Counter-Currents
1,567 words
An enemy will always pressure you to act against your vital interests — whether by words or by force. Pope Francis proved to be the former kind — as if there were still any doubt — on Sunday, September 12 during a very brief, seven-hour visit to Hungary. He celebrated a mass before thousands of Hungarian Catholics at Budapest’s Heroes’ Square. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán had a front-row seat, and later spent 40 minutes with the Pontiff, along with Hungarian President János Áder, at the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest.
Anyone up on the state of global politics these days will understand why the Pope’s meeting with Orbán and the Hungarians was as tense as it was brief. The Pope, in the past, has regularly criticized nationalist leaders such as Orbán for not opening their nation’s borders to migrants, especially Muslim migrants, who seek asylum and a better life in Europe. The Pope is in effect a globalist tool who, like all good Catholics, ignores the homogeneity of race as a key ingredient in functional societies. Catholics are called catholic for a reason, and sadly, Pope Francis attempts to live up to this universal and entirely unworkable ideal.
Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East have been the enemies of Christendom for centuries, and all the crime, rape, terrorism, and sexual slavery they have introduced into Western Europe has apparently failed to move the Pontiff into reversing — or at least questioning — his destructive pro-immigration stance.
According to the The Guardian:
Pope Francis has urged Hungary to “extend its arms towards everyone” in an apparent veiled critique of Viktor Orbán’s anti-migrant policies, as the pontiff began a four-day visit to central Europe in his first big international outing since undergoing intestinal surgery in July.
The Guardian reported further that, towards the end of the mass,
Francis urged Hungarians to remain steadfast in their religious roots, but not in a defensive way that closes them off from the rest of the world. “Religious sentiment has been the lifeblood of this nation, so attached to its roots. Yet the cross, planted in the ground, not only invites us to be well rooted, it also raises and extends its arms toward everyone.”
He said people should stay firm in their roots while “opening ourselves to the thirst of the men and women of our time”. “My wish is that you be like that: rounded and open, rooted and considerate,” he said.
Like a bad Catholic, however, the Pope fails to ignore competing religions, religions which could and have undermined the Pope’s stated goal of strong family values and tradition. The fact that he lobbies for the rights of Muslims to invade and eventually dominate the West speaks for itself. Does he not realize that a Muslim-majority Europe will not tolerate Christianity at all? Does he not realize that his open-borders stance works against Christian interests, not to mention white ones?
He also met with Jewish leaders in Hungary, completely forgetting that the liberal, Left-wing Jewish diaspora, through its power in the media and academia — even in places like Hungary — have done the most to undermine traditional Catholic family values through the promotion of anti-white racism, pornography, and LGBTQ and transgender rights — to say nothing of the Jews’ own support for Muslim immigration into Western nations (but not, of course, into Israel). Double standards mean nothing to those globalists who, for some reason, believe they know better than the people what’s best for them.
Of course, this should come as no surprise. In July 2016, a 19-year-old Syrian Muslim named Adel Kermiche entered a Catholic church and slit the throat of its priest, Jacques Hamel, as he was celebrating mass. The killer and his fellow terrorists recorded a video of this heinous act and then took hostages, preaching in Arabic from the altar. This happened less than two weeks after a Tunisian Muslim rammed his car into a Bastille Day crowd in Nice and killed 84 people. The Pope’s response to this clear act of anti-Catholic terror was no different than the mealy-mouthed moralistic clucking we got from French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister Theresa May at the time.
According to the The Guardian:
Federico Lombardi, spokesman for the Vatican, said Pope Francis “shares the pain and horror of this absurd violence,” adding that the attack created “immense pain and worry.”
Francis issued “the most severe condemnation of all forms of hatred” and said he was appalled “because this horrific violence took place in a church, a sacred place” and involved the “barbaric” killing of a priest.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s novel Charity’s Blade here.
So words only, and no action. Note how the Pope condemned “all forms of hatred,” not just the Islamic kind, so as to insulate our enemies from blame. He was too cowardly to pressure Muslims qua Muslims not to behave like predatory animals when living in civilized countries. Oh, but he is not too cowardly to pressure the Hungarians as Hungarians to let in people like Adel Kermiche, who will presumably show their appreciation by killing more priests and ramming more cars into crowds.
Viktor Orbán is perfectly correct in resisting the Pope’s suicidal notions. Of course I’m not privy to what went on behind the scenes during this episode, but as far as political theater goes, Orbán and his people made all the right moves. The next day, Hungarian state media mocked The New York Times for mistaking Hungary for Romania in its reporting. And this article from About Hungary sums up the contempt many Hungarians feel for the biased reporting of their country coming from Western sources.
During his one-on-one meeting with Pope Francis, Orbán made sure to get a handshake photo-op, which he quickly posted on Facebook (and where he wrote, “I asked Pope Francis not to let Christian Hungary perish”) and Twitter:
PM Orbán met Pope Francis and presented a letter that King Béla IV wrote for Pope Innocent IV in 1250. The King warned of the looming threat of the Tatar invasion and called for the unity of Europe. He was ignored. 35 yrs later HU fended off the Tatars with great bloodshed. pic.twitter.com/PS8JPTJ4my
— Balázs Orbán (@BalazsOrban_HU) September 12, 2021
He also presented the Pontiff with a copy of a letter from King Béla IV of Hungary to Pope Innocent IV dating from 1243 “which informed the Pope that Béla would strengthen fortifications along the Danube River in Hungary in preparation for a Mongol invasion — evidence of Hungary’s long role in preserving Europe’s Christian roots.”
A clever move. Orbán is clearly making himself and his people out to be defenders of Christianity because of their anti-immigration stance. This is perfectly consistent with history, as King Béla’s letter demonstrates. Muslim migrants are invaders of the West — just as the Mongols were, centuries ago. They destabilize the societies they enter, they bring all their violent pathologies with them, and most of all, they as a group have no respect for Christianity. How else can a Christian leader protect Christianity other than by keeping such barbaric, anti-Christian hordes out of his nation?
The Los Angeles Times reports:
Orbán has frequently depicted his government as a defender of Christian civilization in Europe and a bulwark against migration from Muslim-majority countries. In 2015, he rejected proposals to settle refugees from the Mideast and Africa in Hungary and erected a fence along Hungary’s southern border to keep out asylum-seekers trying to enter the European Union.
Beyond all the theater and headlines, this little incident is revealing in two ways. Firstly, Viktor Orbán and the Hungarians obviously understand that too many races, ethnicities, and religions in one nation can easily destabilize that very nation. During the Middle Ages, Hungary spent centuries at war with the Ottoman Turks, and part of it, known as the Pashalik of Buda, was conquered and ruled by the Ottomans from 1541 to 1699. In addition, the Principality of Transylvania operated under Muslim suzerainty during this time. The Hungarians finally gained complete independence from the Turks only after further fighting in 1718.
According to Infogalactic (emphasis mine):
In these times, territory of present-day Hungary began to undergo changes due to Ottoman occupation. Vast lands remained unpopulated and covered with woods. Flood plains became marshes. The life of inhabitants on the Ottoman side was unsafe. Peasants fled to the woods and marshes, forming guerilla bands, known as Hajdú Troops. An estimated 3 million Hungarians were enslaved and dispersed into the Ottoman Empire.
So the Hungarians certainly know the Islamic fire that our oblivious Argentine Pontiff is currently playing with.
Secondly, the meeting between Pope Francis and Viktor Orbán should demonstrate how completely useless — and indeed, counter-productive — Catholicism has become for protecting the interests of White Europeans. Long gone are the days of Jan Sobieski’s massive cavalry charge at the Siege of Vienna in 1683, defending Christendom from the infidel. The Song of Roland has been replaced by counter-factual egalitarian orthodoxy, ideological universalism, and moralistic platitudes in the minds of Church leaders.
Again, from The Guardian:
Francis referred to that history in his meeting with the country’s bishops, but also urged them to preach a message of openness and dialogue with newcomers. “Diversity always is scary because it puts at risk acquired securities and provokes stability,” he said. “But it’s still a great opportunity because it opens the heart.”
I agree. It does opens the heart. It opens it to be stabbed by people who hate you.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
19 comments
No matter how one feels about Christianity, I think it is clear that if the Catholic Church had not abandoned its duty to its own lambs, Europe would not be in the mess it is today.
The lambs would not be slaughtered by historical enemies.
Agree 100%
Exactly so. But what is the rational response, both religiously and tactico-racially? To do as many white nationalists do, which is to mock and abandon the Church, calling it hopeless as a vehicle for Occidentalist renaissance? Or to do as the moderate Occidental patriot and Catholic Orban does (recall the Hungarian government’s role in harassing the NPI conference in Budapest back in … 2013? 2014? they weren’t exactly welcoming towards race realists), which, as Quinn makes clear, it to posit ethnonationalist anti-immigration-invaderists as both morally correct and as what they in fact are – the truest defenders of Christendom from the third great wave of Muslim would-be conquerors of Europe (the others being the 8th century Moors and 16th century Ottomans)?
My larger point is twofold. First, Quinn’s criticisms here (but not those of many atheistic and/or Christophobic white nationalists) are sociological, and correct to that extent. The Catholic Church today is worse than worthless to the cause of white preservation, especially at the top (but with race traitors also honeycombed throughout the ecclesial hierarchy). Institutional Catholicism is the enemy of Western civilization, and the race who alone created and will sustain that civilization.
But must it be so (ie, as a matter of its own internal “theo-logic”)? Greg Johnson, among others, seems to think so (not sure re Quinn). I dispute this, however. Christian moral theology is inherently neither egalitarian nor diversitarian (a species of egalitarianism). There is nothing in the New Testament, nor in the Christian wisdom contained in millennia of theological disputation and refinement, which suggests that ethnonational perpetuity – or more precisely, the modestly coercive legal measures taken to preserve genetically and culturally distinct tribes, peoples, or races – violates either the spirit of Christ, or voluminously investigated and elaborated Christian moral theology. Where did Christ condemn ethnic lineages and their perpetuity? Where did He embrace the totally modern coercive ideology of secular “diversity”? The Christian idea of the “brotherhood of man” is a theological conceit, not a biological, anthropological or sociological one. It refers to things of the spirit, not the body – “citizenship” in the City of God, not one’s status in the city of man. Its practical implication is that one does not have license to mistreat another because of racial or ethnic difference – not that one must allow oneself (or future generations of one’s descendants) to be mistreated by alien others (which is what immigration imperialism does; it is, in fact, a form of unchristian aggression).
Aliens do not have a moral license to colonize other peoples’ settled homelands (any more than I have right to colonize your home’s spare bedroom!), nor do such settled peoples have a moral obligation to accept foreign social and cultural disruptors – especially when copious quantities of empirical evidence exist suggesting that such foreigners are a) statistically likely to inflict specific (unchristian) harms upon their hosts, and, more significantly in the case of Europe, b) adherents to a hostile and imperialistic ethno-religion which has collectively been waging war against Europeans, as well as everywhere persecuting Christians, since its advent 14 centuries ago.
Basically, Pope Francis, like most of the Catholic hierarchy, is less Christian than liberal, an ideology which I further regard (though this requires a very complex theological and casuistic analysis to demonstrate) as not only non-Christian, but incompatible with true Christian moral theology – ie, with the moral logic of fundamental Christian beliefs. Rather than attacking the Church, it makes more sense for white preservationists to demonstrate, at a minimum, that our cause is morally allowable for Christians – though it would be better to make theologically sophisticated arguments that the cult of diversity is actually incompatible with Christian morality (as I believe), that it is nothing more than a weapon which warps true righteousness and good intentions to serve the cause of a civilization’s destruction and a race’s genocide (and not just any race and civilization, but the morally and intellectually greatest of all).
My second point follows from the first. Rather than abandoning the Church (as white nationalists have done for so many other hostile institutions that our people originally created, or made significant), what we ought to be doing is challenging it from the inside. Religion, even if false (and I’m not saying it is, despite my own agnosticism), is a very powerful force in human life. Why should we concede this power to the enemy, especially when we have the theologically as well as empirically better arguments? Faith is not going away any time soon. Christianity among whites, but especially among rightist whites (and ESPECIALLY among such whites in the US), is not going away, even if religious indifference is rising (mainly due to the same civilizational ennui and drift characterizing all elements of ‘tradition’). It is better to make a friend of the Faith of our forbears, or at least to challenge the moral underpinnings of its new, recent status as our enemy, than to allege a false conflict between religion and race.
Exactly so. But what is the rational response, both religiously and tactico-racially? To do as many white nationalists do, which is to mock and abandon the Church, calling it hopeless as a vehicle for Occidentalist renaissance? Or to do as the moderate Occidental patriot and Catholic Orban does (recall the Hungarian government’s role in harassing the NPI conference in Budapest back in … 2013? 2014? they weren’t exactly welcoming towards race realists), which, as Quinn makes clear, it to posit ethnonationalist anti-immigration-invaderists as both morally correct and as what they in fact are – the truest defenders of Christendom from the third great wave of Muslim would-be conquerors of Europe (the others being the 8th century Moors and 16th century Ottomans)?
My larger point is twofold. First, Quinn’s criticisms here (but not those of many atheistic and/or Christophobic white nationalists) are sociological, and correct to that extent. The Catholic Church today is worse than worthless to the cause of white preservation, especially at the top (but with race traitors also honeycombed throughout the ecclesial hierarchy). Institutional Catholicism is the enemy of Western civilization, and the race who alone created and will sustain that civilization.
But must it be so (ie, as a matter of its own internal “theo-logic”)? Greg Johnson, among others, seems to think so (not sure re Quinn). I dispute this, however. Christian moral theology is inherently neither egalitarian nor diversitarian (a species of egalitarianism). There is nothing in the New Testament, nor in the Christian wisdom contained in millennia of theological disputation and refinement, which suggests that ethnonational perpetuity – or more precisely, the modestly coercive legal measures taken to preserve genetically and culturally distinct tribes, peoples, or races – violates either the spirit of Christ, or voluminously investigated and elaborated Christian moral theology. Where did Christ condemn ethnic lineages and their perpetuity? Where did He embrace the totally modern coercive ideology of secular “diversity”? The Christian idea of the “brotherhood of man” is a theological conceit, not a biological, anthropological or sociological one. It refers to things of the spirit, not the body – “citizenship” in the City of God, not one’s status in the city of man. Its practical implication is that one does not have license to mistreat another because of racial or ethnic difference – not that one must allow oneself (or future generations of one’s descendants) to be mistreated by alien others (which is what immigration imperialism does; it is, in fact, a form of unchristian aggression).
Aliens do not have a moral license to colonize other peoples’ settled homelands (any more than I have right to colonize your home’s spare bedroom!), nor do such settled peoples have a moral obligation to accept foreign social and cultural disruptors – especially when copious quantities of empirical evidence exist suggesting that such foreigners are a) statistically likely to inflict specific (unchristian) harms upon their hosts, and, more significantly in the case of Europe, b) adherents to a hostile and imperialistic ethno-religion which has collectively been waging war against Europeans, as well as everywhere persecuting Christians, since its advent 14 centuries ago.
Basically, Pope Francis, like most of the Catholic hierarchy, is less Christian than liberal, an ideology which I further regard (though this requires a very complex theological and casuistic analysis to demonstrate) as not only non-Christian, but incompatible with true Christian moral theology – ie, with the moral logic of fundamental Christian beliefs. Rather than attacking the Church, it makes more sense for white preservationists to demonstrate, at a minimum, that our cause is morally allowable for Christians – though it would be better to make theologically sophisticated arguments that the cult of diversity is actually incompatible with Christian morality (as I believe), that it is nothing more than a weapon which warps true righteousness and good intentions to serve the cause of a civilization’s destruction and a race’s genocide (and not just any race and civilization, but the morally and intellectually greatest of all).
My second point follows from the first. Rather than abandoning the Church (as white nationalists have done for so many other hostile institutions that our people originally created, or made significant), what we ought to be doing is challenging it from the inside. Religion, even if false (and I’m not saying it is, despite my own agnosticism), is a very powerful force in human life. Why should we concede this power to the enemy, especially when we have the theologically as well as empirically better arguments? Faith is not going away any time soon. Christianity among whites, but especially among rightist whites (and ESPECIALLY among such whites in the US), is not going away, even if religious indifference is rising (mainly due to the same civilizational ennui and drift characterizing all elements of ‘tradition’). It is better to make a friend of the Faith of our forbears, or at least to challenge the moral underpinnings of its new, recent status as our enemy, than to allege a false conflict between religion and race.
Victor Orban is a great leader of a great people. He really understands the significance of his nation’s history in not just defending Hungary but the whole of Europe. Pope Francis is a communist and unfit for office. If there are any genuine conservative clergymen left, they ll get no hearing from this insufferable globalist
As a very bad Catholic qua agnostic, it is only in the past few weeks that I have become aware of the writings of Archbishop Vigano, the former Nuncio to the US.
Vigano is best known for exposing sexual misconduct in the Church, but he is also a prominent critic of Vatican II and has spoken vehemently (and repeatedly) against the Church’s submission to the vaccine narrative and, more broadly, the New World Order. He is the Anti-Argentine.
See in particular this interview with Robert Moynihan == https://odysee.com/@PlanetLockdown:6/Vigano-Interview_final-low-res:1
And check out www.lifesitenews.com for many of Vigano’s recent writings and statements — simply put in Vigano as your search term, and you will find a treasure trove
I would point, in particular, to the speech entitled “The Great Reset from start to finish,” delivered in Venice earlier this year, where he states:
“Finally, in order to make this assault complete, we increase illegal immigration thanks to our ‘humanitarian’ foundations and NGOs, thereby increasing crime, diverting funds from citizens that are earmarked instead towards dealing with immigration costs, and making Europe be invaded by wages of Muslims who demand rights. Their presence allows us to inexorably break up the social and religious fabric of nations, in the name of ‘welcoming’ and leveraging the sense of guilt, the danger of racism and the do-good rhetoric that we have even succeeded in getting the Catholic Church to accept. Obviously the social destabilization we have created allows us to promulgate laws against discrimination and racial hatred, repressing the dissent of those who feel invaded and threatened.”
Although some of what Vigano says in recent statements is perhaps a bit too “conspiratorial,” his arguments align nicely with, say, Wolfheze’s “Sunset of Tradition.”
Thanks for this. Will check Vigano out.
Pope Francis seems incapable of uttering the word “Infidel”, which also gags in the throats of all Christian, and especially Catholic, do-gooders today.
“Long gone are the days of Jan Sobieski’s massive cavalry charge at the Siege of Vienna in 1683, defending Christianity from the INFIDEL.”
And the same verbiage from Moslems, directly from the Koran: “Sura 4, 100: “As you go forth to war in the land, it shall be no crime in you to cut short your prayers, if you fear lest the INFIDELS come upon you. Verily, the INFIDEL are your undoubted enemies.
So, here we clearly have Christians naming Moslem invaders as infidels and enemies. And just as clearly, the Moslems name the Christians as enemies — written within their “Holy Book” — clear back to the 7th Century (ca. 622 A.D.) when Mohammed ‘received’ the Koran ‘from on high’.
So, for at least 1,061 years — (1683 -622) — Moslems and Christians have considered the ‘other’ to be infidels. And not a thing has changed to this day, except now, the fanaticism of this idiot pope who probably cannot read either the Islamic Holy Book or any of the vast history of the horrid invasions from Islam into the heart of the Western White Civilization, which continue until this very moment. I guess he treats the last two months (not to mention the last 20 years) in Afghanistan as a minor kerfuffle!
Mr. Quinn,
Thanks for another excellent article,
I knew about this meeting but cannot speak Hungarian even though I live here so your article was very helpful in my understanding of what happened.
Orban is very good on most important issues as most of CC readers know. However, he is not good on Covid and seems to be following EU mandates. I would say that most of the people I know are vaccinated and have no knowledge of the thousands of deaths and 10s of thousands of injuries caused by the vaccine. Orban apparently doesn’t know either. But I hope he wins reelection nonetheless.
This “pope” is impatient and inauthentic.
He won’t kiss the ground but he can kiss my…
I often find Dissident Right attitudes towards the complex 2000 year old phenomenon of European Christianity cartoonish.
However, the contemporary Christian churches, Protestant and Catholic, embodied in the incumbent Pope of Rome, are fully deserving of unnuanced condemnation. Having finally imbibed a degenerate set of Enlightenment values, they are now wholly embedded in the UN/Globohomo war on the White West, servile chaplains to our enemies.
At the Battle of Lepanto, 7 Oct 1571, the Pope created a Catholic military alliance that defeated the constant jihad of the Turks against Europe and declared it a holy day. The creature currently inhabiting the Vatican defiles the Holy Week rites by kissing the feet of Mohammedan invaders and then condemns any Europeans who resist their invasion.
Along with the elites of western Europe and North America, the Catholic Church has become a major cheerleader for the Third World destruction of all our homelands under the fraudulent rubric of “refugees and migrants”.
Bergoglio embodies it all. Judas Iscariot in a white cassock. An enemy of the White race.
Yes, the Catholic Church today is an enemy of the West. But as I asked in a comment above, must it be? I think not. I think Francis et al. are heretics. They abuse their moral authority to advance their own personal (and despicable) opinions. They rhetorically pretend their liberal values are traditional Christian ones, and then mislead their ‘flock’ by virtue of the historical and institutional eminence of their offices. Whether Francis is an intentional liar and destroyer of white civilization, or merely a theologically ignorant buffoon, I neither know nor finally care.
“Yes, the Catholic Church today is an enemy of the West. But as I asked in a comment above, must it be? I think not.”
I agree.
But experience has made the statement that the Catholic Church need not support anti-White policies (it only happens to for the time being) rather thin.
The Catholic Church may not support the mixing away of the White race and the destruction of the White race by other means, but it is a demonstrated fact that it can.
Since 1963, the Catholic Church has been formally committed to combating every form of anti-Semitism. It does not define that term; Jews do. Vatican II commits the Church to the pro-Jewish, anti-White narrative. In a fight like the Jewish cultural fight against “white supremacy,” the Church is forbidden to fight the Jews, because that is anti-Semitism, the Church is forbidden to tolerate push-back against the Jews, because that too is anti-Semitism, and the Church has no reluctance to take the side of the Jews against groups that it does not recognize as having a real and legitimate existence, such as the White race.
The Church has never recognized the White race as a group deserving of protection, like the Jews, and there is no indication that it ever will.
Anything that Whites do so that we can survive and thrive as a race lacks support within Catholic thinking. At best, it is a waste of resources that would better be given to the Church and to the numerous organizations that the Church uses to build up non-Whites and plant them in White lands. At worst White efforts to survive involve conflict with Jewish aims and even push-back against the Jews, which the Church prohibits.
If a mother does not recognize her first son, if she is always open to the possibility of helping to kill him, if she does recognize and protect an alien who hates her own first son, and if she is open to “dialogue” and influence from this alien, is she a good mother?
She may not be actively engaged in trying to kill her first son at any given time, but is this a safe situation?
Think of the relationship between Tobias Ragg and Mrs. Lovett in the 2007 film Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, and the song “Not While I’m Around.” Is this a safe situation for Toby?
Thank you for your comment, but please read my lengthier statement above.
There are a lot of believing white Catholics and (non-Catholic) Christians. If they are told without challenge or the presentation of alternative viewpoints that modest measures to ensure white perpetuity are in conflict with the teachings or spirit of Christ, and that they will be in error and sin if they persist in trying to save the white race (and thus, to put it bluntly, in jeopardy of being rejected from Heaven), then they will reluctantly conclude that it is God’s will that whites shall go extinct – and they will do nothing for our cause. It is very, very stupid to concede this power to our enemies, especially if I’m right that white preservationism is in no way antithetical to authentic moral theology.
The proper approach for white preservationists is to demonstrate the moral allowability of white racial patriotism for Christians; still better would be a persuasive, theologically-informed demonstration that resisting white genocide is actually a Christian moral imperative – and not only for whites, but for everyone (which is what I actually believe, if one assumes the cosmological truth of Christianity).
..” In 10 years , Italy and ALL of Europe will be Muslem because of our STUPIDITY!”
…Arcbishop of Pompeii, Dr.Carlo Libearti….”17 January 2017…The Gurardian”
&
” given demographic and immigration trends, Canada to become a Muslem country by 2050!” ……..”the American Thinker…..16 March 2016″
…take a trip to Dearborn , Michigan and Toronto, Canada, and see prophecy in action!
The Christian mission to spread the gospel to all nations never meant that all nations would then mix. The mixing is a pathology of modernity & all that’s come with it, such as Marxist liberation theology & mammon worshipping turbo-capitalism; plus the hostile, subversive efforts of revolutionary jews &, unfortunately, plenty of revolutionary white gentiles. Spreading the gospel worldwide to as many as would embrace it was never wrong, but the subsequent mixing of nations is a utopian perversion for which there will be hell to pay. A tremendous discouragement to those of us who cling to our faith is that Christian leaders are so quick to damn individuals who object to the anti-human effects of the “utopia”, but won’t say one word against the godless Principalities & Powers who are building it. Seventeen hundred years ago St. Anthony the Great made this prophecy: “A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.’” He was not only referring to those outside the Church.
I agree. Spreading the gospel never meant that all nations were to then mix.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment