FSTDT

Achieving Christendom Is America’s Best Chance at Overthrowing Abortion, LGBT Reign of Terror

Christendom Is the Solution for the Emptiness of our Nihilistic Society
Grave moral problems are tearing the country apart. For many, this is apparent in the form of broken homes, procured abortion, shattered communities and lost Faith.

Many people get it right when pointing out the problems. However, they get it wrong when looking for solutions.

Some get it wrong because they look for solutions that address symptoms, not causes. Others search for a way out that involves the least possible effort. In these politically correct times, people are told not to offend anyone by their proposals. Thus, they automatically exclude the only real solution, which is a return to Christendom. They are willing to consider any other solution, no matter how absurd or improbable—anything but Christendom.

Christendom! It may seem shocking since its days seem long past. We are supposed to be in a post-Christian era. However, the urgency of our times call for it. We need a Christian civilization if we are going to overcome the present crisis. It needs to be at least considered.

A Rejected Proposal

Because our problems are moral, our solutions must also be moral. The rich treasury of Western thought and traditional Church teaching prove that the natural law and Christian morality are the norms that are best suited to our human and social nature. We find our greatest happiness inside institutions and social structures that take us to the end for which we are created—God.

Thus, we should naturally tend to favor Christendom. Everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, finds the best conditions for prospering inside a family of nations that facilitates virtue and promotes social harmony in this vale of tears.

But everyone avoids this conclusion. We have long been conditioned to reject this line of thought. This Anything But Christendom (ABC) Syndrome curiously applies alike to the political left, right and center. It embraces both secular and religious America. The most rigid tyranny bars anyone from thinking outside the materialistic box.

The ABC Syndrome and the Political Spectrum

Each political sector has its reasons for denying Christendom. For radical liberals, the ABC Syndrome makes sense. They resent any moral limits to their acts and do not care if there are harmful consequences. Individual pleasure reigns supreme regardless of self-destruction or the death of babies. Thus, a Christian moral code represents an unbearable restriction on their desires to do, think and be whatever they want. Their variant of the ABC Syndrome is to allow Everything But Christendom. Use any letter of the LGBTQ+ alphabet, but never use C for Christendom.

Those on the right have a different approach. We find Christians who truly desire a Ten-Commandment-based moral code, for example. However, they dare not propose Christian morality because the people and media who oppose it appear to be numerous. For them, it has no chance of winning. Thus, they subscribe to the Anything But Christendom approach on how society should be run. Every concession must be made to accommodate others who refuse to accommodate them. Christians dance around all the issues touching on Christendom, but no one dares say the word.

And then there are the radical moderates who want to appear non-radical. In their radicalism, these extremists purge all moral references from the debate. They prefer to tweak the status quo, hoping to avoid the Christendom issue altogether. As society falls apart, this effort proves elusive and ineffective.

Imposing the Christian Will Upon Others

Three main fallacies are used to justify the ABC Syndrome. The first is the mistaken belief that proposing Christendom imposes the Faith on non-believers.

Liberals think that establishing any moral limits means imposing Christianity on others. And yet they have no qualms whatsoever with imposing their anti-Christian will on Christians, on Christian feast days such as Christmas, and the Little Sisters of the Poor. They have no scruples about stuffing a Drag Queen Story Hour world of perversion down the throats of society, despite protests from concerned parents.

Christians cannot impose their Faith on those who do not believe because Faith is a gift from God. It cannot, by its nature, be imposed. However, Christians can and should enact reasonable laws based on the natural law that call for moral restraint to form a just and harmonious society.

Eternal and Natural Law: The Foundation of Morals and Law

Since Aristotle, moralists taught that this natural law is valid for all times, places and peoples. By advocating such moral limits in the law, Christians merely obey the nature of all law, which restricts what individuals might do for the sake of the higher common good.

In proposing Christendom, we are not imposing but returning to an order that conforms to our human nature and which favors our development and sanctification. In submitting their Everything But Christianity agenda, the left imposes on society a destructive system that brings it to ruin.

Hopelessly Outdated

The second fallacy is that Christendom is so far removed from society’s current state that it is impractical to propose it. The Christian agenda is hopelessly outdated for postmodern times, it is falsely claimed.

There is nothing more outdated than today’s anti-Christian agenda. As Catholic thinker Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira notes, there is nothing new about divorce, procured abortion, nudity, and moral depravity. Most “modern” proposals are merely recycled pagan vices from antiquity. Moreover, what could be more foreign to our American Christian heritage than the sudden appearance of transgenderism or the current mainstreaming of Satanic movements?

Indeed, most Americans identify with a return to our Christian roots. They have problems adjusting to the latest barbarisms proposed by a neo-pagan culture. The debate should not be centered on the age of the ideas proposed but their merits. The automatic exclusion of ideas because some claim they are outdated is foolish and wrong. The only thing that matters is if they are true or false.

A Long Time Frame

Finally, there is the fallacy that it is impossible to change society quickly, especially when most people seem to subscribe to the opposite of a Christian civilization. At best, a Christian restoration is a futile effort, they erroneously claim.

Again this argument sidesteps the merits of ideas. It focuses on the practicality of implementing them. However, this fallacy is as flawed as the other two.

Captivating ideas like homeschooling, for example, have drastically changed individuals and families in a short time. As the last elections have proven, voters will change their positions when convinced of the need to change.

Societies, too, can quickly and radically change. Consider the Sexual Revolution. Within the space of a decade, the sixties radically changed the mores, fashions and manners of that generation and all those that followed. Most people in the fifties were not hippies, but many adopted hippie ways in the seventies as these became mainstream.

The history of the Church is full of fervent missionary efforts in which whole peoples, burdened by their paganism, were quickly converted to the Faith by the efforts of men and the action of grace. These peoples changed their lives wholesale, adopting Christian ways in a short time.

People change their ways when times are empty, and ideas are exhausted. Indeed, it is in times like ours that grand ideas like Christendom have their greatest appeal.

Where Christ Is King

Thus, the time is ripe to debate Christendom. It should be done openly, unapologetically and enthusiastically. Many do not know what Christendom is. Indeed, the ABC Syndrome represents old liberal prejudices that distort the true nature of a Christian society. For too long, our shallow, materialistic society has suppressed the notions of wonder, sublime, and the sacred that correspond to the deepest desires of the human soul.

By engaging in the debate over Christendom, we address the emptiness of our nihilistic society that finds no meaning or purpose in life.

Above all, the failure to debate Christendom is fatal since it means the continued descent into an anti-Christendom of anarchy and unrestraint. This anti-regime is already seen in the dark yearnings of Antifa, anarchists and Satanic movements that call for a world without morality. They advocate the destruction of our nation and the persecution of those who keep the Faith.

Science Confirms: Angels Took the House of Our Lady of Nazareth to Loreto
These topics need to be discussed. We should not be afraid to proclaim our desire to see Christ as King. Numerous popes have described this Christian society as one that affirms the social Kingship of Christ. In his encyclical Quas Primas, Pius XI says that “Once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will, at last, receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.”

Only Christendom can be a truly just society for all.

Is It Time for Civil Disobedience Against The Covid19 Cult of Failed Advice?

This is today. It is not 1933. But the global mob rule we are witnessing is as old as the hills. As old, in fact, as the ancient Greeks who warned that the Herd Instinct, when married to Herd Ignorance, would inevitably lead to the Führerprinzip.

Plato predicted this earlier than most, but latterly George Orwell offered us a more exact description. For some forty years now, the Internationalist bourgeois Left has treated Nineteen Eighty-Four as a blueprint. Bizarrely, the globalist/blocist Corporate State builders have been doing exactly the same.

So for example, the Guardian’s Executive Editor instructed her journalists in 2016 to call Climate Change doubters deniers. This same collective noun is now being extended to Covid19 empiricists. But at the same time, unelected bureaucracies have promoted those like top UK civil servant Sir Mark Sedwill and US Global Pharma creature Dr Fauci to positions of enormous power and influence….using completely unregulated censorship at will to dub contrarian Covid19 commentators ‘Science deniers‘.

In recent years, one socio-political issue after another has been treated to the same formula of rigid ‘framing’. Those with doubts about the multicultural model of society are diversity deniers. Supporters of Brexit are Little Engander globalism deniers….and racists to boot. Those noting the spread of Islamic Jihadism and Pakistani rape gangs are Islamophobes. Critics of some elements of male homosexual lifestyles are homophobes. Attacks on the radical feminist creed are the work of sexists lasciviously obsessed with male rape.

Over time, such framing has trickled down in an even more simplistic form to the mass electorate, creating a knee jerk mode of acceptance I call ‘Estuary pc’….such that, in 2012 I employed a plumber who actually said, “In terdayzz mult-culchural-siety, that is a totelee hunacceptable dibollikal libe’ee”.

The link back to the shot of Hitler Youth at the head of the post is extremely pertinent: for acceptance is now turning into not just unquestioning obedience, but also demands that contrarians be told to shut up ‘for the Common Good’.

During the development of the official coronavirus narrative, we have all been treated to the Holier than Thou fascist who begins with “It’s people like you that…”. Who has not coughed in a queue for shopping and been greeted by glares from others? During the 2016 Brexit referendum, the day after Jo Cox’s assassination Leave supporters were treated to threats, and screams of “murderers” – Nigel Farage (not even remotely connected to the alleged assassin) was accused of being responsible for inciting the attack.

The metamorphosis of ideology into creed is rapidly creating a self-styled mob of Spanish Inquisitors – precisely the sort of bullying that led to the furious Groupthink of Krystallnacht eighty-five years ago. Whether that mob be Momentum, The London Times, Antifa, the New York Times, Channel Four, Common Purpose, Black Lives Matter or the BBC, there is an enthusiasm for – an asumption, in fact – that the Bertold Brecht Weltanschauung of The Good Lie is not only acceptable, it is essential. The naysayers must be silenced.

So much for diversity.

Such does not exactly provide rich soil for the discernment of lies and promotion of more effective (as in, less tunnel-vision) policy. 84% of Brits now see Lockdown and the wearing of masks as ‘necessary to control the virus’, even though the masks on offer are close to useless and lockdown has been shown to achieve little beyond approaching national bankruptcy.

Nor is the climate of ignorant fear a good one in which to put forward obvious contradictions between policies in use and the “science” they are supposedly led by.

And finally, the construction of informed conjecture about the real purposes of whipped-up Covid19 fears is so far beyond the closed mind, it is dismissed at Twitter – the ancestral home of bullying – with insults like “you thick c**t”.

All this darkness accepted, here and there one sees some signs that the largely silent Thinkers – estimated at around 16% of the adult population – are beginning to wonder whether this virus has rather more to do with globalist finance, multinational Pharma profits and surveillance permissions than anything remotely approaching “science”.

This therefore seems to me like a good opportunity to take one overriding element of the majority approach to Covid19 – a fairly easy one to understand – and leave both the Mob and the Establishment with a question they will surely find it impossible to fend off.

From Day 1 of the Covid19 saga, we have been watching a tug-of-war between two sets of medical interests.

The highly regarded French newspaper France Soir has been creating a Covid19 drug-trials niche for itself by raising all kinds of methodological anomalies in relation to the Recovery trials being headed up by Peter Horby. The articles are compelling because the paper’s director of publications Xavier Azalbert is that rare thing, a distinguished scientist who then switched to journalism. But although the telling findings fly over the heads of most of the population, Azalbert’s overview about who the politicians listen to in the field of virology is a fascinating one that, for me, represents a genuine insight.

Neil Ferguson (the man of multi-billion Pound mistakes) is an epidemiologist, and professor of mathematical biology. He has never been a medical practitioner in his life.

Peter Horby is an epidemiologist, and Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health. He has never been a medical practitioner in his life.

Anthony Fauci’s first degree was in classics. He went on to medical school later. The sum total of his clinical experience was a two-year hospital internship from 1966-68. He has never been a general practitioner in his life.

Chris Whitty, UK Chief Medical Officer, worked as a doctor and researcher in Africa and Asia and is a practising NHS consultant. He has never worked in general practice, and his total experience in the current century has been as a Professor, administrator and public sector office holder at Gresham College and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). In 2008, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded the LSHTM £31 million for malaria research in Africa. At the time, Whitty was the principal investigator for the ACT Consortium, which conducted the research programme. I probably don’t need to remind you of the lingering ethical doubts relating to that “vaccination” programme.

Ferguson, Horby and Fauci also have a long history of being funded by Big Pharma.

In short, the front line of Anglo-Saxon advice to government are all people Low in clinical experience and High in Big Pharma funding. They are model builders, theorists and fund-attracters laden with multivariate conflicts of interest, and little or no depth in the vital process of patient obervation. Their careers, needless to say, are all littered with groundless alarmism, major mistakes in counsel and the belief that vaccination is the answer to every problem….even a virus which, many practising medics contend, is highly unlikely to ever work on a mutating coronavirus – let alone within two years to include drug trials.

This is the tug-of-war team that has a monopoly on access to government. The other team – the practical, experienced medical practitioners – are variously depicted as minority nutjobs, eccentrics, headline-chasers, small-time and narrow deniers – there’s that word again – who are a constant risk to millions of human lives, and must be ignored. In fact, never mind ignored – for the good of the cause, they must be smeared, censored and refused access to the debate.

In fact, it is the Horbys and Faucis that are the tiny minority infecting genuine medical science with their corrupted ideological creeds and flakey models.

So now, here is the $64 trillion question that the Establishment war-tuggers and the hopelessly general political class they blind with science can’t avoid: why are you listening only to atypical academic twaddle-theorists with conflicts of interest who have at best been hopelessly wrong and at worst lied about Covid death stats and ruthlessly manipulated drug test trials?

This is in no way an unfair framing of the question. Ferguson’s death toll estimate was wrong, Horby’s drug trial of HCQ was fiddled, the entire process of lockdown was unaffordably broad, economically unaffordable and incompetent in the area of protecting the vulnerable, there is an inquiry going on into PHE’s massively overestimated UK death toll, and the Horby trials are being redone at yet more public cost. Dr Fauci has deliberately misled the American People about HCQ, and his conduct has been the subject of some excoriating criticisms by the practitioners’ supporter, the American Medical Association.

As I said, for the time being – until such time as the public mood changes – keep it simple. To those who are awake, the reasons why all these dubious activities – the Bigging Up of Covid19 – have been undertaken are clear. Nevertheless, park the power, money, geopolitical and Alt State hegemony madness and focus on this one question: why are you still taking the advice of the folks who’ve fucked up?

Yesterday, Chris Whitty flatly stated that “Coronavirus cases are rising in the UK because ministers pushed lockdown easing measures to their limits”. He openly rubbished Boris Johnson’s plan to get the UK back to normal by Christmas, insisting that “relaxing rules further will absolutely, inevitably lead to a resurgence of the virus.”

Whitty put his foot down: lockdown loosening measures had to be ‘stopped now’ and maybe even ‘pulled back a bit’ because they risk allowing another large-scale outbreak in the future.

This was based on a daily death toll figure of 38. Out of 76 million. In the US on the same day, the light use of lockdown produced 5 deaths. Out of 330 million. Lockdown has been at the very best a questionable policy, and a certain gdp disaster for a Britain that can ill afford one.

Whitty is not interested in even considering that his strategy (which, let’s face it, not a single government anywhere knows how to emerge from) is flawed, that the dangers are wildly overstated, and that Britain must move on or collapse. And Boris Johnson’s Cabinet shows no sign of even considering that Whitty is a Pharma tool and, economically, a dangerous fool.