 |
| Our Lady of Fatima |
 |
| Our Lady appeared to Lucy, Jacinta and Francisco in 1917, to ask for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. |
On July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima, after showing little Lucy, Jacinta, and Francisco hell fire, said to them: ‘You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is a great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecution of the Church and the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation on the five first Saturdays. If my requests are granted, Russia will be converted and there will be peace.’
President Vladimir Putin of Russia has started "the process" of fulfilment of Our Lady’s prophecy about Russia and the rest of the world but unfortunately, THERE IS NO POPE TO DO THE CONSECRATION!
 |
In
November 2013, however, President Vladimir Putin visited Rome. He asked for the Consecration of
Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but “Pope” Francis said: “No, we will not discuss Fatima”!—Report from
Fr. Paul Kramer, author of 'The Devil's Final Battle'. See video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghrGZQ7ltr4
THIS is the state of the conciliar church today! As Our Lady of La Sallette predicted, "Rome will become the seat of the Anti-Christ." |
Vladimir Putin: The New World Order Worships Satan!
 |
| President Putin |
Kevin Barrett: "It is worth noting that Russia and Iran
– the two nations most successfully resisting NWO regime change – are doing so
in the name of God…. Putin’s reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the
New World Order elites, who – though they push militant secularism on the
societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists."
“So, you want to worship Satan? By all means, but leave Russia out of it. Rest assured that I will be your worst nightmare. You can quote me on that.” (Putin).
During the Cold War, the United States and much of the West argued that the Soviet Union was a “godless nation.”[1] Last year, Vladimir Putin took that pendulum, swung it on the other direction, and landed it on the Zionist regime. As Patrick Buchanan put it then, “In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russia that is on God’s side. The West is Gomorrah.”[2] Putin said:
“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their
roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the
same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and
a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”[3]
If you think that Putin is just pulling your leg here, then
get this:
The Washington
Times reported then:
“In his state of the nation address, Mr. Putin also portrayed
Russia as a staunch defender of ‘traditional values’ against what he depicted
as the morally bankrupt West. Social and religious conservatism, the former KGB
officer insisted, is the only way to prevent the world from slipping into
‘chaotic darkness.’
“As part of this defense of ‘Christian values,’ Russia has
adopted a law banning “homosexual propaganda” and another that makes it a
criminal offense to ‘insult’ the religious sensibilities of believers…
“Although Mr. Putin has never made a secret of what he says
is his deep Christian faith, his first decade in power was largely free of
overtly religious rhetoric. Little or no attempt was made to impose a set of
values on Russians or lecture to the West on morals.”[4]
Certainly Putin put the moral equation back on the table. Kevin
Barrett declared that Putin here was trying
to “put the fear of God in the New World Order.” Barrett moved on to make the forceful
argument that much of the Zionist establishment in the West is afraid of Putin
because the establishment lives in fear. “Russian President Putin is
resisting,” said Barrett. “That is why the Western propaganda machine is
calling him names.” Barrett continued to argue cogently:
“It is worth
noting that Russia and Iran – the two nations most successfully resisting NWO
regime change – are doing so in the name of God…. Putin’s reference to Satanism
was a pointed rebuke to the New World Order elites, who – though they push
militant secularism on the societies they are trying to undermine – are closet
Satanists.
“Anyone who doubts this should run the name ‘Lt. Col. Michael
Aquino’ through a search engine. Aquino, an avowed Satanist and
credibly-accused mass child abuser, was rewarded for his crimes against
children with an appointment as Chief of Psychological Warfare for the US
military…
“The shock troops of the NWO’s war against religion and
tradition (and Russia and Iran) are the neoconservatives. Operation Gladio
terrorist Michael Ledeen explains:
“‘Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our
society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to
science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our
enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces
their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to
keep pace … We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.’
“Putin is
stopping New World Order ‘creative destruction’ in Syria and Ukraine. He is
part of a growing coalition opposing the NWO – not just religious
traditionalists, but also progressive anti-globalization forces, including Hugo
Chavez inspired anti-imperialists in Latin America.”
Kudos for Barrett here. The regime proved Putin right by
applauding the Pussy Riot,[5] a Trotskyite group that ended up
having sex (literal pornography) at the Moscow National Museum. (We have
discussed this issue in the past.) As always, Neocons like Seth Mandel of Commentary were on the front line defending
their brethren.[6]
But the crucial point here is that Putin, like Emmanuel Kant
and even John Adams and others, understands that a nation cannot exist without
objective morality, and objective morality cannot exist without Logos,[7] the essence and sustainer of the
moral universe.
In that sense, and whether he notices it or not, Putin was
implicitly or indirectly attacking the Neo-Darwinian ideology, which states
that objective morality is an illusion and has no metaphysical basis. It is
here that we find again that Neo-Darwinian metaphysics is intellectually
useless and worthless because it denies the very essence of a moral universe.
As we have noted in the past, serious Darwinists agree that
objective morality is an illusion. The noted biology philosopher Michael Ruse
once again said that “there are no grounds whatsoever for being good…. Morality
is flimflam.”[8] Yet like his intellectual antecedent
Charles Darwin, Ruse ends up contradicting himself in the very next sentence by
saying,
“Does this mean that you can just go out and rape and
pillage, behave like an ancient Roman grabbing Sabine women? Not at all. I said
that there are no grounds for being good. It doesn’t follow that you should be
bad.”[9]
Well, duh! If there are no grounds for objective morality,
then good and bad are also illusion. There is not such a thing as rape or bad
behaviour. What is good for you may not be good for me, and there is no way of
adjudicating competing explanations. In that kind of world, might makes right.
Ruse does not really have a problem with this argument here. In fact, he moves
on to say that morality
“is something forged in the struggle for existence and
reproduction, something fashioned by natural selection. It is as much a natural
human adaptation as our ears or noses or teeth or penises or vaginas. It works
and it has no meaning over and above this. If all future food were Pablum, we
would probably be better off without teeth.
“Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream
and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to
be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If
we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then
pretty quickly it would break down.
“Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like:
‘Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am
hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all
bullshit, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out.
There is nothing there for me.’ The trouble is that everyone would start saying
this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse
and each and every one of us would suffer.
“So morality has
to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be
objective, even though really it is subjective.”[10]
Ruse, like some genetic theorists, really believes that
“morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social
cooperator…”[11]
This, by the way, is logically congruent with Darwin’s
survival of the fittest. And survival of the fittest is logically congruent
with Zionism. If evolutionary theory “explains how warfare contributed to
fitness in the course of the evolution of Homo
sapiens,” as
scholar Bradley A. Thayer maintains,[12] then how can a serious Darwinist say that social Darwinism or even Zionism is really
bad on a consistent and logical basis?
Thayer, of course, struggles mightily to rationally defend
the thesis that “Warfare contributes to fitness”[13] and that “people wage war to gain and
defend resources”[14] while maintaining that social
Darwinists were wrong in taking social Darwinism to its logical conclusion. He
says that “social Darwinists perverted Charles Darwin’s argument” and
“distorted evolutionary explanations because they
misunderstood Darwin’s ideas and were ignorant of or consciously chose to
ignore the naturalistic fallacy. Those who use evolutionary theory to explain
aspects of human behavior must recall the social Darwinists’ errors. Doing so
makes it possible not only to avoid repeating errors but also to advance
scientific understanding.”[15]
But Thayer moves on to make this argument:
“The ultimate
causation for warfare is anchored in Darwinian natural selection and inclusive
fitness….warfare can increase both the absolute and relative fitness of
humans…From the classical Darwinian perspective, warfare contributes to fitness
because individuals who wage war successfully are better able to survive and
reproduce.”[16]
Thayer repeats this thesis over and over in the course of the
book:
“An ultimate causal explanation for warfare based in
evolutionary theory begins with the recognition that warfare contributes to
fitness in certain circumstances because successful warfare lets the winner
acquire resources.
“For evolutionary biology, a resource is any material
substance that has the potential to increase the individual’s ability to
survive or reproduce. As such it may be food, shelter, or territory, especially
high-quality soil or wild foods; abundant firewood; or territory free of
dangerous animals, such as lions, or insect infestations, or disease; and
also status coalition allies, and members of the opposite sex.”[17]
And then this: “Warfare might be necessary then for offensive
purposes, to plunder resources from others. In these circumstances, an
individual becomes fitter if he can successfully attack to take the resources
of others.”[18]
Thayer cites evolutionary theorist William Durham saying that
“War is one means by which individuals ‘may improve the
material conditions of their lives and thereby increase their ability to survive
and reproduce…Thus successful warfare would help the tribe gain resources, and
for a swidden agricultural economy land is critically important.”[19]
So, is Thayer really against social Darwinism? Ideologically,
yes. Consistently and logically? No. I honestly don’t blame him, for his
intellectual grandfather could not solve that problem either and had to live in
contradiction until his dying day. Darwin declared at the end of his Origin
of Species:
“Thus, from the
war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are
capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly
follows.”[20]
Correct me if I am wrong here: isn’t he saying that war and
famine and death are things that will get the higher animals ahead?
Scholars of all stripes agree that this is Darwin at his
best. Yet when social Darwinists took his thesis and spread it across the
political spectrum, Darwin disagreed![21]
If the Dreadful Few are in the struggle for survival, then
the Goyim must swiftly be eliminated. That is certainly consistent with
Darwin’s grand scheme. If people cannot see this and try to avoid this vital
contradiction, then you can be sure that they are not to be taken seriously or
they do not understand logic.
So, when people are trying to maintain an objective morality
by either appealing to the so-called “evolutionary theory” or even DNA, then
you can be sure that those people either are out of touch with the scholarly
literature, are not well equipped to understand or articulate their own
position, or are just deliberately lying.
Furthermore, to appeal to reciprocal altruism to prove
objective morality, a central protocol in Darwin’s grand scheme,[22] is also a dead end because the life
of Mother Theresa and countless other examples prove that this idea will not
work. I was hoping that modern Darwinists would make some good improvement on
this warfare theory, but so far virtually everyone has failed.
I am certainly not asking people to drop their cherished
belief. In fact, there are many people who believe in the tooth fairy. But so
long that this neo-Darwinian ideology remains intellectually stupid and morally
indefensible, they can leave me out of it.
Going back to
Putin, he said in 2013:
“People in many European countries are ashamed, and are
afraid of talking about their religious convictions. [Religious] holidays are
being taken away or called something else, shamefully hiding the essence of the
holiday.”[23]
The Zionist regime, of course, made the false accusation that
Putin was persecuting homosexuals. But Putin moved on to diffuse the regime’s
silly argument this way: “We need to respect the rights of minorities to be
different, but the rights of the majority should not be in question.”[24]
So, yes, Patrick Buchanan. Putin is one of us. Any serious
politician who stands against the Mephistophelian establishment is one of us.
As Friedrich Hansen of Asia
Times put it,
“Make no mistake, Putin is not targeting homosexuals, as he
made clear with his welcoming them to the Sotchi Olympics. It also seems only
fair to remind Western readers that ever since the 1980s, Sotchi has been the
center of Russia with a vibrant homosexual subculture. Rather, Putin is
addressing the whole gamut of post-modern incarnations of the ‘sex and drugs’
revolution: binge drinking of both genders until the doctors move in, elite
illicit drug use, unmanageable crime rates, surging divorce numbers, Hook-Up
sex on campus, out of wedlock births, fathers and mothers in puberty, abortion
on demand, public nudism and human copulation in parks, gay promiscuity with a
good conscience, swinger clubs and darkrooms, ruthless Internet dating and
pornography and what have you.”[25]
How does the regime respond? Well, you know the drill. Owen
Matthews, a useful idiot, declared in the Spectator that Putin has a “new plan for world
domination”![26] In order to slander Putin, Matthews
indirectly linked him with Willi Munzenberg, a revolutionary Jew who wanted to
take the Western world to perdition at any cost. Munzenberg was so passionate
about his revolutionary goal that he wrote:
“We must
organize the intellectuals and
use them to make Western Civilization stink! Only then, after they have
corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the
dictatorship of the proletariat.”
When Putin said that Russia will “defend traditional values
that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilisation in every
nation for thousands of years,” Matthews declared that Putin “is on to
something.” What is it? Matthews told us:
“Putin’s new mission goes deeper than political opportunism.
Like the old Communist International, or Comintern, in its day, Moscow is again
building an international ideological alliance.”[27]
He again emphasized this point so that readers could get it:
“And again, like the Comintern, Putin appears convinced that he is embarking on
a world-historical mission.”[28] He moved on to talking about “Putin’s
conservative Comintern.”
At the other end of the political spectrum, David Cameron
likened Putin to Hitler.[29] John McCain, Lindsey Graham, among
other usual suspects, have all placed Putin and Hitler on equal footing.[30]
Historian Paul Johnson (sad to say) even went so far as to
say that Putin and Hitler are basically two sides of the same coin. Johnson
said that Putin
“believes in a strong Stalinist state. His goal is to reverse
the events of 1989–the end of the Soviet state and dissolution of its enormous
empire. He seeks to do this by using what remains of Russia’s Stalinist
heritage: the military, a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and immense
resources of natural gas and other forms of energy.”[31]
Johnson is sad because “there is no Churchillian voice to
sound the alarm and call the democratic world to action.”[32]
Johnson has got to be kidding. What he ends up saying is that
someone like Churchill needs to step up and start lying to the West about
Putin. It is so sad to read silly comments such as this by a good historian
like Johnson.
But the real question is this: why do the regime and their
puppets hate Putin so much? Well, Putin suggested back in 2013 the Soviet
government was guided by a dark force whose “ideological goggles and faulty
ideological perceptions collapsed.”[33]
 |
| Alexander Solzhenitsyn |
“The first Soviet government,” Putin added, “was 80-85
percent Jewish.”[34] Sounds like Putin has read Alexander
Solzhenitsyn’s Two
Hundred Years Together. If so, then it seems clear that he will continue to challenge the
Zionist regime. Perhaps Putin has been encouraged by Solzhenitsyn’s bravery. It
was Solzhenitsyn who said:
“And thus,
overcoming our temerity, let each man choose: will he remain a witting servant
of the lies, or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man,
worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?”[35]
Perhaps Putin is saying enough is enough. And this may be one
reason why nearly all the major news outlets have relentlessly slandered
him. Kevin Barrett ended up his excellent article saying, “God bless President
Putin, who is putting the fear of God into the New World Order.” Let us hope that
he will never be weary in well doing, for in due season he shall reap, if he
faints not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=10&v=OkKJmPsV4Tc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=10&v=OkKJmPsV4Tc
[2] Patrick J.
Buchanan, “Vladimir Putin, Christian Crusader?,” American Conservative,
April 4, 2014.
[3] Marc Bennetts,
“Who’s ‘godless’ now? Russia says it’s U.S.,” Washington Times,
January 28, 2014.
[7] E. Michael
Jones has made this very point in his article “Ethnos Needs Logos: or Why I
spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Convince David Duke to Become a
Catholic,” Culture Wars, June
2015.
[12] Bradley A.
Thayer, Darwin and International
Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict(Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky, 2004), 96.
[21] For a decent
historical study on this, see for example Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution(Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1962). Darwin was not as
open-minded as people thought he was. “Former Darwin enthusiast St. George
Mivart published anonymous articles critiquing Darwin’s theory. A gifted
zoologist, Mivart would eventually publish a volume titled The Genesis of Species, an
influential book that raised serious questions about the limits of natural
selection, especially in its application to man. Far from rejecting Darwin
wholesale, Mivart continued to embrace evolution and believe that the physical
capacities of human beings had developed from the lower animals. But he
continued to insist—like [Alfred] Wallace—that man was radically unique from
the rest of creation and had a soul. Egged on by Thomas Huxley, Darwin became
increasingly bitter over his former disciple’s criticisms, despite Mivart’s
attempts to be personable in private correspondence and his public praise of
the ‘invaluable labours and active brains of Charles Darwin and Alfred
Wallace.” John G. West, Darwin Day in America: How Our
Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science (Wilmington:
ISI Books, 2007).
[23] Neil Buckley,
“Putin urges Russians to return to values of religion,” Financial Times,
September 19, 2013.
[29] Owen Jones,
“David Cameron and the cynicism of comparing Putin to Hitler,” Guardian, September 3,
2014.
[30] Michael
Kelley, “11 Prominent People Who Compared Putin To Hitler,” Business Insider, May
23, 2014.
Source: Veterans Today.
No comments:
Post a Comment