Offsite Post: ‘Is There mRNA in Your Bacon?’

 

The connection between Big Pharma’s mRNA covid shots and devastating side effects like heart damage and blot clots is becoming widely known, so the revelation that pork producers have been using mRNA swine flu shots on their animals since 2018 should concern everyone.

The amount of safety testing for this ‘vaccine’ was negligible, and the results from the testing that was done were abysmal.  Dr. Joseph Mercola reports,

So, just what kind of safety testing has been done on these mRNA swine jabs? As it turns out, not much, and even saying that would be an exaggeration. Looking at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) summary of studies supporting the product licensure of Sequivity,⁷ we find only ONE safety study listed.

 

There are two efficacy studies pertaining to H1N1 swine influenza, two efficacy studies pertaining to H1N2 swine influenza, one efficacy study pertaining to H3N2 swine influenza, and one safety study pertaining to all vaccines under “typical use conditions.”

 

These six studies were all performed between June 2020 and December 2021. A search of the USDA’s Licensed Veterinary Biological Products catalog renders just this one summary of studies to support Sequivity’s licensure.⁸ This implies the platform was approved by the USDA based on these data alone.

 

While that’s concerning enough, it becomes even more questionable when you consider the side effects summary. The study involved a total of 748 pigs at three different testing sites, which were given two doses of an unspecified mRNA Sequivity injection three weeks apart. The piglets were monitored for side effects for 21 days after each injection, or until the side effect was resolved.

 

According to the USDA summary, 525 piglets — 70.2% — experienced no adverse events. However, among the remaining 29.8%, 7.4% became anorexic, 3.2% died, 2.7% became lame, 0.4% suffered anaphylaxis, 0.4% had some sort of central nervous system disorder, 0.3% developed meningitis and another 0.3% some form of musculoskeletal disorder.  . . .

 

In all, 223 out of 748 piglets — nearly 30% — had some form of adverse event, including 24 deaths. How on earth is that even remotely considered safe? If 3 in 10 people suffered a serious side effect from a particular drug, and over 3% dropped dead immediately and 11.5% in the long run, would you consider it safe? Would you risk taking it? I sure wouldn’t.

 

Also consider this. Anorexia is basically considered a wasting disease. “Unthrifty” is similar in that it’s the failure to grow or develop normally due to disease. Either way, whether the piglet is wasting or failing to grow, it’s a loss for the farmer. Now, when we add together death, anorexia and unthrifty, you end up with 86 animals — 11.5%.

 

Losing 11.5% of your herd to vaccine death, wasting and failure to thrive really doesn’t make sense. That’s a loss of more than 1 out of 10 animals, which hardly speaks to either safety or effectiveness. Moreover, there are no safety studies at all related to human consumption of Sequivity-treated animals.

The all-important question now is whether this mRNA-injected swine meat is safe to eat.  Dr. Mercola’s thoughts are not comforting:

 . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2023/05/garlington-is-there-mrna-in-your-bacon/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

Offsite Post: ‘What Should King Charles Do Post-Coronation?’

 

When comparing the man-worshipping rites for inaugurating presidents and other government officials of post-Christian, Enlightenment republics/democracies with the openly Christian rites for the coronation of a Christian king, such as were seen at the coronation of King Charles III, there can be no preference for the former among those who seek the well-being of the West.  As the former Anglican Bishop of Durham N. T. Wright, among others, has pointed out, elected governments tend to focus our attention on the unimportant mundane things of the earth, while hereditary kings tend to pull our attention up to heaven, to the most important things.

There is a particularly noteworthy passage from King Charles’s coronation that deserves attention in this regard.  Upon being presented with a sword, the King was told,

‘With this sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God and all people of goodwill, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order: that doing these things you may be glorious in all virtue; and so faithfully serve our Lord Jesus Christ in this life, that you may reign for ever with him in the life which is to come. Amen.’

These are exalted and praiseworthy goals, but the question now for King Charles III, having been given these injunctions, is this:  Will he do any of those things?  Will he rule as a Christian monarch and lift up the downtrodden peoples that make up the United Kingdom, or will he simply reign as a passive figurehead while the members of Parliament (or, rather, the globalists who control it) continue to make a wasteland out of England, Wales, Scotland, and the rest?

There are quite a few things he could do to intervene for his people:

-He could stop the escalation of the UK’s involvement in the war in the Ukraine, call for a ceasefire, and hold negotiations to permanently end the war.

-To help lower the record rates of suicide in the UK, he could meet often with young folks and encourage them to set aside social media, which is a major driver of mental health problems, and take up more traditional and healthful activities instead.  Parallel to that, he could propose a simple law preventing access to social media by minors, separate from the unwieldy Online Safety Act that seems to be going nowhere in Parliament.

-He could put an end to the reckless genetic manipulation of his people and their environment by stopping the genetic engineering of crops and livestock and the ‘human augmentation’ of UK soldiers.

And on such a list could go.

But most importantly, King Charles could encourage his people to embrace once again the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles, the original Christian faith of the peoples of the British and Irish islands – before the fateful appearance of the conquering Roman Catholics in 1066 and the chaotic, forever-splintering Protestants in 1534 – for nothing is more valuable than our union with the All-Holy Trinity.

The Anglican Church, of which King Charles is now the head, will be nearing extinction over the next few decades.  St Raphael of Brooklyn (+1915), the great Syrian evangelist of North America, helps us understand why when he writes in a letter from 1912,

 . . .

The rest is at https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/what-should-king-charles-do-post-coronation.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

Offsite Post: ‘Four Fair Flowers’

 

Four fair flowers of the desert,

John, Heraclemon,

Andrew, and Theophilus,

Fled the busy city

For the empty

Wilderness of Egypt,

Where they could pursue

Union with God

Undistracted

Through ceaseless prayers and praise.

 

Four fragrant flowers of the desert,

Their bodies fed by God

From beautiful fruit trees

And with crystal water from a spring;

 . . .

The rest is at https://www.newenglishreview.org/articles/four-fair-flowers/.

***

A prose account of the life of these four holy desert dwellers is here:

https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2023/12/02/103459-saints-john-heraclemon-andrew-and-theophilus-of-egypt

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

Offsite Post: ‘There Is No Such Thing As Religious Neutrality’

 

The 20^th-century conservative writer Irving Babbitt once remarked, ‘When studied with any degree of thoroughness, the economic problem will be found to run into the political problem, the political problem into the philosophical problem, and the philosophical problem itself to be almost indissolubly bound up at last with the religious problem’ (quoted in Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind, 7^th edn., Regnery, Washington, D.C., 2001, p. 424).

Furthermore, Professor Richard Weaver in his book Visions of Order made the point that every society will have some kind of ultimate religious principle at its center that molds and shapes the culture of that society.

In the South in general, and in Louisiana in particular, many might think that Christianity is that ultimate religious principle, but at the moment we are not so sure.  Consider the following statements from lawmakers in Louisiana’s Legislature:

Rep. Dodie Horton, speaking of her bill to outlaw discussion of sexual orientation and/or gender identity in classrooms, said, ‘This is not against anyone’s lifestyle, at all. It’s about protecting the children in the classroom from an adult sharing their lifestyle preference, that’s all this is.’

Rep. Garofalo added similar words:  ‘Chalmette Representative Ray Garofalo supported the bill and said teachers should only be teaching the basics, reading, writing, and arithmetic.

‘ “What we’ve seen over the last few years is there are activist teachers in our classrooms trying to indoctrinate our students into a political way of thinking. It’s not right and it’s not fair to the students,” said Garofalo.’

Regarding her bill to add ‘In God We Trust’ to public school classrooms, Rep. Horton provided these comments:

‘Haughton Representative Dodie Horton says it’s not pushing religion on anyone

‘ “That is our motto. That’s who we are and that’s what it’s saying. I think it’s important for our children to see it and not just walk passed it and not even know it’s there. So that’s my goal.” ’

If Christianity were at the heart of these proposed laws, the statements of these lawmakers would have been different.  Rep. Horton would have said of her bill banning inappropriate sexual discussions from classrooms that she is firmly against the LGBT lifestyle, that it is harmful to those who engage in it (physically and spiritually), and that she wants children to know that they are made in the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity Who created them.  Likewise, Rep. Garofalo would not be against ‘indoctrination’ of students as such, but would insist instead that they be taught correct doctrine so that they will have the proper foundation to learn and understand the basics of education (read this essay for a good discussion of that last point).

On her bill putting the motto ‘In God We Trust’ in classrooms, Rep. Horton would not shy away from ‘pushing religion’ on those in the public schools; she would have enthusiastically embraced the idea, defending Christianity as the highest good that the children, teachers, secretaries, etc., could come in contact with.

The agnostic attitude of these two representatives, which is symptomatic of much of the Right, is why the Left has had much more success in the culture wars than conservatives.  For the Left is unabashedly pushing a religious program, while the Right counters only with empty talk of respect for all points of view, for free dialogue, etc.  But something will always triumph over nothing:  That is why the Left’s actual religious doctrines (as erroneous and evil as they are – euthanasia, abortion, unfettered drug use, pornography for kids, LGBT rights, satanic school clubs) are trampling the Right’s vacuous pluralistic agnosticism.  It is why Leftist radicals like Obama, Bernie Sanders, and AOC get more traction than milquetoast characters of the Right like Rich Lowry and Paul Ryan (Christopher Ferrara’s book Liberty, the God That Failed has some good passages on this subject).

 . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2023/05/garlington-there-is-no-such-thing-as-religious-neutrality/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

Offsite Post: ‘Second Thoughts about Charlemagne’

 

‘Harmonica’ has been writing some good essays on Christianity, heathenism, and Europe that have become necessary as apostasy spreads over the West.  The mentioning of Charlemagne got things a bit offtrack, however.  The key passage is this one, from Part 3 of the series:

‘The real origins of the West do not reside in Plato’s Athens, but rather in Charlemagne’s Carolingian Empire. It was at this point where all three of the West’s major influences, the Classical world, Christianity, and Germanic culture, all cohesively came together.’

In a sense, he is correct:  The founding of the Carolingian Empire was the beginning of something new, but not in the positive sense – rather, in the sense of a deviation from what is true and right.  For Charlemagne swerved away from universal Christian teaching in two major ways, both of which have led the West to the decrepit state she is in now.  First, he rejected the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical (Universal) Council of 787 A.D., which upheld the veneration of icons of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the saints and angels.  Second, he unlawfully modified the Nicene Creed, so that the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, rather than simply from the Father as the original version approved by the Second Ecumenical Council (+381) reads.

By rejecting the Seventh Council at the Frankfurt Synod (+794), Charlemagne rejected an essential teaching about Jesus Christ, rejected His full humanity.  In rejecting the veneration of Christ in icons, he belittled the human nature of Christ.  But the Lord Jesus, being fully God and fully man, is 1) able to be depicted in icons, mosaics, etc., and 2) receives honor when men and women venerate His holy image.  This distortion of belief and practice by Charlemagne disincarnates Christ, separates us from Him by making Him a shadowy ghost somewhere up in the heavens rather than the God-man Whom we may see, taste, touch, kiss, etc.  These falsehoods that have uglified Christ turn people away from Christianity and cause them to seek out pagan alternatives.

But this is not his most serious error.  His addition of the Filioque (‘and the Son’) to the Nicene Creed, which deformed the true Apostolic teaching of the Holy Trinity, is what has truly devastated the West.  Dr Joseph Farrell in the foreword to his magnum opus God, History, and Dialectic:  The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences goes into some of the details.  What follows are a just a few of the highlights:

These essays are about the Two Europes and the Three Trinities on which they are based.  The first Trinity is the Holy Trinity of classical Christian doctrine, uncorrupted by its Augustinian formulation, the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.  As the first term of the second Trinity is St. Augustine of Hippo’s Dialectical Formulation of the Holy Trinity; as the second term of the second trinity is the History which that dialectical formula-tion moulded and shaped, and as the third term of the second trinity are the divisions which resulted from the application of Augustine’s trinitarian dialectics in History, the resulting schisms of “Europe” into First Europe, Second Europe, and Russia.  The causes for the Second Europe’s tripartite division of History into its Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern Ages is thus to be credited to St. Augustine’s dialectical formulation of the Trinity.  This transub-stantiation of the Trinity from a revealed Mystery to a dialectical deduction, and finally, to a dialectical process at work within History is simply unintelligible without Augustine.   In the thirteenth century, Joa-chim of Floris’ Age of the Father, Age of the Son, and (coming) Age of the Spirit, or Petrarch’s or Gibbon’s Golden Age, Dark Age, and Renaissance, or Hegel’s well-known Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis, or Comte’s “superstitious, metaphysical, and scientific” periods, and finally, our own superficially academic and objective divisions of Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern “History” are but tired exhausted reworkings  of the original heresy which split the Latin Church from Eastern Orthodoxy and created the Two Europes.   The Second Europe’s historiography, even in its most avowedly secular form, Marxism, is thus one of many logical implications and inevitabilities of the Augustinizing of doctrine which took place from the fifth to the ninths centuries in the Christian West.

 . . .

The rest is here:

https://identitydixie.com/2023/05/01/second-thoughts-about-charlemagne/

A somewhat different version is here:

https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/globalists-obsession-charlemagne

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!