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"
William Binney Binney at the Congress on Privacy & Surveillance (2013) of the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Born William Edward Binney September 1943 (age 77) Pennsylvania , U.S. Education Pennsylvania State University (B.S., 1970) Occupation Cryptanalyst-mathematician Employer National Security Agency (NSA) Known for Cryptography , SIGINT analysis, whistleblowing Awards Meritorious Civilian Service Award Joe A. Callaway Award for Civic Courage (2012) [1] Sam Adams Award (2015) [2] Signature [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_official) ] Former intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA) and whistleblower , William Edward Binney, whose occupation is cryptanalyst-mathematician explained that Joe Biden's "win" was impossible because "Biden Claims 13 MILLION More Votes Than There Were Eligible Voters Who Voted in 2020 Election" according to Gateway Pundit. Binney revealed "With 212Mil
Comments
"Olavo de Carvalho is the author of this statement above about Lefebvre, well known among conservative (and traditionalist) Brazilian Catholics for influencing many of them in the country, even after his death, to this day.
Olavo comments on this connection between Rama Coomaraswamy and Lefebvre, who was linked as a professor at his seminary, in the 1970s until the early 1980s, when Pope John Paul II promulgated the New Code of Canon Law in 1983.
The philosopher reveals something on his talk show that deserves a reflection on what he personally heard from Coomaraswamy about Lefebvre this:
"Archbishop Lefebvre is an idiot, but he works for us."
If there is a "works for us," then it turns out to be a plan that was hidden for a certain purpose.
In this way, Olavo de Carvalho deduces that the four priests were inserted in this context which they were consecrated by the Archbishop in the SSPX, in 1988, until their last days.
Thus, he demonstrates that this is a warning to Catholics about this fact to a mostly Catholic audience that followed Olavo's analyses:
"I will say: these four priests who were consecrated bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre, were students of Professor Rama Coomaraswamy."
But the irony of all this is not that Carvalho was a philosopher or even a Catholic astrologer, but that he was always in the line of thought of René Guinon, who influenced both Olavo de Carvalho and Rama Coomaraswamy. In addition, both were members of Frithjof Schuon's Muslim tariqa. The latter, Olavo sounded this warning by a "subtle influence" of his also on Lefebvre.
If we analyze this, albeit briefly about who René Guénon was and who Frithjof Schuon was, who were mentors of the current of the Perennial philosophy, synonymous with traditionalism, not in the Catholic sense in the term (which Aleister Crowley, creator of the sexual magic of Thelema, who helped to create together with Rama Coomaraswamy's father), who both burned other traditions, both in different creeds and in simple customs of indigenous peoples, in the search only for knowledge (Gnosis), without moral or religious commitment to a specific religion.
And this leads us to deduce that Archbishop Lefebvre had a non-Catholic thought; in this way, the mission of the SSPX that was within the Church (no longer with the Holy See totally impeded by Benedict XVI and currently leading to a situation "una cum" antipope Bergoglio) distinct from a Catholic commitment to the Church, in the deception still to the unsuspecting who attend its "priories" (a strange term that makes sense to the denunciation of some that Lefebvre was Grand Master of the Piorado de Zion, interconnected thus, as an extension to the "Fraternity", a term used in the Rosicrucian and Freemasonry, interconnected all of this to the "Fraternity" of St. Pius X, instead of using the common term which is "chapels", to their temples).
And going back to the 1976 meeting between Paul VI and Lefebvre, the latter appeared in Rome as a signer of the conciliar Constitution both in the liturgy and religious freedom, in addition to celebrating in the experimental missal of 1965 (until the current ordinary missal), but accused the Pope not of having faith and was a modernist, as reported in the minutes of the meeting.
These statements by the Archbishop are relevant, as they reinforce that he did not have a Catholic mentality for having been against the Magisterium of the Church, above all, on the dogmatic childishness of the Pope, regardless of an alleged omission of the head of the Church or not, in the ambiguity of the conciliar texts (there is nothing definite, nor anything clear to date).
Therefore, this tradition is not Catholic which leads itself only to think of a Masonic plot against the papacy, well orchestrated and elaborated beforehand, both externally and internally; fortunately, however, this mission is no longer in the heart of the Church.
----
Sources:
https://olavodecarvalho.org/influencias-discretas/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4B2iUp7dV0
https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/it/2018/05/17/news/ecco-il-verbale-segreto-dell-incontro-fra-paolo-vi-e-lefebvre-1.34017221/#google_vignette
Was Paul wrong in rebuking Peter the first pope?
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_014br_BeyondPolitics.htm
A Catholic Meta-History -book review
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
She points out the policies of Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI that furthered the revolution of the liberal secular state. It was a Vatican directive that betrayed the heroic Cristeros in Mexico with an order to put down their arms and support the corrupt anti-Catholic Calles government. Later, she notes, secularization took on new vigor at the Second Vatican Council, which was followed by Paul VI’s personal endorsement of the United Nations, “nexus of the godless political apparatus.”
Are and were Dr. Rist and other faith Catholics wrong in more or less agreeing with Fr. Le Floch?:
Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926: The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.'
It is necessary to know that the administrative part is fallible, as it is something different from infallible teaching. Moreover, pecalibity is distinct from infallibility, in the person of the Vicar of Christ, who has the assistance of the Holy Spirit who assists him.
Although I lack a source now, everything leads to believe that it was not the fault of Pope Pius XI over the defeat of the Cristeros (they say they became the first sedevacantists for this), but the informants surrounded the Pope about the situation in Mexico. In this way, everything must also be deeply analyzed about this fact about Benedict XV.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_014br_BeyondPolitics.htm
A Catholic Meta-History -book review
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Are Catholics to go along with this “havoc wrought in Christ’s vineyard?” No, Mrs. Hertz responds. What made such destruction possible was blind obedience, a tool specially forged by the devil to serve the ends of the on-going revolution in the last century. As Hertz concludes, “Any degree of political or religious deformation becomes possible through mindless compliance with authority, and History proves papal authority no exception” (p. 221). We are opportunely reminded that Popes can and do commit serious errors in judgment, and can even deny Christ as St. Peter did. And when they do, Catholics are required to resist.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_014br_BeyondPolitics.htm
A Catholic Meta-History -book review
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Ah, some might object, but Mrs. Hertz is criticizing the actions of Popes, and this is not Catholic or good. To this objection she devotes a chapter of response, “Peter’s Policies.” Catholics need to know not only when legitimate authority can be defied, but when it must be defied if God is to be served, she insists.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_014br_BeyondPolitics.htm
A Catholic Meta-History -book review
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Are Catholics to go along with this “havoc wrought in Christ’s vineyard?” No, Mrs. Hertz responds. What made such destruction possible was blind obedience, a tool specially forged by the devil to serve the ends of the on-going revolution in the last century. As Hertz concludes, “Any degree of political or religious deformation becomes possible through mindless compliance with authority, and History proves papal authority no exception” (p. 221). We are opportunely reminded that Popes can and do commit serious errors in judgment, and can even deny Christ as St. Peter did. And when they do, Catholics are required to resist.
Before closing this review on Mrs. Hertz’s notable Beyond Politics: A Meta-Historical View, I would like to make two more brief comments. First, to those critics who complain about the lack of footnotes and sources in some of Mrs. Hertz’ work, I would direct them to this book. She cites valuable sources, especially when she reveals the plots of the secret forces of Freemasonry and the Jewish Kabala to infiltrate the Church. At the end of the book is a concise and interesting bibliography, mostly French works.
https://catholicism.org/valor-betrayal-cristeros.html
Valor and Betrayal – The Historical Background and Story of the Cristeros
JAN 30, 2006 GARY POTTER..
As for the Holy See, one of its first moves was made when L’Osservatore Romano reminded its readers on June 8, 1928, that Pope Pius XI had never given his blessing to the Cristeros. Indeed he had not, but the newspaper failed to recall that neither did he condemn them when they began their fight. How could he when the bishops took the position they had in November, 1926? All during the next year following the Osservatore editorial, the Vatican would be in constant touch with Archbishop Ruiz y Flores and sometimes, through intermediaries, with Ambassador Morrow himself. Nothing was done without its knowledge and final approval.
How can the part of the Church that keeps the gates of hell away become the gates of hell itself, which the council interprets as the death dealing tongue of heretics?
A pope can err or sin, but he cannot be a formal heretic. If he teaches as a pope and not as some random commentator then papal primacy tells us we must comply. Do you deny papal primacy? Yes or no?
...For example, imagine a reply slipped into the Acta Apostolica united to Amoris Laytaytay where the “divorced” and “remarried” (without requiring an annulment or a Josephite living-situation preceded by confession) are permitted to sacrilege both the sacraments of the Eucharist and Marriage, and you must accept this sacrilege under pain of “ex-communication?” - Fr. Dave Nix [https://padreperegrino.org/2024/07/nannychurch/ & Padre Peregrino (Fr. Dave Nix)