8 Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

November 10, 2012


First-Hand Evidence of Fraud

by Thomas A. Droleskey

An article that was published three weeks ago today, Stories That Speak For Themselves, caught the attention of the son of Dr. Marius Barnard, who is still alive at the age of eighty-five, in the Republic of South Africa. Dr. Barnard's son took exception to the opening paragraph of that article from three weeks ago, accusing me of inventing the information contained in that opening paragraph:


Dr. Christian Barnard was the first surgeon to engage in the Aztec practice of ripping out hearts from human being. Assisted by his brother, Dr. Marius Barnard, Dr. Christian Barnard decided to kill Denise Darvall in Cape Town, South Africa, after she was declared "brain damaged" after an automobile accident on December 2, 1967. Christian Barnard decided to experiment with this young woman the following day, December 3, 1967, injecting her beating heart with potassium to render to paralyze it. Denis Darvall was declared "dead" at this point. She was then killed in actual point of fact when the Christian and Marius Barnard removed her heart to transplant it into the body of a a fifty-four year-old diabetic with incurable heart disease, Louis Washkansky, on December 3, 1967, who lived for all of eighteen days thereafter. An industry of body-snatching had been born that would have pleased the darkened heart of Montezuma so very much.

I wrote back to him upon receipt of his e-mail, explaining that the information had not been "invented," that it was contained in several sources, starting with a book written by Donald McRae, The Race to Transplant the First Human Heart, which was published by G. P. Putnam's Sons in 2006. The information was also contained in an article written by Mrs. Randy Engel in 2010, Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I:


Enter South African surgeon Christian Barnard who had received part of his post graduate medical studies in the United States at the University of Minnesota. It was here that he first met Dr. Norman Shumway, who did much of the pioneering research leading up to the first human heart transplant. Barnard performed the first kidney transplant in South Africa in October 1967, but his primary interest was cardiac surgery. He wanted to do a human heart transplant.

In November 1967, Barnard found a 54-year-old patient by the name of Louis Washkansky who agreed to participate in the medical experiment as a heart recipient.

Denise Darvall, Louis Washkansky

The breakthrough: Denise Darvall's living heart was given to Washkansky, right

One month later, on December 3, 1967, the father of Denise Darvall, a young woman who was seriously injured in a car accident that killed her mother, gave his permission to have his daughter's heart excised and transplanted to Mr. Washkansky. That same day, the world's first human heart transplant operation took place. Bernard was assisted by his brother, Marius. The operation lasted 9 hours and employed a team of 30 medical personnel.

The immediate problem facing Barnard was that, although Denise's brain was damaged, her heart was healthy and beating, indicating she was still alive by traditional whole body standards. So what would make her heart stop so that it could be legally excised? Barnard later told reporters that he had waited for her heart to stop naturally before cutting it out, but this was a lie. It was not until 40 years later that the public learned the truth.

At Marius's urging, after his brother had cleaved open the chest cavity, Christian had injected a concentrated dose of potassium to paralyze Denise's heart, thus rendering her "technically" dead. (2) Everything had already been prepared so Bernard proceeded to quickly cut the major vessels, cool the heart and sew it into the recipient. Denise was alive before her heart was excised. She was truly dead after it was cut out of her body.

Three days after the Barnard murder, not to be outdone by a doctor in South Africa, Dr. Adrian Kantrowitz, a surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn cut a beating heart out of a live 3-day-old baby and transplanted into an 18-day-old baby with heart disease. At the end of the day both babies were dead. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Dr. Marius Barnard's son insisted that this is all a lie, that it never happened, although he had initially accused me of having stated facts that "you seem to suck out of my thumb." I was even threatened with a lawsuit when all I did was to report publicly available information, with which Dr. Barnard's son was, as it turned out, familiar, meaning that I had not "sucked" it "out of my thumb." The Barnards claim that this did not happen, the facts as stated in published sources are not true. Let the record show their denial.

As Mrs. Engel pointed out to me, in an e-mail three weeks ago:


The son’s problem is with his father and father’s brother. By the way, potassium is still used to murder unborn children as in the case of twins when one has a birth “defect.” Potassium is injected into the heart of the affected twin who dies while the other lives

Mrs. Engel's article, which was published in 2010 on the Tradition in Action website, detailed the gruesome aftermath of the killing of Denise Darvall in Cape Town, South Africa:


The controversy following the Kantrowitz killings was instrumental in the formation of the Harvard Medical School ad hoc Committee to study "brain death" as the new criteria for death.

The obvious conundrum facing transplantation surgeons was that organs taken from cadavers do not recover from the period of ischemia (loss of blood supply to organs) following true death. After circulation and respiration has stopped, within 4 to 5 minutes the heart and liver are not suitable for transplantation. For kidneys the time is about 30 minutes.

Equally clear was the realization that in order to continue unpaired vital organ transplantation it would be necessary to redefine death, that is, to establish a new criterion for death that would legally permit the extraction of vital organs from living human beings. Such a redefinition would permit transplantation surgeons to kill with legal immunity.

In August 1968, the Journal of the American Medical Association published "A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death." (3) No authors were listed. (4)

The Harvard Committee cited two reasons for establishing "brain death" as the new criteria for death. The first was the problems surrounding the use of resuscitation and other supportive measures to extend the life of severely injured persons. The second reason was "obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation."

It should also be noted that the criteria of "brain death" did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method of observation and hypothesis followed by verification. The Committee presented no substantiating data either from scientific research or case studies of individual patients. The Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Dr. Paul Byrne, who gave a presentation in Providence, Rhode Island, last evening on the medical industry's manufactured money-making myth of "brain death" that has been swallowed whole by some fully traditional clergy (for all of its false ecclesiology, the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X are perhaps the best explicators of moral theology today; see, for example, Father Peter Scott's Brain Death and Organ Harvesting, which is a ringing condemnation of the myth of "brain death"), wrote to me after I informed him of my e-mail exchange with Dr. Barnard's son three weeks ago today, explaining that it was necessary to remain focused on some basic facts that transcend everything else about the Denis Darvall killing:


The focus on the Doctors Barnard ought to be: 1) Denise Darvall was living when she was taken into the operating room, 2) Denise Darvall became dead (killed) by what the Doctors Barnard did to her.

The doctors in this United States were not going to be outdone by doctors in South Africa. Therefore, three days later the second heart transplantation was done in Brooklyn. New York, famous not only for its baseball team, but also because Dr. Kantrowitz cut the beating heart out of a 3 day old baby (supposedly, mentally retarded), then put the heart into an 18 day old baby (supposedly mentally normal). At the end of all this, both babies were dead. Incidentally, Dr. Kantrowitz never did another heart transplant. Don’t you think he knew what he did?

It was illegal and immoral to take these hearts. So how to make cutting out beating hearts moral and legal? Set up a Committee at a prestigious university. Voila! The Harvard Committee. The report of the Harvard Committee, “A definition of Irreversible Coma” was published in JAMA in 1968. That report has no basic science studies or patient data or references to such; the only reference was to Pope Pius XII, who stated (but not included in JAMA), “But considerations of a general nature allow us to believe that human life continues for as long as its vital functions—distinguished from the simple life of organs—manifest themselves spontaneously or with the help of artificial processes.”

[Vital functions are temperature (not the temperature of the environment that quickly occurs after true death), heart rate, blood pressure (circulation) and respiration.]

Truth will never change. No doctor can make a lie become the truth.

It is beyond shameful that anyone ordained to the priesthood, no less the fullness thereof, continues to accept this lie and to encourage Catholics to sign up to be organ donors, thereby being effectively "una cum Benedict" on this matter, and as they must continue to ignore the plain evidence that God is giving us that there is no such thing as "brain death," which is the very false foundation of "vital organ donation."

Adding to the evidence that the good God has sent us in recent months about this diabolical fraud (see Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death" and Stories That Speak For Themselves) is a change of mind by a prominent bioethicist in Australia concerning this fraud:

Medical practice in intensive care units has moved ahead of the law and is declaring people brain dead for organ donation when they may still be legally alive, the Melbourne bioethicist Nicholas Tonti-Filippini says in a new book.

He says religious and secular understandings of death have parted ways and religious people should insist on further tests that showed there was no blood supply to the brain.

Most Victorian hospitals rely only on clinical tests for brain-stem function before donating the organs of loved ones.

“It's enormously significant to the Church because people are being diagnosed as dead and their organs are being taken when, as a matter of faith, you'd say they were alive. It's enormously troubling,” Professor Tonti-Filippini said.

“The law defines death as the irreversible loss of all brain function, but philosophically people are now saying the crucial aspect is consciousness and are diagnosing brain death while there is still some mid-brain function. They say 'so what?' because the person is not conscious,” he said.

Professor James Tibbals, deputy director of intensive care and medical director of organ donation at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, made similar points in a controversial 2008 paper that argued the standard tests for death were neither legal nor ethical, and that most donors could not be proven to be truly dead when organs were removed.

He says the only safe and reliable test is whether blood has stopped flowing to the brain, which is relatively simple and cheap to do. Commonly used clinical tests, such as checking breathing, can be misleading, as well as harmful or even fatal for the patient.

However, he acknowledges that the presence of blood flowing in the brain does not prove life but does mean organs cannot be transplanted, which is why the donor community dislikes his stance.

But Associate Professor Bill Silvester, chairman of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society's death and organ donation committee, said Professor Tonti-Filippini was wrong on the medical claim about mid-brain function, and potentially putting at risk the lives of critically ill people awaiting organ donation.

Professor Silvester, of the Austin Hospital, said a World Health Organisation forum on brain death, which would release a statement next week, explicitly regarded the ANZICS criteria as “an exemplar of rigour”.

He said clinical testing was the main way to determine death, including the mid-brain. The only need for extra testing, such as blood flow to the brain, was when clinical criteria could not be resolved. No patient had ever recovered when the clinical determination of brain death had been conducted correctly.

“ANZICS believes these unsubstantiated claims by Professor Tonti-Filippini risk damaging public confidence in a very rigorous process,” he said.

Professor Tonti-Filippini's book, Transplantation, Biobanks and the Human Body, was launched on Saturday by Monash University's vice-chancellor, Ed Byrne, a pioneering neuroscientist.

Professor Tonti-Filippini said most faiths accepted brain death as death, which they understood as the separation of the soul from the body, and if the organs of the body no longer inter-related the person was dead.

But under the consciousness model a person could be declared dead while hormones still worked and blood pressure was still controlled by the brain.

“I would say such a person is severely disabled, but you can't say dead," he said. "We have moved from wanting to be absolutely certain that this person is dead to saying, 'This person is in such a state they might as well be dead'.

“Religious people accepted brain death on the basis that they could equate the loss of integration of the parts of the body that follows loss of all brain function with the soul no longer being actively present in the body. If some brain function continues in a way that maintains integration of the body then we cannot be certain that the patient is not alive.”

He said he chaired an inquiry for the National Medical Research Council in 2009, whose report was published last year, in which some ethicists argued that people in an unresponsive state should be used as organ donors.

He said the change had been gradual, with no watershed moment. (Life could still be in organ donors declared dead, says ethicist.)


Others have come to question the acceptance of "brain death" on the same secular grounds as Professor Tonti-Flippini, recognizing that the reason that most relatives of those who are declared "brain dead" just take the word of the body-snatching ghouls in white coats who are ever eager to kill off good specimens so as to profit from the harvesting of their vital body members. A case from 2008 was just brought to my attention yesterday:

Last week, Dateline featured a story on Zack Dunlap. Dunlap, 21, had a bad accident on a 4-wheeler, causing severe head trauma. At the hospital, they declared him “brain dead” – and it really does appear that they did some thorough testing to determine this. Here are excerpts from the transcript on MSNBC:

(Note: Doug and Pam Dunlap are Zack’s father and mother)

Dr. Mercer: His brain injuries were absolutely catastrophic.

Dr. Leo Mercer, Director of Trauma Services at United Regional, said Zack’s condition deteriorated as the hours wore on. With the young Oklahoman unresponsive to any sensory stimulation, the doctor wondered if they’d already
lost him. He apprised Pam and Doug of his findings.

Dr. Mercer: I told them that I was going to order a confirmatory test, a brain flow study.
(At the scanner)

We actually scan it twice…

A blood flow scan would determine if there was any blood still coursing through Zack’s brain. The results couldn’t have been worse.

Pam Dunlap: The doctor took us in and showed us the image on the computer. And he told us the dark areas will be the areas where there’s no blood flow to the brain.

Doug Dunlap: And that was the whole brain. That was the whole thing. It was just black.

Natalie Morales: Were the doctors giving you any sense of hope?

Doug Dunlap: They were already saying he was brain-dead.

(Looking at brain scan)

Natalie Morales: So, when you see this, I mean, he was in a permanent vegetative state?

Dr. Mercer: No, he was dead. He meets the legal, medical requirements for declaring a patient brain dead.

Since Zack’s license indicated he was an organ donor, they agreed to have his organs harvested so that others could be saved. To make a long story short, two friends who happen to be nurses have a “gut feeling” that he doesn’t look “ready.” One of them scraped Zack’s foot with a pocket knife and was astonished when the foot jerked away. Later, in front of disbelieving medical personnel, he dug his fingernail under Zack’s nail – causing Zack to bring his opposite hand over to bat him away. This resulted in a full stop of transplant plans and they went into rescue mode.

By all counts, Zack has made a remarkable recovery. He is mobile, alert, interactive – and he’s back home – 48 days after being declared “dead.”

Everyone’s calling it a “miracle.”

Me, I’m a little bothered by that particular leap of faith. Does this use of the word “miracle” simply give us permission to avoid asking bothersome questions about diagnostic procedures at the hospital – or maybe even about the “certainty” attached to the diagnosis of “brain death.”

Because calling it a “miracle” lets to medical people off the hook. Calling it a “miracle” prevents us from asking if others who have been declared “brain dead” might have been like Zack Dunlap – only not as lucky as Zack, because they had no one looking to see if maybe he might be alive after all.

The use of the term “miracle” is common in stories like these – and I’ve written about it before in relation to other stories of “miraculous” recoveries:

The next time you see a story like that of Finley, Ramirez, or Poutre, avoid thinking of them as “miracles” and think of them as survivors. And let’s ask their doctors how many other patients they’re treating aren’t quite so lucky.

I feel the same way now. So, if y’all don’t mind, I’ll think of Zack Dunlap as a “survivor” rather than as a “miracle.” “Miracles” defy definition – stories of survival invite further exploration. –Stephen Drake (Brain dead” man “comes alive” – a miracle, naturally.)


There are many such instances of "mistaken diagnosis" in hospital after hospital around the world. Contrary to what the author of the previous report believes, these "mistaken diagnosis" come to light solely as a result of the merciful God's Holy Providence in His effort to teach us dumb sheep to reject the medical industry's manufactured, money-making myth of "brain death" once and for all.

Another account of the Zack Dunlap case is found on LifeSiteNews.com:


OKLAHOMA, March 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 21-year-old Zack Dunlap, a man who was diagnosed as "brain dead" and who was mere minutes away from having his organs harvested, now says, four months after the accident that brought him to the brink of death, that he feels "pretty good." Dunlap’s story was told in an NBC piece aired earlier this week, in which the young man himself was interviewed.

While Zack’s case is being touted in the media as a "miracle", a neonatologist and expert on brain-death has told LifeSiteNews.com that Zack’s case, while remarkable in a sense, is not as rare as the mainstream media’s reporting makes it seem.

"The young man was never dead," said Dr. Paul Byrne, a former president of the Catholic Medical Association who began writing about brain death in 1977. What makes Dunlap’s case unusual, though not unheard of, says Byrne, is that Zack was lucky enough to be found out to be alive before his vital organs were removed.

"While the story is put out as something that’s miraculous," he told LifeSiteNews.com, "I don’t want to take anything away from God, but it’s not supernatural what occurred. If there is anything miraculous about it, it is that they didn’t get his organs before someone was able to notice some sort of other response. He was always living - his heart was always beating, there was always blood pressure, he was always very much alive."

Dr. Byrne says that over the years he has collected information pertaining to numerous cases where patients labeled brain dead have "returned from the dead." The reason being, says Byrne, is that "brain death is never really death." 

Zack Dunlap suffered numerous broken bones and severe head trauma last November after he was involved in an accident, in which he lost control of the four-wheeler he was driving and flipped over. At the hospital doctors diagnosed the young warehouse worker as "brain dead". Oklahoma officials were informed that Zack was legally dead and that his organs were about to be harvested.

"We wanted to make sure that some lucky person got to live on through Zack’s heart," Zack’s mother Pam told NBC.

Plans to remove her son’s organs, however, were put on hold in a dramatic fashion.

Two of Zack’s cousins, both nurses, said that, in the final moments before the medical team that was to harvest Zack’s organs arrived, they felt that their cousin wasn’t truly gone. On a hunch Dan Coffin ran his pocket knife across Zack’s foot. The supposedly brain dead patient reacted immediately by jerking back his foot. Coffin then dug his fingernail beneath Zack’s fingernail, a particularly tender spot on the body, and his cousin once again reacted by drawing his arm across his body.

"We went from the lowest possible moment to, ‘Oh, my gosh, our son is still alive!’" related Pam Dunlap.

Zack’s grandmother said that she too felt, like Zack’s cousins, that her grandson wasn’t ready to go. Shortly before her grandson began to show signs of life again, she had gone into his room and prayed for a miracle. "He was too young for God to take him," she said tearfully in the NBC interview. "It wasn’t time."

"I had heard of miracles all my life. But I had never seen a miracle. But I have seen a miracle. I’ve got proof of it," she said.

"We both feel that God has some big plan for Zack. We’ll do everything in our power to help him pursue it - whatever it is," said Dunlap’s mother.

  The young man himself told NBC that he heard the doctors pronounce him brain dead, and said, "I’m glad I couldn’t get up and do what I wanted to do." When asked what he wanted to do, he responded, "There probably would have been a broken window they went out."

"It just makes me thankful, it makes me thankful that they didn’t give up," he said about his relatives’ last attempts to find out if he was still alive. "Only the good die young, so I didn’t go."

Zack’s father, Doug Dunlap, says that he doesn’t blame anyone, indicating that the doctors assured him that his son was dead, and that there was no blood-flow to his brain. "They said he was brain-dead, that there would be no life, so we were preparing ourselves."

48 days after Zack’s accident, the young man returned home, walking on his own two feet. He still suffers some emotional problems, memory loss and other consequences from the accident, and a full recovery may take up to a year. But his parents say that are simply thankful that their son is alive.

Dr. Byrne, on the other hand, told LifeSiteNews.com that Zack’s story should be taken as a warning about the insufficiency of the brain death criteria. "While this story tells the young man hearing them talking about his declaration of brain death, the question is, is how many of the other organ donors are in a similar situation, that the only thing is that they end up getting their organs?" he said.

"Brain death was concocted, it was made up in order to get organs. It was never based on science."

In 2007 Dr. John Shea, LifeSiteNews.com’s medical advisor, wrote in agreement with Byrne’s concerns about brain death, saying that the criteria of "brain death" is scientific theory, and not fact, adding that it is a theory that is particularly open to utilitarian abuse and therefore should be treated with extra caution. He also pointed out that there is the added trouble that there are a number of various sets of brain-death criteria, such that a person may be considered dead according to one, and not by another. (The Case of Zack Dunlap.)

As noted in the case of Mrs. Bernice Jones that was chronicled in Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death, most relatives faced with the news of the "brain death" of a child or a spouse or a grandparent are usually in such a state of shock that they either trust the "information" provided them by the propagandists in white coats or simply do not the proper questions to ask even though they might have a sense, however inchoate, that something might be wrong with the diagnosis. Only occasionally are there parents such as the father of seventeen year-old Stephen Thorpe, who was declared "brain dead" by no less than four men masquerading as medical doctors in Leicester, England and targeted for vivisection.

Stephen Thorpe's story was related earlier this year on LifeSiteNews.com:


LEICESTER, England, April 25, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to the Daily Mail newspaper, a young British man owes his life to an insistent father who would not allow his son’s organs to be removed from his body, despite assurances from four doctors that his son could not recover from the wounds he had suffered in a recent car accident.

The Mail reports that Stephen Thorpe, then 17, was placed in a medically-induced coma following a multi-car pileup that had already taken the life of his friend Matthew, who was driving the vehicle.

Although a team of four physicians insisted that his son was “brain-dead” following the wreck, Thorpe’s father enlisted the help of a general practitioner and a neurologist, who demonstrated that his son still had brain wave activity.  The doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.

Today, the 21-year-old with “brain damage” is studying accounting at a local university. “‘My impression is maybe the hospital weren’t very happy that my father wanted a second opinion,” he told the Mail.

The case is similar to dozens of others LifeSiteNews has reported in recent years, in which comatose or otherwise unconscious patients are declared to be “brain dead,” or hopelessly incurable. In many cases, aggressive doctors seek the organs of the patient for harvesting.

In 2011, the Quebec Hospital Sainte Croix de Drummondville sought permission to extract the eyes of a patient who had choked on hospital food in the absence of a nurse, claiming she was “brain dead.” After the family demanded proof from physicians of her alleged condition, she regained consciousness, and recovered most of her faculties. The family declared its intention to sue the hospital.

In 2008, a 45-year-old Frenchman revived on the operating table as doctors prepared to “harvest” his organs for donation, following cardiac arrest. In the subsequent investigation by the hospital’s ethics committee, a number of doctors admitted that such cases, while rare, were well known to them.

That same year, a “brain dead” 21-year-old American, Zack Dunlap, was about to have his organs harvested when his two sisters, both nurses, decided to test the hospital’s theory that his brain was no longer functioning. Family members poked his feet with a knife and dug their fingernails under his nails, provoking strong reactions by Dunlap and proving he was conscious. He recovered completely. He later related that he was conscious and aware as doctors discussed harvesting his organs in his presence.

The term “brain death” was invented in 1968 to accommodate the need to acquire vital organs in their “freshest” state from a donor who some argue is still very much alive.

While death had previously been defined as lack of respiration and heart activity, “brain death” was judged as compatible with an otherwise living patient. “Brain death” has never been rigorously defined, and there are no standardized tests to determine if the condition exists.

Dr. John Shea, a medical advisor to LifeSiteNews.com, points out that patients diagnosed as “brain dead” often continue to exhibit brain functions.

In “Organ Donation: The Inconvenient Truth”, Shea states that the criteria for “brain death” only “test for the absence of some specific brain reflexes. Functions of the brain that are not considered are temperature control, blood pressure, cardiac rate and salt and water balance. When a patient is declared brain dead, these functions are not only still present, but also frequently active.” (Dad rescues 'brain dead' son from doctors wishing to harvest his organs.)

These cases are no more "anomalous" than are "abuses" in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service as both the "diagnosis" of "brain death" and the very nature of the conciliar liturgical "renewal" are founded in falsehoods. Both are offensive to God. The former kills bodies. The latter kills souls.

The body-snatching ghouls of the medical industry are able to ply their bloody trade because we live in a world awash with the sentimentality born of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. Relatives are told to "give the gift of life" by "letting" their child or spouse or parent or grandparent "live on" in another human being. Thus it is that the entire reality of the killing of perfectly alive innocent human beings must be anesthetized with such apparently soothing phrases as "compassion," "mercy," "letting one's relative go back to God," "you do not want your loved one to suffer or to live as a 'vegetable'" and, among many others, "quality of life." People are so used to living in a world of sound bites and slogans that they are easily swayed in crisis situations to do what the "professionals" want done. These are, of course, the exact methods by which  many mothers are deceived into killing their babies when they are told that their child has some "deformity" that would cause him to "suffer" "throughout his life."

Let me reprise what I have written before on this subject:

One lie begets other lies. "Brain death" is a lie from beginning to end.

The lie of the Protestant Revolution has resulted in the proliferation of Protestant sects numbering as many as thirty-three thousand, producing irreligion in its work as a logical consequence.

The lie of "civil liberty" without the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church, the Catholic Church, has resulted in the lie of the monster civil state of Modernity that is now being used by God as a chastisement upon us for refusing to take seriously Holy Mother Church's Social Teaching.

The lie of "religious liberty" has led people to believe that the path to social order and personal salvation can be found in any religion or in no religion at all.

The lie of "public education" has led to a taxpayer-subsidized machine to program their captives to be steeped in one ideologically-laden slogan after another to make them willing servants of the monster civil state and to participate merrily in neo-barbaric practices that were eradicated in Europe in during the First Millennium and in most parts of the Americas in the second half of the Second Millennium by the missionary work of the Catholic Church.

The lie of contraception and "family planning" led to increases in the rates of marital infidelity, the abandonment of spouses and children, the proliferation children with stepmothers and stepfathers and and step-siblings, leaving many children rootless and without any sense of being loved unto eternity that each person craves for whether or not he realizes it.

The lie of contraception led steadily to the acceptance of eugenic sterilization and then sterilization for any reasons and, ultimately, to the acceptance of surgical baby-killing on demand.

The lies of contraception and explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments broke down the natural psychological resistance of children to matters that are age inappropriate, robbing them of their innocence and purity, turning them into hedonists as they have grown older, leading eventually to the widespread acceptance of the sins that destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha with fire and brimstone.

The lies that were told by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antontelli, O.F.M., in the 1950s gave us unprecedented and most radical changes in the Holy Week ceremonies that started to accustom Catholics to ceaseless change as an ordinary feature of the liturgical life of the Catholic Church, climaxing in the Trojan Horse that was the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that, no matter how many times the conciliarists to "fix it," will always be an instrument of innovation and experimentation as it was designed to be precisely that from the moment Bugnini and Antonelli began their plans for the "Mass of the Future."

Thus it is that the lie of "brain death" has accustomed most people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, into accepting uncritically the representations made by a medical industry that endorses the violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and of the violation of the surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn and that is in league with the pharmaceutical industry to use us a walking guinea pigs for drugs designed to keep us dependent on them as the "high priests and priestesses" of "modern medicine."

When did the lie of "brain death" originate? At the beginning:


[1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3: 1-5.)

It is very easy to be deceived.

It is very easy to be deceived by the lie of how "special" we are, of how we are "not like others."

It is very easy to be deceived by others and to let human respect get in the way of a firm defense of the truth when necessity compels such a defense lest souls be imperiled.

It is very easy to be deceived by the prevailing trends in what passes for popular culture, to give unto the "high priests and high priestesses" of banking, commerce, industry, education, law, entertainment, social science, politics, law, government, news and information and medicine the status of near-infallibility as even Catholics have been convinced to live as naturalists without regard for anything supernatural whatsoever.

Do not believe the false prophets. Do not follow the priests and presbyters who have swallowed the falsehoods of the false prophets of the medical industry hook, line and sinkers. Suffer for the truth without compromise as consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Immaculate Queen, no matter what you might have to suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

Never sign up to be an "organ donor."

Tell your family members that they must never sign up to be "organ donors"--or, if they have, to rescind the "permission" that they have given to be unwitting accomplices and accessories in their own execution by means of being dissected alive.

Do not delay. Do not follow their false prophets in the world or the priests/presbyters who proselytize in their behalf.

We must pray to Our Lady to keep us from being so deceived, especially by the lies that we tell to ourselves, which is why we must be assiduous in praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We must always raise the standard of Christ the King as we exhort one and all to recognize that Our King, Who awaits in tabernacles for our acts of love and thanksgiving and reparation and petition, must reign over each man and each nation and that His Most Blessed Mother, Mary our Immaculate Queen, is to be honored publicly by each man and each nation, including by the government of the United States of America, in order to know what it is to be blessed abundantly by the true God of Divine Revelation. May each Rosary we pray this day and every day help to plant seeds for this as we seek to serve Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Immaculate Queen, who do not view any living human being as a ready product for dismemberment in the name of the lie "providing the gift of life."

May Saint Wenceslaus, who gave up his life in defense of the sacred rights of the Social Reign of Christ the King, help us to be so converted from our own sins so that we can reject quite readily the falsehoods of the false prophets of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now ?

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Andrew of Avellino, pray for us.

Saints Tryphon, Respicius, and Nympha, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints









© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.