact that the emerging Covid vaccines are the ultimate “placebo fix”, a “magic talisman” as Ivor Cummins has aptly described them.

The suggestions of freedom passes, aka internal (or international) passports linked to having tested negative for Covid or to having taken a Covid vaccine – when and if one becomes available), are coming to every Western country.  We will decide where you can go.  End.  Of.  Story.

From the UK’s Mail Online:

Britons are set to be given Covid ‘freedom passes’ as long as they test negative for the virus twice in a week, it has been suggested. The details of the scheme are still being ironed out by officials in Whitehall, who hope it will allow the country to get back to normal next year.   

To earn the freedom pass, people will need to be tested regularly and, provided the results come back negative, they will then be given a letter, card or document they can show to people as they move around. 

The certificate would be stored on a phone, according to sources, and would allow people to live a relatively normal life until the Government’s vaccination programme gets up to the speed.  It would even allow Britons to get away without wearing a mask, it is thought, and visit family and friends without the need to socially distance. 

A source told the Telegraph: “They will allow someone to wander down the streets, and if someone else asks why they are not wearing a mask, they can show the card, letter or an App.” 

So much for our once cherished freedom of movement.

And it is not only Britain.  We have been living with totally useless, yet freedom crushing, border lockdowns in Australia for most of 2020.  There are two alarming new developments.  Seemingly Qantas and probably other airlines are about to ensure that no one can travel internationally in the future without a Covid vaccine. 

https://summit.news/2020/11/23/qantas-airways-ceo-says-covid-vaccination-will-be-mandatory-for-travel/

A more sinister form of tyranny in twenty-first century liberal democracies is hard to imagine.  And then there are our Chinese friends.  They want a global track and trace system for travel.  China, of course, was the (possibly deliberate) source of the virus that has transformed the world.  Bringing this off would complete the virtuous circle for a sinister country known to have spent the past several decades infiltrating every other country they could.

Chinese Communist President Xi Jinping wants travelers to adopt a global QR code system to help determine their health status and travel “permissions” in a post-coronavirus pandemic travel reset.

https://www.breitbart.com/health/2020/11/23/china-wants-passenger-tracking-system-for-global-travel-coronavirus-reset/

Note the use of the term, “global travel reset”.

As Breitbart also notes:

QR codes are bar-codes that can be read by mobile phones that are a common tool of tracking and control in Communist China.

Here is Kenneth Roth:

Beware of the Chinese government's proposal for a global QR code system. An initial focus on health could easily become a Trojan Horse for broader political monitoring and exclusion, akin to the dangers associated with China's social-credit system.

The broadest smile in the world at these developments must surely be on the face of Bill Gates, Mr Vaccine International, and all his Davos friends.  A wet dream of global control.  With Trump all but gone, what is to stop all this?  Who will prevent global tyranny?

 

Self-explanatory

 

And if Trump goes, and we get global tyranny, it will be cold comfort for his few defenders in NZ to say to those 'I loathe Trumpers', "I told you so". 

Yes, friends, this is all real, and coming to a polity near you.  Exciting, isn’t it!  The coming Orwellian state.  Corporates are actively joining in.  They are on board.

Making freedom of movement subject to state-imposed crackdowns on non-compliance is as totalitarian as it gets.  The Covid state is complete.  The ultimate control over us.  Big Brother rules.

Taken together, the tyrannies outlined here impose catastrophic impacts on our freedom.  It all looks like a plan.  They all interlink beautifully.

Given that 99 per cent of the population is not at any risk, one must ask – why are they doing this?   

Each of the six pillars of totalitarianism has delivered progressively ever more diabolical restrictions upon us.  It is, as if emboldened by the success of the previous tyranny, governments have then proceeded on to the next tyranny.  Tiptoeing towards autocracy.

So, how should we respond to the six big tyrannies of 2020? 

Protests (illegal, though, they are)?  Civil disobedience?  Just wait till an election (though this would be unlikely to deliver anything different)?  Write endlessly to MPs (the Peter Hitchens strategy)?  Quietly ignore government orders?  Form a new party?  Form local resistance groups?  Persuade through argument?  Online campaigns?  Simply become better informed?

Stop listening to RNZ and reading the 'newspapers'?

A number have already done at least some of these things.  It must be said, if the polls (and election results in New Zealand and Queensland) are to be believed, with precious little effect.  The limited protests – admittedly rendered illegal – have had nil impact on the direction of ideological travel.

Or should we just remain beaten into submission, ill-informed, bovine in our demeanour, content in our ignorance, disdainful of our rights, just happy to be receiving cheques (if, indeed, we are receiving cheques)?

Clearly, many in the community believe we have nothing to worry about, in relation to our lost freedoms.  They believe either that government actions are both needed and justified, that whatever (admitted) harms come from lockdowns, the potential for mass deaths from Covid demand the sort of actions taken, that the freedoms lost aren’t that important, that the lockdowns (at least in Australia, outside Victoria) haven’t much impacted our daily lives.  Perhaps the majority believe ALL of these things.  They see little that is sinister in the state’s advances of 2020.

If this is correct – and I suspect that much of it is – then we do really have problems in our increasingly less liberal democracies.

For the less sanguine among us, the key question to have arisen is this – what do the governments of the West and their surrogates know about the Covid epidemic?   In other words, what exactly are they up to?  Or again, just how culpable are governments for the mischief they have caused, for the destruction they have sown?

The question should be asked repeatedly if our liberal democracies are to survive in a form that is even vaguely recognisable. 

There are only three possible answers to the question:

  • They sincerely believe that lockdowns and the rest work, and that the hexagon of lost freedoms is worth it, even necessary, and most certainly noble; or
  • They know that lockdowns and the rest (masks, social distancing, mass testing, mandated vaccines) don’t work but cause harm – as surely they must, from “the science” that is freely and widely available, certainly to those in government – but are too scared to admit this, reverse course and beg the electorate’s understanding and forgiveness; or
  • They have deliberately imposed and maintained Covid tyranny for reasons other than protecting our health.

If the most accurate answer is the third, one must surely ask two further questions.  If so, what reasons and why? 

Experts and lovers of freedom constantly shake their heads in disbelief at the actions of governments and the flaccid responses of the subjugated as 2020 has worn on, and we have learned much more about the Covid virus.  Even if lockdowns were justified in March, they certainly aren’t now, given the knowledge we have gained.  Even if this knowledge is, clearly, very unevenly dispersed.

A much repeated refrain is – it is impossible for governments and their advisers not to know that lockdowns don’t work, that masks are ineffective, that mass testing is a waste of time, and that vaccines are not needed (and, in any case, will arrive way too late). 

 

self-explanatory also


More than this, governments must know the damage their decisions are causing, every single day. In which case, what the hell is going on? 

Almost no one who has considered this question actually accepts that they could all be so damned stupid.  Even if, patently, every government has done stupid things, either through commission or omission.  Just look at Victoria.  Yet many of us cling to the safe middle ground – that a stuff-up always beats a conspiracy.

Even to ask these questions is to suspect that all is not what it seems, that there is something that is hidden from view in play.  Governments couldn’t be that dumb (or at least ignorant), even if suffering from rampant noble cause corruption and even if only listening to a narrow range of invested views.  Or could they?

To attempt to answer them, one necessarily must wade into murkier waters where the evidence is less clear, and where one will inevitably endure vicious debates, charges and counter-charges.  Acknowledging the existence of “convergent” opportunism, that is, the fact that all sorts of groups are taking advantage of the Covid mania to further various agendas at every spatial scale from the local to the global, the question remains – what does government know? 

It is government, after all, that has enacted  - or, in the case of Big Tech censorship, allowed – each of the six areas of tyranny and oppression.  At whose behest have governments engineered the hexagon and unleashed the beast?  We know from our democratic theory – in whatever form – that governments don’t do things in a vacuum.  They respond to pressure.

As Lord Sumption has noted – “this is how freedom dies”.  William Pitt the Younger stated once:

… necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. 

Well, our leaders claim necessity.  They are tyrants and we are slaves.  Much of our freedom lies in ruin.  Before ...

or under? 

... the onslaught of a six-headed monster.