The Satanic Attack Against Brett Kavanaugh

M. Williams

I remember waking early on the morning of 13 February 2016 and learning Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had died: a relative told me the news over breakfast. Although I did not know much about Scalia, I did know he was a Catholic who opposed abortion and who had voted against the same-sex "marriage" decision the previous year. You can imagine my satisfaction—for many of you felt the same way during those critical months—when the Republican Senate majority announced it would not deliberate on a replacement for Scalia until after the 2016 election. The Senate took a gamble that Trump would win the election (and he did), and Obama's nominee to replace Scalia never took office. Instead, a nominee of Trump's own choosing took office 14 months later, in April 2017.

This was good, but not significant. It was simply a preservation of the status quo, since the mostly-Jewish liberals had a large presence on the Court, in addition to a reliable "swing vote" in Justice Anthony Kennedy, a self-proclaimed Republican who nevertheless has provided the necessary votes in favour of abortion and gay "marriage" decisions in the past. The state of the Court until the present day has been a 5-4 leftist majority. This changed, however, with the resignation of Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court on 31 July 2018. President Trump deliberated and decided to nominate a Catholic conservative, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to the Supreme Court to replace Kennedy.

The state of things today is very significant. With the presumption that President Trump will be re-elected in 2020, it is possible Trump will not only replace Kennedy's seat, but also the seat of the aging Jewess Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Perhaps other leftists on the Court will resign in exasperation, and aging conservatives on the Court will resign to give Trump the opportunity to appoint young, traditionally-minded Justices who will guide the nation for generations to come.

We can hope the recent burning of a sodomite flag in
Chicago is a good omen for the future destruction
of the Judeo-homosexual apparatus in the United States

Leftist fright

 

Obviously, this scenario of a traditional and conservative Supreme Court is something that was not only unfathomable three years ago, but the "stuff of nightmares" to the liberals of America today. It is totally natural and to be expected, then, that liberals would do everything in their power to prevent this. "It was hard enough for us to accept the nomination of Gorsuchwe will not accept another Trump nominee," the leftists are saying. Leftists fear a traditional Supreme Court: the possibilities are endless—chiefly coming to mind are a possible overturn of the civil "rights" decisions of the '60s, and repeals of Roe vs. Wade (the Court order legalising abortion) and Obergefell vs. Hodges (the 2015 decision imposing sodomy-marriages on the country). In this happy turn of events, such a dramatic change from the political milieu during the Obama times, we can certainly see the working of Divine Providence. Now, it is our duty to cooperate with this work of Providence.

Quite unsurprisingly to the seasoned political watchers today, Kavanaugh is being accused of sexual crimes in the past, and this is being used to undermine his potential confirmation to the Supreme Court. Also unsurprisingly, the usual pseudo-conservatives—Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, to name a few—try to make themselves appear "fair" and "bipartisan" by giving credence to the unproven allegations.

The allegations


But what are the allegations?

To date, there have been claims from three separate women, all dating to the 1980s:
  • Christine Ford, who claims Kavanaugh "groped" her at a party in the 1980s;
  • Deborah Ramirez, who claims Kavanaugh forced her to touch his penis at a party;
  • Julie Swetnick, who claims Kavanaugh and friends gang-raped her, also at a party.
To me, the most interesting theme underlying these allegations is that they all occurred at drunken parties. Although it appears Kavanaugh did attend parties and indulge in alcohol (a capital sin in our hypocritical age), witnesses cited by the three women for the three separate parties have refuted the respective women's claims, many denying the presence of Kavanaugh at the parties, some disavowing the women, and others even claiming to have been the real guilty party.

A Democrat member of Congress quietly passes an envelope
to Ford's attorney—what more proof is needed of conspiracy?
Of course, the allegations are too convenient. The fact that there have been no reports against Kavanaugh until the present, at the most crucial hour, when he is about to be made a Supreme Court Justice, is too suspicious. It is possible all three women could have kept the matter a secret, though that is not the nature of women, and their mothers would have noticed if something was wrong with them. I believe this is just a re-use of the tactic used against Roy Moore during the 2017 special Senate election in Alabama—the leftist Democrats, in addition to false conservative Republicans, wanted to stop Moore's election, knowing he would fight abortion and same-sex "marriage", (topics the Republican Party has largely abandoned as allegedly inconvenient to their election pursuits), simply contrived the allegations to prevent Moore from being elected. Arrogantly assuming they will win the midterm elections and re-take control of the Senate, Democrats are simply trying to delay things as long as possible.

The same is done with Kavanaugh: since he dangerously threatens the status quo, the Democrat Party is doing everything possible, through covert means, to stop Kavanaugh's election. Of course, since Kavanaugh's moral positions pose a threat to the state of things today, it is beyond doubt that Satan himself is working against this. So it is not at all unreasonable to call this a "Satanic Attack".

At left, Christine Ford, looking like a mental patient;
at right, Julie Swetnick, looking like a used car salesman

So what?

 

Of course, it is easy to show how very plausible it is that the allegations against Kavanaugh, like the allegations against Roy Moore, are a hoax, based only on half-truths. Simply look at the physiognomy, character and politics of the women accusing him.

A friend of mine, an older woman, recently made a comment to me: "Ford probably was assaulted, by someone. But she appears to be under the influence of hypnosis." This is possible. Her "dream-like" and childish manner of speaking reveal a clouded mind, under the influence of other Powers. The other accuser, Swetnick, with the Africanised hair style and absurd, toothy smile, reveals a leftist and a revolutionary. Her eyes reveal someone who is evil.

And, of course, all the parties opposing Kavanaugh have ties to the Democratic Party.

But let's suppose for a moment the allegations are all true. I would say: "So what?" These women have no one to blame but themselves. Going to a drunken party and getting drunk is an invitation to trouble. When both parties are drunk, there is no such thing as "consensual" activity of any kind. In my assessment, the women are just guilty, self-righteous sluts looking to earn millions and gain lots of attention.

And even if Kavanaugh did the crime, he can atone for his sins a million times over by getting Roe vs. Wade and the gay marriage decisions repealed.

A sobering reminder...and a Novena to Our Lady


This whole affair is a reminder that our popular romantic conceptions of the Supreme Court—a sacred nonpartisan institution devoted to equal justice for all—is completely false. The Supreme Court is simply a tool to be used, for good or evil, to impose justice or injustice on the country. The Supreme Court wields incredible power, with the authority to strike down acts of Congress or interpret the Constitution as it sees fit. Sinful human nature absolutely restricts the possibility of an unbiased, or even mostly unbiased, Supreme Court. Since the Court must by nature be biased, the only thing we can do is ensure the Court has the correct biases: in favour of the principles of tradition, religion, and family. In the future, perhaps in the Reign of Mary, we can be sure this present system of government will be replaced with a new one more pleasing to God.

Nevertheless, in the meantime, we should pray for Judge Kavanaugh and for the success of his nomination to the Supreme Court. We at Reign of Mary propose a special Novena of prayers to Our Lady of Good Success for the successful nomination of Judge Kavanaugh and a Republican victory in the midterm election. We propose a Nine-day Novena beginning 9 full days before the Midterm election on Sunday, October 28th 2018. We advise readers to view the Novena online at the link, or purchase a copy of the Novena booklet here. More information on our efforts for this Novena will be published in the coming weeks. We believe even a humble amount—10 or 15 praying the Novena devoutly—will be very pleasing to Our Lady, and that if it be God's will, these requests of ours will be granted.

 Posted 1 October 2018

No, Roy Moore is Not a Pedophile

M. Williams


Judge Moore
In 2017, after U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions was confirmed the new Attorney General of the United States, he resigned his Alabama Senate seat. The vacant Senate seat necessitated a special election, and it was widely expected a Republican senator would be elected, since Alabama is a strong state for the Republican Party, and Sessions himself, the former senator, is a Republican. With more leisure time, I am able to take interest in political matters, even concerning states in which I do not live. 

So, when I learned the former Chief Justice of Alabama, Judge Roy Moore, was the Republican nominee for the election, I was very pleased.  Moore is known for being absolutely opposed to abortion, and, perhaps even more significantly, unlike most other Republicans, he has courageously and publicly opposed sodomitical "marriage". He was even deposed from his office as Chief Justice for refusing to accept the Supreme Court-imposed legalisation of sodomy-marriage.

Unfortunately, Roy Moore is a Protestant and a strong supporter of Israel. However, these are both positions that many take without intellectual consideration, and it is possible a man of his learning will eventually repudiate these positions. But ultimately, were I a citizen of Alabama, voting in the 2017 election, I would certainly have chosen Judge Moore over the Democratic candidate: a supporter of sodomy and abortion. This choice of the "lesser of two evils" is an unfortunate component of our illegitimate democratic system, and a necessary—or really unnecessaryevil. 

Nevertheless, in spite of his courageous stances, which are unpopular today, against gay "marriage" and abortion, he was still predicted to win the Senate seat with a comfortable majority. As is to be expected in this deceitful age of ours, however, Judge Moore was suddenly barraged with accusations of pedophilia a few weeks before the election. Ultimately, assuming the election was not rigged (which is a possibility), these accusations cost Judge Moore the election. I would like to address these accusations and present my thesis that Judge Roy Moore is not a pedophile. 

In addition, I want to expose some of the false ideas underpinning popular notions today: the age of consent, the definition of "pedophilia", and so on.

A necessary clarification


It is important to clarify that I do not believe the accusations against Judge Moore. I believe these women are opportunists, many probably sluts (if you'll pardon me) who regret bad decisions in the past and now want money and fame to reward their imprudencies. I also believe in presumption of innocence until proof of guilt. Presumption of innocence is a Catholic notion that evolved under the healthy influence of Christian civilisation. The exact opposite was found in Protestant and "Enlightened" countries, particularly during the bloody, violent Revolutions from the 17th century to the Present.

Beverley Nelson, one of the accusers
Who were the accusers, and what were the accusations against Judge Moore? Interestingly, all the accusers allege events that supposedly occurred decades ago:
  • Leigh Corfman accused Moore, then 32, of taking her on a date when she was 14, and trying to have a sexual liaison. 
  • Wendy Miller said Moore, also then 32, asked her on dates, on several occasions, when she was 16
  • Two women report dating Moore: one, Debbie Gibson, aged 17 while Moore was 34; another, Gloria Thacker, aged 18 while Moore was 32.
  • Beverley Nelson claimed a sexual assault by Moore when she was 16 and Moore 30.
  • Another woman, Gena Richardson, claimed Moore asked her on a date when she was 18 and he 30.
  • Tina Johnson claimed Moore made bad comments and "groped her" when she was 28, and Moore 44.
It is interesting, of course, that these allegations were never publicised when Moore was holding other positions of high importance and running for office: as the Circuit Judge, as Chief Justice (elected twice, even after being once removed); and during two important campaigns for Governor of Alabama, not to mention one proposed presidential campaign. Only whenever Moore decided to run for Senate, and stood a chance of winning and actually becoming a major influence in national politics, did these accusations become public. I believe the Democratic Party had some involvement in these suspicious allegations, knowing every seat is essential in order to re-gain control of the U.S. Senate, especially to prevent President Trump from continuing to legislate his agenda.

Is Judge Moore a pedophile?



However, I think there is some truths to the reports that Moore dated "underage" women.

The reality is, whether Moore did any of the things he is accused of, it is absolutely false to call him a pedophile. Of course, it is not proper to engage in dating without the intent to marry, as I've shown in previous materials. And, if the sexual crimes are trueassault, etcthis is censurable and worthy of punishment. However, the descriptor of "pedophile", which popular culture is still ascribing to Moore, is completely inaccurate.

Still, in the 1970s and 1980s, when these events allegedly occurred, Society's morals had not been as thoroughly compromised as they are today. Thus, the general Societal opinion on relationships between adults and "teenagers" was more informed by traditional thinking than by false modern notions. In fact, it was natural, and even encouraged, for young women to seek the attentions of older men, because this ensured they would enter into a stable relationship with a likely successful and relatively well-to-do man, rather than a less-advantaged man their own age.

Some months ago, I was debating the Age of Consent laws in the United States with a progressivist. He was saying some truly absurd things. "The age of consent should be 21, perhaps even 25, since the brain is not fully developed by then." "So, a person is not an adult until he is 21?" I asked. "Yes," he said. I believe he seriously held these opinions. Unfortunately, many people share this view.

I continued. "So, if someone has a relationship, even an albeit immoral sexual relationship, with someone who is 18, is that pedophilia?" I was amazed to hear the reply: "Yes, it is."

The truth is just the opposite, of course. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to children, hence the root "pedo", which derives from the Latin paedo, meaning child. Who are children? 14 and 15 year olds are not children. A 14 and 15 year old is an adult. This is why, in the more morally solid times, when commonsense Catholic morals prevailed, it was normal for people as young as 12 and 13 to marry. This is also why the age of consent in the Vatican, the laws of which have largely been passed down from the Pontifical States, is 12 years old. 

Ultimately, since Moore's alleged relationships were with young women from ages 15 and up, all of whom were clearly biological adults in terms of their sexual development, Roy Moore is not a pedophile.

Hebephilia? Ephebophilia?



Some have said, "No, Moore is not a pedophile. But he is a Hebephile." Others will say, no, he is an Ephebophile. 

To me, these terms are pointless. The term hebephile was invented in 1955, corresponding to the unfortunate revolutionary social changes. A hebephile is simply someone who has a romantic relationship with someone who has gone through puberty already, and who is between the age of puberty and approximately 14.

Age of consent in the U.S., by state
—foolish and arbitrary
Ephebophile is an even more absurd term, also invented recently, in the 1980s. It is used in different contexts, depending on which state you live in. Usually, it means someone who is attracted to a young woman aged 15-18, or thereabouts. In some states, the age of consent is 16, in others, 18. Thus, in Alabama, one is an "ephebophile" if the subject of his attention is between the age of 14 and 16. But in California, it is 14 and 18. But if ephebophile actually means anything, it just describes normal, healthy masculinity.

In other words, these are arbitrary terms; in fact, they are as arbitrary as the "trimester" system, something invented by the judicial system to justify abortion. They are not based on science or reason, but the false and revolutionary idea that one is only an adult at 16. Or 18. Or 21. Or 25.

No, Judge Moore is not a pedophile



For the sake of argument, assuming the accusations against Moore are true—that he pursued relationships with young women aged 15 up—this only proves that Moore committed indecent and immoral acts with women. It does not make him a pedophile, since these were not children, but young women. These young women only came into the spotlight either to invent these stories to gain money, or to embellish the stories with exaggerations to gain money. The motivations, however, are the same.

As to the age of consent laws, whether Moore violated them, this is to me a false argument. It would appear, if the allegation is true, that he may have violated them in one case. But in terms of Natural Law, the only offence Moore committed was not obtaining permission of the young woman's father to marry her, and for having sexual relations prior to marriage. 

Do I advocate for the repeal of age of consent laws? Under certain conditions, I do. First, the sensible benchmark seems to be, and this is purely to draw a line between a criminal offence and a civil one, 12 years for young women and perhaps 14 for young men. Second, however, the lawful age of marriage can certainly be restricted to 15 or 16, but it would be more sensible to simply leave it to the judgment of the father. In a Catholic society informed by Natural Law and the good example of history, something along these lines would be followed, and men like Moore would only be demonised for having sex outside of marriage, not for having natural attraction to attractive young women. I need not mention that the change of these laws would drastically prevent unwed pregnancies and other moral ills of our time...Yes, the rollback of frivolous age of consent laws will go a long way in restoring Christian civilisation.

Yes, the concept of pedophilia, in the modern sense of the word, is propaganda deliberately designed to attack masculinity and promote "consent morality" and feminism. It demonises natural male attraction and groups a vast number of normal men into the same categories as sodomites and child predators. It is truly a wicked and revolutionary scheme.
I believe, however, that my point has been made. Roy Moore is not a pedophile.

 Posted 18 September 2018

9/11: A Government Conspiracy? History Says It's Likely

M. Williams

I believe there is more to the 9/11 terrorist attacks than meets the eye. That is, I do not accept, as such, the official narrative presented by the United States government investigatory agencies. The 9/11 Commission report, for example, has not been fully disclosed: several key pages remain classified. But it is not, in my opinion, sufficient even if these pages were disclosed, for hundreds of people have read the classified pages and no one has managed to leak the secret contents to the general public, so there's probably very little interesting material there. Thus, I believe it is more likely the truth about 9/11 is far more difficult to ascertain and, although I am certain there are documents that will prove the complicity of the government in the attacks, I believe they are hidden and inaccessible to all except the top political and military officials. 

However, I do believe the attacks are a sort of false flag. They were unilaterally blamed on al-Qaeda, an organisation the United States military had given funds and weapons to in the 1980s. This may be legitimate, but instead of simply targeting al-Qaeda and its affiliates, in the aftermath of the attacks, the President and the military launched massive attacks on entire nations: Iraq, Afghanistan; and, using 9/11 and the War on Terror as casus belli, subsequent irresponsible "crusades" in Syria and Libya. The recent death of Senator John McCain is probably the only reason the United States won't likely be getting involved in massive Middle Eastern wars for the foreseeable future. Thanks be to God.

With regard to 9/11, to me, it is simply not realistic that all of the "facts" of the official narrative could be true—that the burning jet fuel actually melted the steel beams, that the terrorists were able to simultaneously hijack four airplanes (and successfully attack three targets), that World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by falling debris—all of these seem too convenient to me. I would not presume, since I am not an expert on this matter, to make some final judgment on the attacks. However, based on the pattern of history, and the many occasions in history that the United States government has orchestrated "attacks" to justify some end: usually a War—I believe my opinion that 9/11 was a "government conspiracy" is well-founded and credible. In this article, I will give examples from history of false flags known to be committed by the United States, or at least very probably so.

Historical false flags


But what is a false flag?

A false flag is a secret operation wherein a tragedy—a bombing, a mass shooting, etc—is orchestrated, and is intentionally blamed on someone else who is not actually guilty of the incident. In the history of the United States, there are many occurrences of false flags that are now being openly acknowledged.

The Boston "Massacre", falsely depicted as an unprovoked attack
The Boston Massacre, for example, is one of the best-known cases of a false flag in American history. Indisputably, this "massacre" was an important event, for it stirred up popular sentiments against the British, and led to the Revolutionary War and the eventual illegitimate independence of the thirteen colonies from their lawful monarch. I believe the title given to the event—the "Boston Massacre"—is a good proof that words are powerful, for in reality, the Boston Massacre was not a massacre at all: it was actually a Riot, where the British soldiers were forced to defend themselves against an armed and angry mob, albeit a small minority of the population;—a revolutionary band trying to stir up a War.

The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine is another event along these lines. Although it has not been confirmed as a false flag, it is very probably so. The story goes like this: the U.S.S. Maine was sent to Havana, Cuba during the Cuban War of Independence against Spain. In Havana harbour, the ship suddenly exploded and sank, killing most of the crew. 

This event was blamed on Spain (without evidence), leading to the Spanish-American War, wherein Cuba was seized for the United States and became its colonial possession, along with Puerto Rico and the Philippine Islands. It is likely that the United States government or the Cuban revolutionaries blew up the ship in order to ensure the U.S. would enter a War against Spain, thus ensuring the few remaining colonies of Catholic Spain would be severed from their mother country and gained for the United States' empire of Freemasonry. I would note, of course, that even if Spain were to blame for the sinking of the Maine, we could hardly object: it would be in self-defence against the United States' foreign ministers constantly agitating for Cuba to rebel against Spain, and the presence of a U.S. enemy ship in a Spanish harbour.

Remarkably, something I did not know until quite recently, is that there is much evidence that the attack on Pearl Harbor was desired by the U.S. government, or at least by President Franklin Roosevelt. This is related by Charles Coulombe in his book Puritan's Empire: A Catholic Perspective on American History: "There is, however, evidence to suggest that Roosevelt did know that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent," Coulombe writes. Citing the research of Professor Charles Tansil, Coulombe continues: assuming Tansil is correct, "then FDR knowingly sacrificed over 2000 American lives at Pearl Harbor to involve the country in a war which otherwise he could never have managed to get the country into" (Puritan's Empire, pp. 429-430, Tumblar House, 2015). What did President Roosevelt gain as a result? A third and fourth term, and had he not died, he could've remained president indefinitely.

Operation Northwoods, the nail in the coffin


Caught in the act: a failed proposal to bomb
  targets in the United States and blame it on Cuba;

below, Chief of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer, a Mason
Taken by themselves, it is possible for the ardent apologist for American history (and I count myself as having been one of those apologists) to try to individually take apart each episode. Some have even obstinately denied the immense scholarly research that disproved the Boston Massacre. But how can the apologists deny Operation Northwoods, a (albeit failed) proposed false flag that has been openly acknowledged by the United States government itself?

Operation Northwoods, proposed in early 1962 by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer, never occurred. It was an early version of the eventual Bay of Pigs operation. Unlike Bay of Pigs, however, it called for the bombing of targets in "Miami, other Florida targets, and even Washington". It would be less significant if it were not approved by such a high-ranking official in the United States government at the time. It is interesting, and probably not a coincidence, that President Kennedy, who denied the proposal, was assassinated the following year. It is also significant that General Lemnitzer was an open and avowed Freemason, as proven by his official portrait, which prominently features his Masonic ring.

I believe Operation Northwoods proves the the United States government is willingand has been willing in the pastto use any measures, even the killing of American citizens, for their version of the "greater good". The declassification of Operation Northwoods is something like a God-send. Beyond doubts, there are probably many, many more documents like these, still classified in government archives. In the future, perhaps the necessary documentation proving U.S. involvement in sinking the U.S.S. Maine and foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor will be found. For now, however, we have every right to be skeptical, and every right to be fearful of the present regime.

September 11th, just another conspiracy


In view of these facts and evidences already presented, I feel qualified to say September 11th, however tragic it was, and however true it indeed is that many thousands perished, was simply another government conspiracy. Or, at least, we may say it is until the government can definitely show otherwise. Instead, the government has behaved in the same style as the Vatican regarding the Third Secret of Fatima: secrecy, contradictions, and unacceptable explanations.

There are specific pieces of evidence, some of which I have already mentioned, that cast doubt on the official narrative. Try as they might to give their hypotheses, the responses of the mainstream media and government funded publicationslike Popular Science and PBS' NOVA programare simply hypotheses, usually repeating the official narrative of the government's concluding investigation into the attacks. In other words, they are citing themselves as a source in what should be an open and transparent discussion.

Here are just a few questions that have not been, in my opinion, adequately answered:
  • Why did the U.S. military fund Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda or its predecessors in the 1980s? Was it to try to destabilise the Middle East?
  •  How is it plausible that, armed with small razors, the terrorists were able to simultaneously evade all airport security in separate airports, and hijack all four planes successfully, and crash three of the four planes in their intended targets?
  • How is it plausible that two planes, traveling at absurd speeds, were able to crash into both of the World Trade Center towers? Anyone who flies a flight simulator knows the difficulty of being precise when landing a jet, and the hijackers had little flight experience.
  • Why were the air defence told to stand down by the FAA instead of shooting the hijacked planes out of the sky? I am sure there are life-saving tactics for shooting down passenger planes that ensure they do not explode when hitting the ground.
  • Why did Building 7a steel building like the Towerscollapse just like the Two Towers? It had only been hit by a few pieces of flaming debris. It was not hit by the planes. 
  • If the buildings were structurally unsound, and this is why they collapsed, why, then, were the buildings given insurance policies in the first place?
  • Why did the building owner, Larry Silverstein, who was apt to visit his property often and have breakfast on the top floorin addition to all of Silverstein's relatives and friendshave convenient excuses (dentist appointments, "running late", etc) that caused them not to be present when the attacks occurred?
  • Why did Silverstein purchase terrorist insurancea multi-billion dollar policyfor his buildings two months before the attacks?
  • Why did the Towers fall at what appears to be terminal velocity, except for a controlled demolition?
  • How could a "chain reaction" collapse occur if the bottom floors, making the bulk of both towers' total mass, were not hit by the plane? 
I believe the general public is able to sense deception and ruses relatively well. Since so many millions of people continue to dispute the government explanation for the attacks, I believe this is evidence in itself that the attacks were not as they appear.

What George Bush stood to gain


But what would the governmentparticularly, if he was aware of the conspiracy, President George Bushstand to gain by destroying the Twin Towers? Quite a lot.

A coincidence? President Bush refused to
blame Muslims for the attack
is it because
he did it?
9/11 takes such a prominent place in the early years of the 21st century American history that it obscures another major historical event: the 2000 presidential election that had occured 10 months previously, wherein the electoral college was effectively tied and the vote count in Florida decided the election. Bush won the election because the Supreme Court found he had indeed won the state of Florida. Naturally, however, this affair made George Bush quite unpopular. To win a re-election, Bush needed an eventa War being a typical tacticto cast himself in a positive light with the public. Bush's response to 9/11, even assuming 9/11 happened exactly as claimed by the government, was politically well-executed. His popularity in polling soared to George Washington-era levels, in the range of >90%. Although this fervor for Bush eventually settled down, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars had the opposite effect of what he intended, Bush managed to win re-election in 2004.

In addition, with the September 11 attacks and the subsequent PATRIOT Act and related legislation by Congress, President Bush was given much power to do as he pleased. This would be appealing to a politician. He also had the opportunity, by winning power and popularity, to execute his father's foreign policy of promoting a "new world order" of democracy and Americanism across the world, particularly the Middle East. This manifested itself in the War on Terror. 

A sobering reminder


9/11, which has taken on something of a national cult (and probably with justification, for many thousands of innocent Americans died in the attack), is an annual reminder of the immense power of the United States government. Whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not doesn't really matter when one considers the United States government is perfectly capable—and willing—to commit terrorist attacks on its own citizens if it is deemed expedient for its ends (as proven by Operation Northwoods).

Finally, it is important to reflect on this day, as on July 4th, that the United States has never constituted a legitimate government. It was founded in an unlawful rebellion. The obedience we owe to the United States, therefore, is a purely servile one. We should pray and advocate for the Divine overthrow of all Masonic republics and for the triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart—the Reign of Jesus through Mary—and the restoration of just government throughout the world. 

 Posted 10 September 2018

Fox News is Pornography

M. Williams
Note: This article is not intended for children or for sensitive people. The editor
Why do people use Fox News? There are several explanations usually given: "It is fair and balanced" one might say: "It goes against the mainstream media." Others cite Fox News' extensive popularity, having been the most-used news source since at least the 2016 election. Also, for the conservative element of the American public, it is used because it is largely intended for them. Fox News' website is visited millions of times each day, and its various television programming—News, talk shows, business and economic discussions—appeal to a wide audience.

Yet there are other reasons for the success of Fox News. I believe the real source of Fox News' success is its "sex appeal". The heavy emphasis on sexuality by Fox News makes Fox News a pseudo-pornographic enterprise. At best, it is immodest; at worst it is "softcore" pornography—at least, it is by the standards of our ancestors and of Catholic morals. To use the vulgar expression of our time: "Sex sells". Of course, I will explain why I believe this is the case.
 

Fox News program hostesses dress like prostitutes


Our Lady of Good Success and of Fatima
both warned against immodest dress
Our Lady of Good Success warned that modesty would largely be lost among women beginning in the 20th century. Our Lady of Fatima repeated the warning against immodesty, in particular immodesty in dress: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much".

We needn't waste time in proving Fox News is pornographic. If anything, it is offensive to Our Lord and Our Lady. 

The most obvious example of this—something a regular viewer of Fox News' television programming will soon realise—is the completely immodest clothes worn by the Fox News program hostesses.

There can be no other reason for the immodest dress of the Fox News program hostesses than attracting a male audience, for men are obviously very attracted to revealing and immodest dress, as a result of our fallen nature. Meanwhile, the male hosts on Fox News do not dress immodestly, as a general rule: they are usually seen wearing quite conservative suits and ties, often complete with a pocket square. Their dress and mannerisms are far more acceptable and far more pleasing to Catholic sensibilities—in fact, infinitely more so—than the dress and mannerisms of their female counterparts.
Above, the men dress modestly, the women rarely so: note the
exposed shoulders, thighs and the crossed-for-effect legs;

Below, a very unflattering Fox Business host Trish Regan,
wearing what resembles more a one piece swimsuit than a dress



The dress of Fox News hostesses can only be described as resembling that of prostitutes. Unfortunately, however, in the modern era this form of dress is widely acceptable socially, even among Catholics (for this dress is often seen even in traditional Catholic churches). The dress of Fox News hostesses are not greatly different from a typical young woman going to a dance or a party. However accepted it is socially, the purpose has not changed: women who dress immodestly today, socially acceptable or not, even if at the direction of supervisors, do so for very particular reasons. 

It is unbelievable how quickly Westerners embraced Nudism. "Nudism?" one will say. "They are still dressed, aren't they?" So is a savage Indian wearing only a loincloth. He is still "dressed", if by dress we mean purely covering private parts... How our standards have changed.

In addition to unacceptable dress, there are other censurable things: the makeup applied, no doubt layer-by-layer, to the point of disgust and tackiness, and unrecognisability when compared to the original face; and the general bad customs and way of speaking promoted by the Fox News hosts. Watch a recording of a typical Fox News program, and the women have a loud and imperious tone of voice. It is a contradiction: the women speak in a manner as if they were social equals, but dress in a manner as if they were concubines. Which is it, Fox News?
 

Fox's "porn stars"

 

While preparing this article, I decided to do a small experiment. I visited Google Images and typed "Fox News" in the search bar. The results were relatively innocuous: the Fox News logo and pictures of Sean Hannity, mostly. Of course, scrolling down, I found some more problematic images. But I noticed something far more interesting:

Most people who search for "Fox News" are really looking for pictures of the Fox News hostesses
Google Images has the useful feature of suggesting similar topics to the keywords you searched. Searching "Donald Trump", for instance, will yield buttons for "Ivanka Trump" (his daughter), "president", "debate", "Barack Obama", "White House", etc. Clicking these buttons will refine the search: only images associated with both Donald Trump and White House will be displayed. A helpful feature, since it shows what people usually search for in connection with "Donald Trump".

So what do people usually search for when they go on Google Images and search "Fox News"? They definitely aren't looking for pictures of the Fox News logo: instead, they search for pictures of the Fox News hostesses: the ones listed above include Abby Huntsman, Trish Regan, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Jenna Lee, all of whom are undoubtedly attractive women. Clicking on any of their names will yield pictures of them in connection with their roles at Fox News.

It could not be more clear: Fox News is pornographic. Its male hosts actually fulfill Fox News' ostensible role of delivering news and making opinions. The female hosts, on the other hand, only serve to attract male audiences and to promote immodesty. The role played by female hosts is indistinguishable from that of pornographic actors. Their sole, or at least primary, objective is to dress inappropriately and to attract millions of men to watch them, while ostensibly acting as newscasters.
 

Fox News' openly pornographic Web site

 

Typical Fox News promotions
While the immodest dress of female hosts is certainly good evidence Fox News is driven by an evil agenda, this is not the only evidence. A visit to the Fox News internet homepage should be the proverbial "nail in the coffin" for anyone who tries to defend Fox News. One might argue: "Yes, the dress of the Fox News hosts is immoral. But perhaps Fox News executives don't know about proper morality in dress. Perhaps they don't even agree with it, but they know their hosts should dress the way most women dress today." There are people who will make this argument. Perhaps they are right in that particular point. But how will they defend Fox News' openly pornographic Web site, FoxNews.com?

At left, is a typical "sidebar" used on Fox News articles for any subject. I made this particular screenshot on an article regarding the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. How these various articles and topics: swimsuit models, porno actors—however immodest and unacceptable in the first place—are considered relevant to a Supreme Court hearing is beyond me. I took the liberty of editing some of the images in the picture, since they are worse (though not far worse) than the dress of Fox News hosts...

The celebrity gossip is also a permanent fixture on the Fox News website. It is prominently featured, intended to cover the width of a computer screen, half-way down Fox News' website. Here is a typical case—(however immodest and inappropriate, it is poetic justice that Pope John Paul II, a heretic who caused much damage to the Catholic Church, is simply another shred of gossip in the eyes of the "conservative" Fox News website).

The exact opposite of what a reader will find on Reign of Mary

Controlled opposition?

 

However, I believe there is a far more sinister force driving Fox News, and it is not simply a desire to make lots of money by using immodesty to attract viewers. I believe Fox News, which is known for being "conservative" is really a "controlled opposition"—that is, it gives its viewers the perception they are viewing conservative content and being indoctrinated with conservative principles, but in reality, they are simply receiving another form of liberalism.

The show "Archer", affiliated with Fox, ridicules the Church
It is important to remember that Fox News itself does not stand alone. It is a subsidiarity of 21st Century Fox, which owns other operations, like FX, an "entertainment" television channel that produces degenerate content like The Simpsons, American Dad, How I Met Your Mother, American Horror Story, etc. The endless emasculating sports programming also comes from 21st Century Fox's many subsidiary affiliates. In passing, I invite people to research this, but I wouldn't be surprised if 21st Century Fox has a significant percentage of Jewish shareholders...

I have a theory about Fox News. I believe the objective behind Fox News' use of immodest women and inappropriate imagery (and that of the Fox News affiliates like FX) is to accustom its primarily conservative audiences to accept immodesty and pornography as part of everyday life. This ensures conservatives will accept the Sexual Revolution, and gradually the Revolution itself in all aspects of life. Gradually, conservatives will become more and more leftist. The end result is a "conservatism" of today that is essentially a liberalism of 10 years ago. Some conservatives will become liberals, others will become libertarians. There is very little difference.

The vulgar and loudmouthed Tomi Lahren urges
conservatives to abandon "social issues" and accept abortion
It is easy to see this in action. Take the latest "Barbie Doll" Fox News host, trotted out to promote false conservatism to millions of Fox News viewers. Tomi Lahren is her name, and she is the product of Fox's tried-and-true formula: take a woman, dress her in very little, and have her read from a script. Her shows, which feature her "profound" opinions—usually just her loudly and imperiously repeating Republican Party talking points—reflect the gradual shift in conservatism from true conservatism to liberalism.

It is not a surprise, of course. The Republican Party that Tomi Lahren belongs to and is allied with is the same Republican Party that, with standing ovation, enthusiastically cheered then-nominee Donald Trump's pledge to support the "LGBT community". More concerned with winning elections, individuals like Tomi Lahren encourage conservatives not to bother with social issues. Lahren has repeatedly defended abortion and attacked those who seek to overturn the infamous Roe v. Wade decision:
[T]o use conservatives’ new-found power and pull to challenge a decision that — according to a new Quinnipiac poll — most Americans support, would be a mistake. [...]
I’m saying this as someone who would personally choose life, but also feels it’s not the government’s place to dictate. This isn’t a black and white issue and I would never judge anyone in that position. [Source]
The fact that Fox News producers approved Lahren's remarks totally destroy the façade of Fox News being "conservative". Coupled with Fox News' promotion of pornography and milquetoast "conservatism", it is clear that it is merely a controlled opposition that helps conservatives to become addicted to vice and become liberals in both their actions and beliefs.
 

How to fight this evil?

 

Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira,
an early counter-revolutionary leader
The only way to fight the evil produced by Fox News and its mainstream media allies(Fox News is most definitely part of the mainstream media)—is to become a counter-revolutionary Catholic. We must not be conservative in the modern sense of the word, because conservatism is not founded on principles, but on habits, and habits change. Nor must we be purely traditionalists, for we must not simply have our traditions for ourselves, but we must openly confront the world. We must rather become counter-revolutionaries by fighting the bad tendencies in all aspects of life, including in our personal life. 

So what ought we to do about Fox News? We should all use it far more sparingly (if at all) than we do currently. We should seek Catholic, counter-revolutionary news sources instead. Install advertisement-blocking plugins in your computer to help censor immodest promotions not just on Fox News, but on other Web sites too. We must escape the false dichotomy of "liberal vs conservative"—both liberals and modern conservatives are enemies of the counter-revolutionary. We should also support Web sites like Reign of Mary with donations and with patronage and promotion of their articles. 

Above all, we should pray the Rosary every day, as Our Lady of Fatima requested. Only then will the true Reign of Mary—the destruction of the Revolution (the very Revolution Fox News has accepted)—finally become a reality, in our hearts and minds, and in our civilisation.

Posted 4 September 2018