No other societies have been submitted to the new covidian impositions with such intensity as the Western societies have. In my opinion, this has been possible because of the secularization of Christianity. The emptying of Christianity has left a free space that incredulity or atheism, even agnosticism, have not really fulfilled. There was still the need for something “more”. At the first moment, “Sustainability” was neither, capable to hold the spirits. The Swedish false prophetess lost its credibility between hypocrite and hysteric performances. And here came the virus “flood”.
However, there are still rebels. The people who refuse to abide to the “sanitary” mandates are the new heretics, well; they are called instead “denialists”. Their reasons to challenge those mandates must not be debated. They are simply “anathema”.
In a secularized world that does not believe any more in the everlasting life, the virus of fear spread among the people who just believed in the earthly life. In a secularized world without hope, the new preachers promise to prolong life on earth. In this spiritually dry world without love, the “solidarity” pretends to exist among those who bear the never-ending restrictions. It is in this context when the fear of the eternal damnation and the hell is substituted by the fear of death and the intensive-care hospital units. Covidianism fulfils the vacuum of a society that do not believe anymore in the everlasting life nor eternal damnations, has no hope and do not practice charity with the neighbour, who is not been seen as a brother.
This article apprears in the September 30th Remnant Newspaper, which ships next week. Subscribe today to read the rest!
This phenomenon is even more credible when some Ministers of the institution, which was founded on the belief of everlasting life to those faithful who practised joyfully the charity, behave themselves as fearing the loss of this life. Can we identify now with them Saint Charles Borromeo giving assistance among the plague or Saint Damien of Molokay with the lepers? It is hard to do.
Covidianism has progressively penetrated the souls, making it easy not just to “obey” the rules, often contradictory, imposed by the “Public Health Committee” (foreboding denomination present in the French revolution) on behalf of the “healthcare”, but also to “believe” in them. What is it but this a person wearing a facemask walking alone in the forest or in a mountain? Once covidian mandates have been assumed, there is no use to reason if those are coherent, or rational. They are just mandates of a belief that cannot be challenged by reason.
However, there are still rebels. The people who refuse to abide to the “sanitary” mandates are the new heretics, well; they are called instead “denialists”. Their reasons to challenge those mandates must not be debated. They are simply “anathema”. The laws impose sanctions and penalties to those who refuse to abide the new commandments. They are the scum of the society. Sure, many people in social networks or in public media and ads dare even to blame them for the “deaths” of the others… and some cannot suppress their will to see them dead. However, there has been too much effort to abolish the death penalty as “barbarian” as to reintroduce it to punish the “denialists”. The punishment must be more sophisticated… and at the same time should identify the “believers” and increase the control on them. The so-called “Vaccines” might be the tool.
LATEST FROM REMNANT TV: WORLD VACCINATION: Michael Matt on the Kennedy Connection
It has been argued if these so-called “vaccines” are really “vaccines” in the technical sense of the term. But if they are or not truly “vaccines” is not the point now. Yes, we see there are a number of “vaccines” made following different techniques: messenger RNA, adenovirus, or just the more classical weakened virus. But woe to whom asks how can a “vaccine” requirement be imposed to certain activities … without specifying which kind of “vaccine” is required. The vaccine required should be the vaccine ordered by the Supreme political power (“Public Health Committee”) who, of course, followed the advise given by the “experts”, the “clerics” of the “sanitary class” who has substituted the priesthood. Woe to whom asks on the side effects of the “vaccine”: the benefits outweigh the harms. Don’t ask whose benefits and whose harms. Woe to whom asks why a “vaccine” is allowed or inoculated in one country but forbidden or restricted, not recommended or simply not used in another country. Woe to whom who asks if he can choose not only to be “vaccinated” but which “vaccine” can be inoculated into him. The public authorities, properly “advised” by the “experts” know what is the “healthy”, what is the “good”.
No matter the contradictions about them, “vaccines” are a useful tool to punish the rebels (the “denialists”) and to control the “believers”. The rebels who refuse to abide to the sanitary commandments will be punished with restrictions on their freedoms, as the freedom to leave any country, including his own, the right to enter his own country, or the imposition of requirements to travel that do not apply for others, as to present a negative PCR test (following the Drosten protocol, of course) that must be paid by the rebel. In a further stage maybe the “denialists” who refuse to abide to the “vaccine” will be excluded from certain employments, first, or from any employment at all, finally.
But “vaccines” might not only be a tool to punish the rebels, but also to increase control over “believers”. Bio politics merge with Techno politics. To verify the “vaccine passports” the authorities will need a digital identity added to them. Such a digital identification, as any other digital device, may be manipulated. If the “believer” does not present any sort of risk to the authorities, it can be expected to not have any “surprise”; but if the “believer” experiences the “doubt”, may be the Power will have to “remind” him the consequences with an electronic message refusing the validity of its “passport” with all the amount of problems derived from this: “nulla salus extra Ecclesiam”!
Carlos Ruiz Miguel is a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)