“Eew, sedevacantism”

CATHOLIC writers sometimes perform great feats of intellectual contortion to avoid the sedevacantist position, which is the thesis that a non-Catholic cannot be pope. Serious objections to and arguments against this thesis exist and deserve respectful consideration. But once you enter the field of publicly rejecting much of what a pope says and teaches, as quite a few traditionalist journalists do, you become either an anti-papist (i.e., not Catholic) or a sedevacantist. Serious social and professional ramifications to entering the sedevacantist camp may be one cause for the reluctance of those who are acting as anti-papists to declare themselves sedevacantists.

Novus Ordo Watch examines the contortions of two writers, Hilary White and Ann Barnhardt. The article against White’s position is of interest.

As for Barnhardt, I must simply warn readers to stay away from her altogether.

She reiterated her call once again after the Orlando psy-op for giving the residents of Medina and Mecca 24 hours to vacate their homes before their cities are obliterated with nuclear weapons. Think about that. Innocent men, women and children killed by the tens of thousands because of a purported (and at least partly fabricated) attack on a nightclub in which the alleged attacker will never be tried in any court. Gee, I wonder whom this would most benefit? And Barnhardt has the effrontery to pass herself off as a Catholic. She is not to be taken seriously as a Catholic or, given the obvious scams of Orlando, as a journalist. She is a fraud. She has also maligned the engineers, architects, firemen, physicists, pilots, eyewitnesses and serious independent scholars who have questioned the events of 9/11, calling their work “insane rantings.” The evidence against the 19 Muslims allegedly involved in 9/11 has never been vetted in any criminal or civil court, and yet Barnhardt believed thousands, if not millions, of Muslims should be nuked in response. And people take this woman seriously?

Avoid Barnhardt’s cute, hateful term for Muslims (“Musloids”) and her oh-so-cute pink rifle. I could care less what her position is on the fraudulent “Pope” Francis.

Who is Ann Barnhardt? I leave it to you, dear reader, to draw the logical conclusions.

— Comments —

Mary writes:

I understand if you “disagree” with Ann Barnhardt’s using the word Musloid, and even her cute pink rifle. We are all entitled to our opinions on such things, and our rantings, in your case.  You and Ann obviously disagree as to how to handle the Muslim/terrorist situation, as many Americans do, regardless of their spiritual beliefs.  You seem angry that she hasn’t been bought into your theory that these attacks are all “fake” events.  Well, I have been open minded to that theory, and perhaps leaning in that direction, but I am still in the “I don’t know” camp.

What I don’t understand, and quite frankly find offensive, is you questioning her Catholic faith.  It isn’t yours to question.  It is God’s. And warning your readers to avoid her.  Ann is a convert. And somehow managed to jump over Vatican II and become a very traditional, knowledgeable and devout Catholic.  She knows her stuff.  She has been persecuted for it many times.  In fact, I take your latest post as a persecution of her. What a smear.  I am shocked that you would do such a thing, I thought better of you.

Reading her posts over the years has been a spiritual journey for me, she has taught me many things, and I am a cradle Catholic, raised in a very devout, traditional Catholic home, so I do know my stuff.  Ann is a better Catholic than me — what do I mean?  She truly lives it.  She walks the walk, and has sacrificed much for her Faith.  And her writings give me and many others the incentive, the impetus to walk the walk as well.  Spiritual motivation if you will.

While your posts typically cover current situations,  many of Ann’s posts have been spiritually transforming.  And I know for a fact she has been a conduit in the conversion of many to the true Faith.  A “fake” Catholic is not able to effect this.

But you say drop her, wow.  Maybe I should drop you.

Laura writes:

Maybe you should. But if you are going to continue to learn about the Catholic Church from a woman who advocates nuclear attacks on two major cities, after 24 hours warning, even though these cities have not declared war on America and do not physically threaten us (in fact, we physically threaten them) then let me suggest that you at least realize that this view in itself is gravely against Catholic teaching on just war.

You and Ann obviously disagree as to how to handle the Muslim/terrorist situation, as many Americans do, regardless of their spiritual beliefs. You seem angry that she hasn’t been bought into your theory that these attacks are all “fake” events. Well, I have been open minded to that theory, and perhaps leaning in that direction, but I am still in the “I don’t know” camp.

Miss Barnhardt’s view on vengeful murder of Muslims is of far greater concern to me then her view of false flags, though the issues are closely connected.

I find it hard to believe that a woman of Miss Barnhardt’s intelligence does not know, even though she is a recent convert, how greatly this murderous hatred of Muslims conflicts with Catholic teaching. But maybe she is genuinely innocent of this. Strange, but possible.

As for her demonization of 9/11 “truthers,” I am not angry at that. I find it curious and, at the very least, extremely close-minded, agenda-driven and fanatical, especially since she is so confident in Muslim treachery. Given that she has accused Muslims of such extreme crimes against America, and believes in the murder of millions of Muslims in retaliation, it is curious that she shows so little interest in the actual events of 9/11, except what she’s been fed by CNN and The New York Times. She thinks it is “insane” to question how jet fuel can vaporize skyscrapers and why there was no plane wreckage in Shanksville and why so many thousands of people who were at Ground Zero have died from cancer in ways consistent with exposure to nuclear weaponry and why New York City transferred ownership of the building to a man whose primary allegiance is to a foreign country so shortly before the events of 9/11 and and why that man, who was curiously absent from his usual routine on 9/11, made $4 billion as a result and why the 9/11 Commission never explained the molten steel at the site and why Benjamin Netanyahu said 9/11 was good for Israel and why Israeli agents were seen celebrating the fall of the Towers and why so many pilots say it could not have happened as described — and, well, dozens and dozens of other anomalies that pose serious challenges to the official script. You would think she’d do a little homework before she was calling for nuclear war, or would at least not call those researching — typically for no remuneration or social benefit — one of the most significant events in American history, an event that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, “insane.”

Her reposting of her call for nuclear attack against Muslims after the alleged Orlando attack — wow, this is truly insane. It takes my breath away, it is so naive and vengeful. And once again, we see her acute snobbery against those who dare to question CNN or The New York Times. Well, maybe she’ll get a good gig on the Trump team before we go to war for Israel again. Or for that matter, after Mecca and Medina and all those innocent people are obliterated, maybe Ann could move to Tel Aviv and enjoy the open view of Greater Israel and the freedom to carry assault weapons. In Israel, you’re allowed to carry pink rifles on the street. Gun control is for the goyim in their own countries.

I realize these comments are insulting, but I believe they are justified by her over-the-top incitement of violence against Muslims and her malicious insults of those questioning the events of 9/11.

Terry Morris writes:

Regarding Ann Barnhardt’s call to nuke Mecca and Medina, remember this?

Laura writes:

It’s weird that the writer at Gates of Vienna advocated blitzing these cities, in part, as a form of Christian proselytizing. Wow, and they say Islam is violent.

June 28, 2016

A reader writes:

I must concur a bit with the reader regarding your advice to stay away from Ann Barnhardt.

Your primary dispute is about the tactics involved in dealing with one of the evils in this world: Islam. Barnhardt’s call for nukes is an alternative if we are truly at war with that part of the world. Your reluctance to use nukes reminds me of your discussion about the nuclear weapon usage during WWII on Japan. You believe it was unnecessary then, and not surprisingly, you believe it wrong now. This is a fundamental disagreement regarding the waging of war. Your argument is one of restraint toward the enemy. I hold that once an enemy is declared, there should be few constraints until total surrender. Your own soldiers’ lives matter; the enemy’s lives do not. The failure of the US military since WW II is a result of the reluctance to destroy the enemy. In a world where Popes advocate evil and men and women can magically change gender, I think the time is fast approaching where violence is the only moral choice. And by violence, I mean total violence if you are to protect the innocent.

But I respect your views on the matter. Unlike so many sites, yours fully explores topics and is unafraid to offer real analysis. I recommend your site often. I also recommend Barnhardt’s site as well. She also offers real analysis that is not politically correct. Barnhardt is wrong to disparage sedevacantism out of hand and mock that view as loony. The last three popes are/were all monsters in their own way. These are not moral men. The current Pope is a progressive creature that is the result of a Catholic hierarchy that simply rejects the faith. Both you and Barnhardt recognize this reality. She, and sites like the Remnant, should not mock sedevacantism. This is a nasty time to be a Catholic since nearly every single person in power appears to be a modernist at heart. I would not discount your views here, but it is easy to see how folks like Barnhardt don’t want to follow that road so quickly. It is an ugly time.

Regarding your “conspiracy” stories regarding 9-11, Sandy Hook, and Orlando, I don’t really know what to think. The press and media elites are proven liars and propagandists. That does not mean these stories did not really happen as explained. On the other hand, you rightly point out the shady details that the elite cover up. It is difficult to know who or what to believe. Barnhardt is indeed too quick to mock “Truthers” and others.

It was your site that lead me to novusordowatch, Barnhardt.biz, Lawrence Auster’s old site, and a wealth of other sites that attempt to tackle the insipid madness of today’s world. You apparently believe that Barnhardt has gone too far. I disagree. You, Barnhardt, and a great many others are trying to find the truth in the middle of a system whose very purpose is to conceal it. I commend you. You should, however, cut Barnhardt a little slack. She is pushing for the truth as well.

Laura writes:

Thank you for your comments and concerns.

Let me just quickly summarize my reaction to what you say:

We have already done catastrophic damage to the Muslim world in our recent ongoing wars. In any event, physical weaponry does not destroy ideas. Islam is a system of belief. It will not be destroyed by any physical weapon. Catholics are called to peaceably convert other peoples, not force their beliefs on them with violence.

Show me one Muslim country that is now threatening to attack us. We are attacking them and funding subversive activities in their countries. Islamic jihad has been awakened since 1948 by Israeli terrorism and imperialism and the theft of land from the Arabs by people who have no rightful claim to the region. We must stop funding the terrorist state of Israel. Jihad will continue to be inflamed as long as the Western world turns its back on these crimes and funds Israeli imperialism and brutality.

It is wrong, categorically wrong, to attack civilian non-combatants.

We should restrict all immigration to the United States; we cannot absorb the recent massive wave of foreigners from different cultures. We should not inflame conflict with the Muslim world by openly insulting Muslims and saying they alone should be excluded from immigration.

Arab terrorism is not the grave threat it is presented to be. You might appreciate this lecture by James Fetzer on false flags. I recommend it because it’s an overview and is not too long, but there is so much else available. The organizations, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Physicists for 9/11 Truth can all be found on the web and the works of writers such as David Ray Griffith and Christopher Bollyn can too. The bottom line with 9/11 is that the official version violates the basic physical laws of nature. It could not have happened as described. In any event, no one can responsibly claim that the work of 9/11 researchers is simply the product of insanity or paranoia. There is too much science to it.

Arabs do not own or dominate our financial system, the media or our government. They lack the means to conquer the Western world at this point. If the Muslim world is at war with us, it is doing a very poor job of conquering us. Islam forbids usury. Our debt-based monetary system is killing the Western world and is a weapon arguably as destructive as nuclear weapons. In any event, many Americans are aware of the incompatibility of Islam with Western culture as this truth is constantly hailed by the media and you can find tons of popular books at Amazon about it. I realize that the “religion of peace” meme is also accepted by many others. I am not saying that jihad does not exist or that Islam is no threat at all.

You don’t find gay pride parades in the Muslim world and yet oddly Barnhardt seems hung up on Islamic homosexual perversion. It’s not Muslims who are destroying the soul of the West. Nor, quite honestly, is anyone ultimately responsible for this spiritual destruction but ourselves.

In sum, I believe Barnhardt’s militance is misplaced and dangerous.

Please follow and like us: