Coronavirus, New World Order, Archbishop Vigano SOS

By Enza Ferreri

This article was published here: Coronavirus, New World Order, Archbishop Vigano SOS



I tend to accept restrictions if they are justifiably motivated by serious health dangers.

I must admit, though, that an episode raised my alarm about the motivations of our political leaders when in Lombardy, in Italy, police tried to interrupt a Mass which was attended by 15 people in a large church where they could keep safe distancing, in addition to wearing face masks and gloves. One of them, explained the priest later in an interview, was a parishioner who had just buried his mother, without funeral due to the lockdown, and brought a few more unexpected people.

Compare that with a situation which arose a few days later, 25 April, that in Italy is called "Liberation Day" (Festa della liberazione) and celebrates the fall of fascism. In various parts of Italy marches, rallies and meetings were held which didn't respect the lockdown regulations. Nevertheless authorities on the whole turned a blind eye.

A clear example of double standard, which shows that probably health concerns are not as important for those who govern us as political and ideological considerations, not to mention questions of who has more power.

This is effectively expressed by the phrase: "Just wave a red flag, and everything becomes possible". Or, before the law some are more equal than others.

The New World Order

The New World Order is one of those concepts that the mainstream media consider a paranoid fruit of overactive imagination, particularly coming from the Right end of the political spectrum.

However, that the notion of a new global order has been developed and held by influential people over the last decades is amply documented. This is an idea that tries to undermine not only nation but also family, traditional ties, religion, moral values.

I’m choosing to reproduce here only a handful of quotations from sources that Leftists and so-called progressives, who are always hunting for “conspiracy theorists”, trust, but there would be many more.

Dr George Brock Chisholm, who served as the first Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO), a United Nations agency, from 1948 to 1953, according to Wikipedia ‘developed his strong view that children should be raised in an "as intellectually free environment" as possible, independent of the prejudices and biases (political, moral and religious) of their parents’.

I remind you that collective education of children in society is an old communist idea going back at least to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, espoused by the latter in 1884 in the book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

Of Chisholm, who was a Canadian, the Canadian Encyclopedia also says that he “had attacked traditional morality and religious teachings for instilling guilt, fear and prejudice in children. In his view, these teachings produced immature adults incapable of free, rational thought and ultimately bound for war.”

And Edric Lescouflair writes about him in the Harvard Square Library in these terms: ‘Characteristically, Chisholm brought his message to a world audience by stating, “The world was sick, and the ills from which it was suffering were mainly due to the perversion of man, his inability to live at peace with himself. The microbe was no longer the main enemy; science was sufficiently advanced to be able to cope with it admirably. If it were not for such barriers as superstition, ignorance, religious intolerance, misery and poverty.”’ This is also in Wikiquotes.

Chisholm’s claim that the microbe was no longer man’s main enemy because science was able to cope with it admirably rings particularly risible, if not tragically sinister, in these times when a microbe, in the guise of a coronavirus, is keeping the human world under confinement and holding world economy to ransom.

Then we have US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott writing in Time magazine on 20 July 1992 in an article headlined America Abroad: The Birth of the Global Nation: “I'll bet that within the next hundred years… nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century -- "citizen of the world" -- will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.” You can also read it here.

And don’t let’s forget popular and celebrity culture, which in the modern world has got to the position of having an enormous impact, especially on young and vulnerable minds.

John Lennon expressed the mentality of our age by thinking he had surpassed God (remember his “We are more popular than Jesus Christ”?), and he translated the New World Order idea into a pop song format with Imagine : “Imagine there’s no countries.” And added the encouraging “It isn't hard to do”. It’s certainly easier now than then, thanks partly to people like him.

It goes on: “Nothin' to kill or die for. And no religion, too. Imagine all the people livin' life in peace. Yoo, hoo, oo-oo. It’s easy if you try”. Now that we are moving in his recommended direction, it doesn’t look like the paradise on earth that Lennon had imagined it to be, despite all his self-alleged God-like qualities, does it?

An Appeal

All of the above is my way of introducing an Appeal by the Italian Arc Mgr. Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States 2011 to 2016.

The document was published on 7 May and has been undersigned by almost 1,000, including Robert Francis Kennedy Jr, many Cardinals, Bishops and prelates, doctors, researchers and scientists, academics, intellectuals, associations, lawyers, authors and journalists.

It is open to be undersigned to everyone who agrees with its content.

Below is an extract from the Appeal:

We have reason to believe, on the basis of official data on the incidence of the epidemic as related to the number of deaths, that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and of tracking their movements. The imposition of these illiberal measures is a disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control.

We also believe that in some situations the containment measures that were adopted, including the closure of shops and businesses, have precipitated a crisis that has brought down entire sectors of the economy. This encourages interference by foreign powers and has serious social and political repercussions...

We ask the scientific community to be vigilant, so that cures for Covid-19 are offered in honesty for the common good. Every effort must be made to ensure that shady business interests do not influence the choices made by government leaders and international bodies. It is unreasonable to penalize those remedies that have proved to be effective, and are often inexpensive, just because one wishes to give priority to treatments or vaccines that are not as good, but which guarantee pharmaceutical companies far greater profits, and exacerbate public health expenditures. Let us also remember, as Pastors, that for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted foetuses.

We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against Covid-19, however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool. Let us also consider the blatant contradiction of those who pursue policies of drastic population control and at the same time present themselves as the savior of humanity, without any political or social legitimacy. Finally, the political responsibility of those who represent the people can in no way be left to “experts” who can indeed claim a kind of immunity from prosecution, which is disturbing to say the least.

We strongly urge those in the media to commit themselves to providing accurate information and not penalizing dissent by resorting to forms of censorship, as is happening widely on social media, in the press and on television. Providing accurate information requires that room be given to voices that are not aligned with a single way of thinking. This allows citizens to consciously assess the facts, without being heavily influenced by partisan interventions. A democratic and honest debate is the best antidote to the risk of imposing subtle forms of dictatorship, presumably worse than those our society has seen rise and fall in the recent past.

Finally, as Pastors responsible for the flock of Christ, let us remember that the Church firmly asserts her autonomy to govern, worship, and teach. This autonomy and freedom are an innate right that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given her for the pursuit of her proper ends. For this reason, as Pastors we firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the Sacraments, just as we claim absolute autonomy in matters falling within our immediate jurisdiction, such as liturgical norms and ways of administering Communion and the Sacraments. The State has no right to interfere, for any reason whatsoever, in the sovereignty of the Church. Ecclesiastical authorities have never refused to collaborate with the State, but such collaboration does not authorize civil authorities to impose any sort of ban or restriction on public worship or the exercise of priestly ministry...

…The civil duties to which citizens are bound imply the State’s recognition of their rights.

We are all called to assess the current situation in a way consistent with the teaching of the Gospel. This means taking a stand: either with Christ or against Christ. Let us not be intimidated or frightened by those who would have us believe that we are a minority: Good is much more widespread and powerful than the world would have us believe.

Obama's Socialism is Making America Poor

The above video has been viewed almost half a million times (488,318) in less than two weeks, since October 23, on YouTube.

It is the most visually compelling indictment of President Obama and his administration’s policies, showing the outcome of the “hope” and “change” Obama promised in 2008.

It shows, inter alia, that Obama dedicated more time to golf than work “during the worst economy since the Depression.”

A report by the Government Accountability Institute in July revealed that "President Barack Obama averages just eight minutes more a week on economic meetings than the average dog owner spends walking their dog".

US radio host, writer and commentator Michael Savage said: “What’s relevant is that Obama is our first socialist president,” and added: “That’s what this election is about”.

Why is that important? Because, among other things, it fundamentally explains the horrific statistics of the current American economy:

Falling wages. 47 million on food stamps. In 2009 the economy was generating $13.2 trillion in wealth annually. After borrowing $6 trillion, the economy is generating $13.6 trillion. Good investment? His promise to cut the deficit in half. His agreement that if the economy was not better after four years, he would be a one-term president.

Since he is running again for president, that was another of his many lies.

“Green energy” scam. Climate-change fairy tales.

Only half of America paying taxes. Yet, even considering that fact, the average American must work 107 days just to make enough money to pay local, state and federal taxes.

When Obama took office in 2009, the average price for a gallon of gas was $1.85. The average American household spent $4,155 on gasoline during 2011. At the same time, the real median household income has declined by $4,300 since Obama entered the White House.

The poverty rate in the U.S. is 22 percent.

An average of 23 manufacturing facilities permanently shut down in the United States every single day during 2010.

30 percent of unemployed Americans have been out of work for 52 weeks or longer. 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be “low income” or are living in poverty. 49.1 percent of all Americans live in a home where at least one person receives benefits from the government. And this is Obama’s constituency! This is his base.

Last year, 53 percent of all U.S. college graduates under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed. Student loan debt is at $1 trillion.

He [Obama] claims to feel our pain, but Americans buy 80 percent of the pain pills sold on the entire globe each year.

95 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were middle-class jobs. America is losing 500,000 jobs to China every single year. The national debt is rising by more than $2 million every single minute. 88 million working-age Americans are not employed and are not looking for employment – an all-time record high.

The U.S. national debt has risen $6 trillion since Obama took office. In his first three years in office, Obama added more to the national debt than the first 41 presidents combined.

And the biggest reason of all to defeat Obama next Tuesday is this: You ain’t seen nothing yet. If Obama created this disaster in his first four years, what will he do in his second four years when he is unaccountable for re-election?

As they say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Or, put it this way:

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. If GDP grows at an annual rate of 3%, it will take $120 of debt to create $100 dollars of GDP. (similar to Italy). More simply put, a household that earns $100,000 will need loans of $120,000 to support that income. Bottom line, the US is heading into bankruptcy and the American dream is becoming a nightmare.

And who is it that supports this president, besides the super elitist left media and the occupy stoners? His largest support base are the public sector unions. Let's take the average municipal worker in Wisconsin. These folks can retire after 25 years of service and continue to receive full salary and healthcare for the rest of their lives. Millions of parasites swarming all over the US economy and sucking the life out of hard working families and their children. Almost 50% of US citizens don't pay federal income taxes while Obama campaigns for the other 50% to pay their fair share. The Greek socialists would be proud of these figures.

In conclusion, its clear to anyone with an inkling of common sense that all this man cares about is re-election. If he is elected for four more years, extinguish the lights. The nightmare will quickly metamorphose into reality.

Socialist ideas are always deleterious for a country's economy (as well as for many other things). Just look around the globe and you'll see the poverty spread by communist and socialist regimes. China itself developed when it abandoned many of them.

And there is plenty of evidence for Obama's past and present communist affiliations:

Barack Hussein Obama was during his college years a committed Marxist, advocating the revolutionary overthrow of America’s capitalist system. His father was a communist. His main mentor as a young teenager, Frank Marshall Davis, was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA.

Obama admits in “Dreams From My Father” that, during college, he was attracted to the “Marxist professors.” Indeed, the Marxist student leader at Occidental College at the time, John Drew, says Obama was far more radical than even Drew was, actually believing that Marx’s prophesied proletariat revolution to overthrow capitalism was imminent in the United States. Today Drew, who has long since repudiated his former radicalism, says that even in his Marxist days he attempted to rein in Obama by trying to persuade him to work within America’s political system to bring about the Marxist transformation they all desired.

After college, Obama followed in the footsteps of Chicago Marxist Saul Alinsky and went on to practice and teach Alinsky’s revolutionary street-organizing methods. Obama launched his political career in the living room of Bill Ayers, a self-described “small-c communist” and unrepentant Pentagon-bombing terrorist. Moreover, the evidence is indisputable that Ayers played a major role in writing Obama’s highly acclaimed autobiography, “Dreams From My Father.”

Obama’s pastor for two decades, whom he described as his “spiritual mentor,” was Jeremiah Wright, a perennially enraged, America-hating purveyor of “Black Liberation Theology” (Marxism disguised as Christianity). As president, Obama appointed as White House communications director Anita Dunn, who in a speech to students claimed mass-murdering Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong was one of her “favorite political philosophers,” and “green jobs czar” Van Jones, who in his earlier years admitted to being a communist and, in fact, founded the communist group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM.

Regarding the interesting point of Marxism disguised as Christianity, it's worth noting that Obama has learned and applied that lesson from Jeremiah Wright very well.

He uses Christianity and the Scriptures as justifications for the government doing the good, charitable work for its citizens through high taxes, wealth redistribution and welfare state.

The reality is that the New Testament does not contain and can never be construed as providing such justifications.

The Holy Scriptures speak to individuals, not governments. The individual is the one who makes the choice of what and who to give to, and should not be coerced by the state who deprives him of this choice.

Man's free will is at the centre of Christianity.

Going back to the article on Obama's past and present communist affiliations:

I could go on and on. These oft-cited facts merely scratch the surface of Obama’s long-term radicalism.

... But now, sitting in the White House is a man who has spent most of his entire life immersed in Marxist ideology, influences, mentors and benefactors. He has proven, as president, that he is still fully committed to dragging America – kicking and screaming if necessary (recall the outrageous and illegal way Obamacare was passed) – into a new era of unprecedented, government-coerced redistribution of wealth and power. To be precise: Marxism.

It would be folly, of course, to imagine that Obama just magically appeared out of thin air to lead a nation of liberty-loving, responsible, moral, right-thinking grownups leftward. America has been moving in this sad direction for decades. No, not under the “Marxist” label, or any of those other nasty words of yesteryear, like “socialism” or “communism” or “collectivism.” They’ve all been carefully replaced by warm-and-cuddly terms like “fairness,” “economic justice,” “redistribution,” “progressivism” and – as an off-script Obama famously told Joe the Plumber – “spread[ing] the wealth around.”

The spirit of socialism has taken root and flowered spectacularly in America, especially in all of our elite, idea-generating institutions like education, the news and entertainment media, and, of course, government. The original American spirit – stout, risk-taking, God-fearing, responsible, adult – has progressively been displaced by the spirit of dependency and helplessness, of perpetual grievance and victimization, and most of all, of envy and resentment. All of which cries out for ever bigger government.
So the question is: Will we Americans re-embrace the values that made ours the greatest nation in history, or will we continue on our current path toward the godless mirage of “redistributive change” – and the poverty and loss of liberty that always follow?

In any event, for the present I can at least derive some solace from remembering that I was raised by parents and grandparents who appreciated their adopted country and all the blessings the Creator freely bestowed upon it – and weren’t angrily obsessed with “transforming” it into a socialist paradise. For that I am truly grateful.

Still in 2007, a year before his election, he was marching with hard-left members of the New Black Panther Party:

New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.

The photographs, captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before it was scrubbed, are the latest evidence of the mainstream media’s failure to examine Obama’s extremist ties and radical roots.

In addition, the new images raise questions about the possible motives of the Obama administration in its infamous decision to drop the prosecution of the Panthers for voter intimidation.

It's worth remembering what Norman Thomas, 6-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, said in 1944:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

Why Communists Like Comrade Obama

Norman Thomas, 6-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, said in a 1944 speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.

"...I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."

Thomas was very prescient of things to come.

And more recently the Marxist-Leninist, formerly generally disliked, Communist Party USA has strongly supported the incumbent President of the United States, Muslim-born Barack Hussein Obama.

During Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, Joelle Fishman, chairman of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) Political Action Commission, fully endorsed the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House in a column entitled “Big Political Shifts Are Underway”. In it she said that Senator Obama is “ready to listen” to the “left and progressive voters” and appealed to all working people of the United States to back him, in order to cause “a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right.” "Fishman makes it clear that the CPUSA is part of this coalition."

Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Soviet-bloc official ever to have defected to the West, says in the article The Socialist Mask of Marxism:

That [2008] new alliance between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party was a first in the history of the United States, the world’s headquarters of democracy and free enterprise. In November 2008, over 65 million Americans who were unable to identify the stealth virus of Marxism that was infecting the Democratic Party voted to give this party the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Although we now live in an age of technology, we still do not have an instrument that can scientifically measure to what extent the Communist endorsement of the Democratic Party influenced the results of the 2008 election. But if there had been any doubt in my mind that the Democratic and the Communist parties had secretly joined forces, that doubt was erased in 2009, when Van Jones, part of a left fringe of declared communists, became the White House’s green jobs czar. Soon after that, the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress began dutifuly following in Marx’s footsteps by redistributing our country’s wealth and putting under government control a part of its health care, banking system, and automobile industry.

... In his Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx urged his followers to replace capitalism with communism via a “socialist redistribution of wealth,” which “should displace capitalism and precede communism.” Marx advocated ten “despotic inroads on the rights of property,” and he called them the ten planks of communism. The most important are:

• A progressive or graduated income tax;
• Abolition of rights of inheritance;
• Centralization of credit in the hands of the state;
• Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
• Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

If you know the Manifesto, you will think Marx himself wrote the Democratic Party’s 2012 electoral campaign, which contains all of the above planks of Marxism. If you don’t know the Manifesto, click here and you’ll get it from the horse’s mouth.

In 2011, the Communist Party USA again supported Obama and the Democrats for re-election in 2012.

Endorsing the Obama campaign, the chairman of the Communist Party USA, Sam Webb, who had called Obama a friend back in 2008, wrote in an article in the People’s Weekly World, his party's official newspaper:

Despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people’s agenda.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans had been victorious in 2008, the character of class and democratic struggles would have unfolded very differently. Our movement would have been on the defensive from Day One, the Democrats would be running for cover, and the Republicans would have an unfettered hand in their efforts to liquidate the welfare state, roll back the rights revolution of the 1930s and 1960s, and crush the people’s movement – labor in the first place.

As if all this were not enough, the Communist Party USA has a history of infiltrating the Democratic Party and moving it to the left.

Remember all this on Tuesday, November 6.

Classical Liberal Human Rights Are Not Today Socialist Human Rights

The principle of human rights is derived from the political doctrine of classical liberalism (not to be confused with "liberalism" in the modern American sense of left-wing political orientation).

Consistently with the liberal theory's emphasis on the individual's need to be protected from state interference and power, the concept of human rights has an originally negative connotation (permitting or obliging inaction), as the right not to be killed or physically attacked (right to life), not to be unduly restricted by the state (right to liberty), or not to be hindered in one's legitimate ambitions (right to pursuit of happiness). These are also called liberty rights, i.e. not entailing obligations on other parties, but rather only freedom or permission for the right-holder.

The human rights principle that has been used in recent times has the same name but little else in common with the liberal, original one.

It has a positive connotation (permitting or obliging action): right to a job, a house, a minimum income, free health care, free education, social security, financial support during unemployment, sickness or retirement, welfare, and many more: the list is endless. These are also called claim rights, i.e. entailing responsibilities, duties or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder.

The state in this perspective has become a provider, like a parent, it is a "paternalistic" state. Far from trying to limit its reach and power to control, people who advocate these ideas cause the state to expand its authority, become bigger and more influential on people's lives. The state becomes more and more like, well, a socialist state.

Karl Marx's formula for communism, his final goal after the intermediate, transitional socialism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, was: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

This formula, especially in its latter part, is no other than the new re-definition of "positive" human rights by socialists.

Every need gives rise to a new human right.

The governed then expect everything from the state. But as rights are the other side of duties, and freedom is the other face of the coin of responsibility, inversely to delegate responsibility is to abdicate power and renounce some freedom. The more people expect from the state, the less control they have over their own lives.

So, what happened to "human rights" is what happens to a concept when used in a different theoretical context.

"Time" and "space" have very different meanings in Newton's classical physics than in Einstein's relativity theory.

Time and space are absolute in the former, relative in the latter. In addition, time becomes the fourth dimension of space in the theory of relativity.

Each theory redefines its concepts. So, modern-day socialists, who have virtually all ideological and doctrinal power in the Western world since the end of the Second World War, have redefined the liberal concept of human rights and transformed it into something antithetical to it.

Time and space are absolute in classical mechanics but relative in modern mechanics.

Human rights in classical liberalism are a protection from state power, but in contemporary socialist view they are a way to make that power never-ending. These two concepts, under the deceitful guise of the same name, couldn't be more in opposition to each other.