Skip to main content

If Biden & Chinese Deal Francis are not Resisted along with their "Nice" Collaborators & Enablers then a kind of Stalinist Collectivization will Breakdown on us

 Trump supporters rally against electoral count with 'Joseph Stalin' sign

 obama of borg Memes & GIFs - Imgflip

 Republicans Are Dusting Off Their Borg-Like Candidates

 PolitiFact | Biden did not admit he's 'governing like a dictator'

I remember, before the Covid hysteria lockdowns, listening to a conservative YouTuber interviewing a well knowing fiction writer whose writing he loved who turned out to be a liberal. It was enjoyable learning how and why his fiction was so good and successful until he got into politics. Ironically to the point of absurdity, he called Donald Trump a fascist and then explained how it was good Joseph Stalin liquidated the kulaks, the Russian peasant farmers, for the good of the Communist revolution and Russia. 

That gave me an insight about liberals as well as their "nice' collaborators and enablers. The conservative YouTuber seemed to me uneasy (as I was) that such an intelligent and gifted writer, who up that the moment when he got into politics was such a "nice man," could say:

It was good Joseph Stalin liquidated the kulaks, the Russian peasant farmer, for the good of the Communist revolution and country.

This gifted apparently intelligent "nice man" thought that Stalin was a "good man" and it was okay to kill millions of innocent peasant fathers, mothers and children for the "good" of the society. In some sense, this man in my opinion represents all the "good people" who are collaborators and enablers of Joe Biden and Chinese Deal Francis in their respective efforts to destroy the United States and the Church "for the good of the Communist revolution and country" and Church.

As St. Thomas Aquinas said "because evil as such cannot be intended, for the desirable has the nature of good, and no one does evil except intending some good." []

St. Thomas, moreover, says the collaborators and enablers of men like Stalin, Biden and Chinese Deal Francis are like the "blind":

How do we come to know evil? Good is something inasmuch it is desirable: «good is that which all things desire» (Aristoteles, Ethic. Nicom., I, 1.). But evil, which is opposed to good, is not desirable, and so it is opposed to being. Therefore it is impossible for evil to be a thing (Cf. Aquinas, Sum. Teol., I, q. 19, a. 1; I, q.48, a. 1; De Malo, q.1, a. 1 c). One opposite is known through the other; you can explain evil only by the absence of good, as you can explain darkness only as the absence of light; hence evil must be known from the nature of good, because evil has no positive nature, and we use this name to mean the lack of good. Evil is neither a good nor a being, because the absence of good implies the absence of being. Only that thing or subject to which evil happens and to which evil deprives of some particular good, that is something. Blindness for example, is only a privation of sight, and not a thing in itself, but a quality of someone who is, namely, a blind man. []

C. S. Lewis in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics explained how they think: 

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. []

If Biden and Chinese Deal Francis are not resisted along with all their "nice" collaborators and enablers in China and the United States then a kind of Stalinist collectivization like happened in Russia will happen to us:

Intensive collectivization began during the winter of 1929–30. Stalin called upon the party to “liquidate the kulaks as a class” (December 27, 1929), and the Central Committee resolved that an “enormous majority” of the peasant households should be collectivized by 1933. Harsh measures—including land confiscations, arrests, and deportations to prison camps—were inflicted upon all peasants who resisted collectivization. By March 1930 more than one-half of the peasantry (a larger proportion in the agriculturally rich southwestern region of the Soviet Union) had been forced to join collective farms.

But the peasants objected violently to abandoning their private farms. In many cases, before joining the kolkhozy they slaughtered their livestock and destroyed their equipment. The losses, as well as the animosity toward the Soviet regime, became so great that Stalin decided to slow down the collectivization process. On March 2, 1930, he published an article, “Dizzy from Success,” in which he shifted the blame to local officials, whom he characterized as overzealous in their duties. Immediately, many peasants left the kolkhozy. In March 1930 approximately 58 percent of the peasant households had been enrolled in kolkhozy; by June only about 24 percent remained. In the southwestern “black earth” region the figure dropped from 82 percent in March to 18 percent in May.In the fall of 1930 the drive was renewed at a slower pace, but with equal determination. The application of various administrative pressures—including punitive measures—resulted in the recollectivization of one-half of the peasants by 1931. By 1936 the government had collectivized almost all the peasantry. But in the process millions of those who had offered resistance had been deported to prison camps and removed from productive activity in agriculture. []

In 2013, the National Review's Victor Davis Hanson explained how we got to this Stalinist-like point by showing how the Obama Stalinist Collective Hive "assimilated" the W. Bush Hive and implicitly seemed to show how the supposed Bush war on Islamic terror was "assimilated" into the Woke FBI/CIA war on the "unassimilated" Christian and Trump conservative "domestic terrorists" who are fighting against the Obama/Biden Woke Stalinist Collective Hive:

In Star Trek lore, the Borg was a collective of servile drone operatives that sought to assimilate other species into its “hive mind.”

Something akin to that creepy groupthink arose when the Obama administration took power and sought to reformulate the so-called war on terror. Almost immediately, Obama operatives suggested that radical Islamists were no more likely than any other group to commit acts of terrorism. In fact, the very idea of terrorism — not to mention a war against it — was supposedly a Bush-administration construct unfairly aimed at Muslims.

Obama apparently sincerely believed that there was no intrinsic connection between Islamism and terror; or, if there was, Islamic radicalism was no more dangerous than right-wing or supposedly Christian-inspired terror. Or if Islamic radicalism did arise, it might be mitigated by multicultural sympathy and outreach, mostly by contextualizing the violence as an inevitable result of prior Western culpability.

Precisely because the Bush-Cheney protocols had thwarted over 40 post-9/11 Islamist plots, Senator Obama had the latitude, in 2008, to campaign for the presidency on the premise that these measures were both unlawful and superfluous. After he became president and learned of their utility — and assumed the political responsibility for the consequences of abandoning his effective anti-terrorism inheritance — Obama squared the circle of embracing or expanding all the elements of the war against terror by politically correct euphemism.

The result has been that ever since 2009, various members of the administration collective have sought, each according to his station, to bring us into the network of not associating Islamism with terror. And the Borg have certainly been diverse, as all sorts of political appointees, opportunists, and career officers plugged themselves into the hive. Obama may have killed ten times as many suspected Muslim terrorists by drone as did Bush, but we were to assume that the fact that there were no Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist victims of Hellfire missiles was irrelevant...

... The hive thinking quickly spread throughout the Obama administration’s intelligence apparat, as even those who once worked for George W. Bush and, in fact, had been deeply embedded in the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism efforts were drawn into the Borg — quite willingly and for careerist reasons. Despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s long history of Islamist-inspired violence, and its decades-long anti-American efforts, James Clapper, director of national intelligence (who had worked for the Bush administration and defended its launching the Iraq War by claiming that Saddam Hussein had sent his WMD stockpiles to Syria on the eve of the American invasion), offered an absurd illustration of hive thinking: “The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.”

John Brennan — who, like Clapper, in his pre-Borg days both worked in the Bush administration and was criticized for his anti-Islamic-terrorism zealotry (among other things, for supposedly promoting enhanced interrogations in Guantanamo of the now-politically-incorrect category of “enemy combatants”) — also was rewired when he became Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor. Soon he duly opined of the now-taboo idea of jihadism, “Jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.” Apparently the Tsarnaevs got a bit out of hand as they were purifying themselves in their holy struggle on the streets of Boston.

Sometimes the Borg drew in those well outside the military, intelligence, and national-security communities. According to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, when President Obama set out the “foremost” task of NASA, it had nothing to do with space exploration. Rather, the president “wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.” I think the Borg logic here is something like the following: Thanks to the legacy of Averroes, America can still get to Mars — and thanks to our recognition of that debt, the Tsarnaevs and Hasans of the world will “feel good” and are going to celebrate diversity rather than kill lots of innocent people.

These examples of the Borg could be vastly expanded, from Homeland Security’s warning of future violence not from Muslim males but rather from “right-wing extremism” — emanating from returning war veterans and anti-abortion activists — to the mandatory substitution of “militant extremism” and “violent extremism” for “Islamic extremism.”

When so many in government have been recircuited into the hive, it is no surprise that the FBI in the field has dropped its proper focus on militant Islam, or that the thug Vladimir Putin proved more helpful than did our own FBI and CIA directors in the Tsarnaev case. After all, the FBI had interviewed, but not detained, a number of men who later proved to be Islamic terrorists, such as the Tsarnaevs, Nidal Hasan, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, and David Coleman Headley. []

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?":

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?":

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" []

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003":

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush:
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.


Aqua said…
Fred, your topic hear reminds me of a dust-up, a few days ago, on Vox Cantoris. He asserted that it is our duty as Christians to wear masks to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if the government tells us we must, or they will close our Churches.

My response to him was that I find it inconceivable that an orthodox Catholic, such as himself, would ever submit to unjust dictates from secular government over how we approach Our Lord in Holy Mass. My response to him was that the Mass belongs to Catholics and we decide, within the bounds of Tradition, and in accord with the Word of Jesus, how we conduct ourselves in Holy Mass. Only one authority prevails over Mass and that is our God and the Sacred Tradition given by Him to guide us in all times and places.

Understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask to Mass. But there is EVERYTHING wrong with wearing a symbol of godless, satanic, pagan, death cult tyranny to Mass because the godless tyrants have asserted authority over us and we submit as the price of “admission”. WHY :must I put it on? That is the crucial question, as I approach Our Lord in the sacred moments at Calvary.

Vox doesn’t like to hear such things. Vox Cantoris has closed his combox. He is very angry with those who disagree with him that we must submit to secular demands of mask wearing as the price of entry to Holy Mass. Too bad. I would ask him at what point does secular authority over Mass end? After masks, vaccinations? After vax, digital passports and proof of regular DNA software booster updates? Perhaps a tiny little molecular sized digital microchip injected into my bloodstream - “you won’t even know it’s there”. Must we wear a symbol; inject a symbol, like the Chinese, of submission to secular authority and the power of The Party, in order to worship God within one or more, however minor, secular imposed limits?

Now, terrifyingly so, I see that even those I considered reliable orthodox Catholics, take the side of the State and say “yes, we must do so; resistance to demands are … *selfish*” (his words).

Chinese communist rulers assert their authority over who, what, when, how in Holy Mass, and they don’t think themselves monsters for this. There are practical reasons for everything they do. The Red Communists see themselves as against of peace and stability and justice as they define those terms. Wearing the hammer and sickle on my breast pocket and on my wife and daughters’ veils demonstrates fealty to that regime and to their authority over what happens in our holy temple. Wearing the mask is a similar or the same thing.

Because the regime insists I must in order to celebrate Mass is THE REASON I WILL NOT.

Symbols mean something. Especially symbols that verge on satanic sacramentals.

There is no power on earth, that has authority to even one moment in the Holy Sacrifice. I would rather go underground than worship God under the restraints and permissions of a godless, satanic, tyrannical regime.
Aqua said…
I had a lengthy discussion with my SSPX Priest early this year about the Gene Therapy injections, and what was the official position of the SSPX on political, social, business mandates to vaccinate as a condition of participation in political, social and economic life. His position, drawn from SSPX theologians, was summarized in the statement “this is not the hill to die on”. I disagreed with him then, as now, and will never submit. It is a hill worth dying for. I have paid a personal price already - my life is fundamentally different in many ways, because I will not submit, nor give up that hill.

In reference to Bishops and Orders such as SSPX who submit to secular authority over their Parish - who is permitted to attend the Celebration of Holy Mass, the blogger referenced above has this to say: “this is neither the line in the sand nor the sword to fall on.”

Yeah … I keep hearing that. Which line, then; which sword?

It’s not the mask that is the problem, per se. It’s about secular government reaching into every individual life and dictating granularly what they are to do, say and think; how they are to live; what they are to put on their face; what they are to inject into their bodies. And that, *most importantly*, their control also now extends to our Holy Catholic Faith and how we are to approach Our Lord; how we are to come into His presence.

So what is the line in the sand, the hill worth dying on? I first heard that term from my SSPX Priest about 8 months ago (“take the vax - not this hill”).

The Catholic Faith and Sacred Tradition is the line - long, holy and straight; Holy Mass under Canonical jurisdiction without secular, Pagan government interference is the hill, They can have none of it - not one particle. When we walk into Holy Mass and every face in the socially distanced pew is nothing but a sea of eyeballs; when we approach Calvary all masked up - lower the mask, stick out your tongue, raise the mask (argh!) - we demonstrate by that act of will we have placed government over God.

Since the blogger, like so many others, is unwilling to engage in thoughtful debate about something as core to our times as this question of the extent of secular authority into the beating heart of our Faith, and our decision to submit or resist, I would be curious to know … curious to know from anyone in general … WHAT IS the hill worth dying on, in the current condition? We know how this goes, now. They (pagan communist governments) are using military force to compel submission to every demand of us - which they have already said is universal masking, injections and internal digital AI passports of compliance.

What.Line? What.Sword? What.Hill?

“ Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” (Mark 12:17)

Caesar and his law has no place in God’s House.
Fred Martinez said…
Thanks Aqua:

Fred martinez
The Fred Martinez Report: Vox Cantoris vs. Aqua []
Aqua said…
James O’Keefe was attacked by his government for protected First Amendment journalistic activity.

His response: “They have crossed a bridge here” (there’s that reference again … “the line that must not be crossed”; “the hill willing to die in defense of” etc) - this is about certain principles that are so fundamental - our First Amendment” guarantee of free speech, thought, belief.

Our United States usurper, tyrannical government has asserted its right to suppress the Constitutional guarantee to speak, write, think, inform and debate through a free press medium by attacking and persecuting a credentialed member of the free Press.

“It is the principle” that matters most.

So it is with the government mask mandate within our Holy Roman Catholic Churches. They have no right to cross the threshold of our doors. Inside the threshold belongs to God. Outside the threshold belongs to them. The Bishops who enforce government mandates inside the threshold have committed sacrilege against the rights of God to worship by the Faithful in union with the Saints and Angels and Sacred Tradition throughout the Ages.

We must not give them even a particle, much less our very faces made in the image of God, of all that is due to Our Lord and Our Lady.
Aqua said…
This is an excellent interview that gives a flavor of the emerging conflict between a tyrannical usurper State and its citizens - in particular as it relates to the Holy RCC which stands in all Her glory over and above stupid little vain men who do such things to innocent citizens like this:

Popular posts from this blog

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t

"I Personally have No Doubt that Obama did in fact Orchestrate the Vatican [Pope Benedict] Coup, a[n]... Obama/Francis Partnership"

Attorney and World Net Daily (WND) contributor Scott Lively believes "that Obama did in fact orchestrate the Vatican [Pope Benedict XVI] coup, and... the Obama/Francis partnership behind the United Nation": Jesuit Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina became Pope Francis in March of 2013. I published  my first article about Pope Francis and the LGBT agenda  on August 1, 2013 when he was in the news for appearing to legitimize the concept of a “gay” identity as innate and unchangeable.  That concept is the false, anti-biblical premise of so-called “Queer Theory” (their term, not mine), a pseudo-scientific invention of “gay” political strategists, which underlies the entire LGBT political agenda. Francis infamously said in a media interview “If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?”.   I actually defended him against the charge that this statement represented an endorsement of homosexual conduct, and gave him the benefit of t