Majid Freeman, the Islamists who spread misinformation about anti-Hindu attacks in Leicester, had propagated London bombings were False Flag ops by British Government (Image: BBC)
Majid Freeman has become a topic of discussion since he openly came out to support the Islamists attacking Hindus in the United Kingdom. He spread fake news about the anti-Hindu clashes in Leicester and instigated Muslim youth against the Hindu community.
Since OpIndia and netizens exposed him, old tweets of his have surfaced where he used his social media presence to propagate misinformation and spread his propaganda to support Islamists. Interestingly, BBC and Guardian quoted Freeman as a “Good Samaritan”, whitewashing his wrongdoings.
In one such attempt, Freeman called the 7/7 London Bombings of 2005 “false flag ops by the British government”. The screenshot of his tweet was shared widely on social media. In the tweet, he said, “R.I.P all the innocent victims sacrificed by the government in the False Flag 7/7 operation”. Notably, after the tweet went viral, Freeman deleted it.
Source: Twitter
One of the most prominent accounts that shared his problematic tweets’ screenshots was ‘Stop Hindu Hate Advocacy Network’ or SHHAN.
Freeman believes 9/11 NYC bombing and 7/7 London bombings were done by their respective governments. This is what he tweeted. He called them "False Flag operations". 12/13 pic.twitter.com/ljkKYt6TL3
— Stop Hindu Hate Advocacy Network (SHHAN) (@HinduHate) September 19, 2022
If we look at the one-month stats of his tweets, it is notable that Freeman deleted 22 tweets on September 26 and 5 on September 27. OpIndia cannot confirm if he had deleted those tweets during the two days or not.
The screenshots were shared by SHHAN on September 19. Before them, several other netizens pointed out hateful tweets as well. Interestingly, during the period Majid was spreading misinformation and fake news about anti-Hindu attacks in Leicester, he gained over 6,000 followers in just three days from September 18 to September 20.
Freeman deleted 27 tweets within days after screenshots of his tweets blaming the British govt for the 7/7 attacks went viral. Source: Social Blade.
This was not the only attack that was deemed ‘false’ by Freeman. He also blamed the United States government for the 9/11 attack, where hijacked planes plunged into Twin Towers in New York City, killing thousands. Those tweets also stand deleted.
Source: Twitter
However, several other tweets claiming Islamic terrorists were not behind the attack and that it was an “inside job” are still available on his account.
Source: Twitter
Source: Twitter
The London Bombings of 2005
The ‘London Bombings of 2005’, also known as ‘7/7 attacks’ or ‘July 7 attacks’, were coordinated suicide bomb attacks that took place on the London transit system on the morning of July 7, 2005. As per reports, three bombs exploded in three trains on the London Underground, resulting in the death of 39 people. One hour after the first attack, another bomb was detonated on the upper deck of a bus in Tavistock Square, resulting in the death of 13 people. Furthermore, over 700 people were reportedly injured in the four attacks.
The bombers used inexpensive, readily available materials to make the bombs. Thus, the advance detection of the plot was highly unlikely. As a result of the attack, a series of changes were brought to the British Counterterrorism Policy.
During the investigation, it was revealed that three of the bombers travelled from the site in Leeds, where they made the bombs, to Luton. The fourth bomber joined them in Luton. They carried the bombs in their backpacks and boarded a train to King’s Cross station, London. At around 8:30 AM, they entered the station and boarded different trains to east and west on the Circle Line and south on the Piccadilly Line. After 20 minutes of boarding the trains, they carried out the attacks.
The attack in Russell Square killed 26 and injured over 340. The attack in Aldgate killed seven and injured over 170. The attack at Edgware Road killed six and injured over 160.
An hour later, the fourth bomber attacked a crowded bus en route to Hackney. In that attack, 13 people were killed, and over 100 were injured. An extensive investigation was carried out, and by July 16, police released the names of all four bombers who were killed in the attacks. There were theories of a ‘fifth bomber’ or a ‘foreign mastermind’, but the investigation agencies ruled them out.
Later in September 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda, claimed partial responsibility for the attack. In April 2007, the investigation agencies charged three British Muslims for assisting in the planning of the attack. However, in 2009 they were cleared of the charges.
Hungarian President Orbán has once again positioned himself as a committed advocate of genuine European interests and persists in his criticism of the EU’s sanctions policy against Russia.
At least in Hungary, citizens will be able to vote on the sanctions that are causing massive damage to Europe, after Orbán confirmed that there would soon be a referendum on this.
“The sanctions were not decided in a democratic way, but decided by Brussels bureaucrats and European elites,” he said in the Budapest parliament. “Although Europe’s citizens are paying the price, they have not been asked,” he added, underlining that “the sanctions imposed are causing enormous damage to Europe.”
Orbán recalled that since the war began, Russia has earned 158 billion euros over the last six months from energy exports at increased prices. That is more than Russia’s total annual export earnings for 2021 in half a year. Half of this, 85 billion euros, was paid for by the EU countries.
Orbán considers this situation to be intolerable: “European companies are unable, or only with difficulty, to pay the sanctioned energy prices. We are waiting for an answer, the whole of Europe is waiting for an answer from Brussels on the question of how much longer we have to go through with this. If this continues, all of Europe will be ruined. It’s time to talk openly about this with our American friends while it’s not too late.”
TIME believes Mohammed Zubair deserves to win Nobel Peace Prize
TIME Magazine has always been notorious for pushing propaganda under the garb of being a platform for ‘intellectual’ opinions. It has served as a leftist mouthpiece since it came into being, propagating myths and peddling narratives far removed from reality. While exhibiting hypocrisies is a routine staple for TIME Magazine, it committed a mother of all ironies recently when it included Mohammed Zubair and Pratik Sinha of the Alt News in the list of deserving candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize 2022.
Though Nobel Peace Prize has long lost its credibility, especially after former US President Barack Obama won it in 2009, just days after dropping bombs in the middle east that led to scores of death, it has done little to dampen the fascination of ‘liberal’ bastions, including the TIME Magazine, with the sham award.
TIME Magazine placed Mohammed Zubair and Pratik Sinha, founders of the fake news factory that calls itself the “fact-checking” website Alt News, among the list of prospective winners for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize alongside Volodymyr Zelensky, WHO, David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg, Alexey Navalny among others.
However, the inclusion of Mohammed Zubair, the man responsible for unleashing the wave of Islamist violence in India that resulted in the death of at least 6 Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, in the prospective list of winners for the Nobel Peace Prize 2022 is profoundly deplorable, even by the abysmally low standards of the TIME Magazine.
While making a case for their win, TIME Magazine did what western publications are known for covering news about India: resorting to obscurantism, distorting facts, and presenting a lopsided narrative. It described Sinha and Zubair as crusaders battling misinformation online, conveniently missing out and pointing out occasions when the two were caught red-handed spreading fake news and falsehoods.
“Journalists Pratik Sinha and Mohammed Zubair, co-founders of Indian fact-checking website AltNews, have relentlessly been battling misinformation in India, where the Hindu nationalist BJP party has been accused of frequently stoking discrimination against Muslims,” read the article on TIME Magazine, dressing up pro-Congress propagandists as ‘journalists’ and revealing the organisation’s penchant for vilifying the democratically elected government of India, besides scaremongering over the imaginary institutional “discrimination” against Muslims.
Screenshot of the relevant section from the TIME article
“Indian authorities arrested Zubair in June for a meme he tweeted four years ago. Journalists around the world condemned the arrest and argued it was retribution for his fact-checking work,” the TIME article further read. What it conveniently omitted mentioning is how Zubair touched off a wave of Islamist violence in India with his dog-whistling against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. It also cleverly leaned on condemnation from leftist populated organisations to portray Zubair’s arrest as an act of retribution, drawing over a veil over his alleged culpability in hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus with his Hinduphobic posts.
The relevant section from the TIME article
No, Pratik Sinha and Mohammed Zubair have not been shortlisted for Nobel Peace Prize
And while the list is speculative, it did not stop distorters and sympathisers from fuelling misinformation that Zubair and Sinha are on the shortlist for the Nobel Peace Prize. Several supporters of Zubair and Sinha took to social media to peddle fake news that the duo is shortlisted for the Nobel Peace Prize.
There’s nothing like an official list from among whom Nobel Peace Prize is awarded, the names mentioned by TIME Magazine are just speculations made by a media organisation whose ideology is rooted in the global left. But cheerleaders of Zubair and Sinha, who extol them for “fact-checking”, could not distinguish between a shortlist and a speculative list by a media organisation.
Since TIME has been economical with truth and facts about Mohammed Zubair and Pratik Sinha, it becomes imperative to call attention to the murkier aspects of the duo.
Mohammed Zubair triggers Islamist violence in India, resulting in the deaths of innocent Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal and Umesh Kolhe
Earlier this year, Mohammed Zubair sparked controversy after sharing a truncated video of Nupur Sharma’s comments on the Times Now debate and accused her of making derogatory remarks against the Islamic Prophet.
Before long, the controversy gained epic proportions and transcended national boundaries as Arab countries made unsolicited comments, causing a diplomatic nightmare for India’s mission in the Persian Gulf. Islamists took to the streets, running riot and indulging in vandalism, and arson against what they perceived as an insult to Prophet Muhammad. Protest marches calling for the beheading of Nupur Sharma were carried out as participants shouted “sar tan se juda” chants against Nupur Sharma. In one instance, her effigy was left hanging from a cable, reminding Hindus of the fate that awaits them should they dare cite authentic and reliable Islamic Hadiths to comment on Prophet Muhammad.
While Islamists went on a rampage on the streets in many cities across the country, it was essentially Mohammed Zubair who was responsible for kindling a fire that had gone on to assume uncontrollable proportions. It was Zubair’s dog-whistling that made a mountain out of a molehill and painted a target behind the back of Nupur Sharma and anyone and everyone who came out in her support.
The ominous hounding of Nupur Sharma prompted many to extend their support to her. Kanhaiya Lal from Udaipur, Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, and many others extended their solidarity with the beleaguered leader, voicing their support for her amid the death threats from Islamists.
And so, Lal was a marked man the moment he came out in support of Nupur Sharma. Islamists, provoked by Mohammed Zubair, dished out death threats to him for what they considered an unpardonable sin committed against Prophet. And days later, the Hindu man was killed for something as trivial as just sharing a social media post in support of Nupur Sharma.
Even though the Islamists on the ground were responsible for killing him, the buck does not stop there. They were puppets working at the behest of their masters, who were equally blameworthy for goading them into murdering Lal. In essence, Mohammed Zubair’s dog-whistling against Nupur Sharma instigated Islamists, who then went on to kill Lal for his support to the former BJP leader.
This makes Mohammed Zubair guilty of ‘stochastic terrorism’, a concept defined as the public demonisation of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted. It was Mohammed Zubair who spearheaded a campaign against Nupur Sharma, accusing her of insulting the Prophet Muhammad and letting loose an army of Islamists against her that ultimately hacked Lal to death.
A similar fate befell Umesh Kolhe, a chemist living in Maharashtra’s Amravati, who was murdered by four Muslim assailants while he was returning from his pharmacy on the night of June 22. Kolhe, too, was murdered for his social media post supporting Nupur Sharma, who was hounded by Islamists and egged on by the likes of Mohammed Zubair for her comments defending her faith on a TV news debate where a fellow Muslim panellist was mocking Shivling discovered inside the premises of the contentious Gyanvapi mosque compound.
The horrifying killing of Lal came a day after Delhi Police arrested Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair for hurting religious sentiments. The police acted on the basis of a complaint filed against him by a Twitter user who cited the notorious fact-checker’s old tweet where he had a derogatory reference to Lord Hanuman. But that was not his only Hinduphobic post.
Mohammed Zubair: Chronic fake news peddler with Hinduphobic tendencies
Days after India witnessed violent protests that saw Islamists running riot, indulging in violence over the alleged insult of Prophet Muhammad, Twitter user The Hawk Eye (@thehawkeye) shared a collage of past tweets and posts by Mohammed Zubair mocking Hindu Gods and beliefs.
In one of the tweets shared by The Hawk Eye, Zubair is seen mocking Shivling and comparing it with the top view of the Vatican City. He said the post comparing Shivling with the Vatican City inspired him to come up with a parody Facebook page ‘Unofficial: Subramanian Swamy’ in 2014.
Apparently, one of the posts on the Facebook page ‘Unofficial Mohammed Zubair‘ mocks Arun Govil to take a swipe at Lord Ram, suggesting that ISRO must consult the actor because he would know more about the rocketry.
Another post by ‘Unofficial Mohammed Zubair’ shows an aeroplane under the water with the caption: “Breaking: Pushpak Vimana used by Ravan 5000 years ago found in the Indian Ocean.”
Besides ridiculing Hindu Gods, Zubair has also poked fun at Hindu beliefs and took a dig at Sanskrit, regarded as one of the most important languages of Hinduism and the means of communication by the Hindu Gods. After being exposed for his Hinduphobic posts on Facebook, Zubair deactivated his page.
On top of all this, Zubair is also a consummate fake news peddler. Here are 20 instances when Zubair has resorted to sharing falsehoods and misinformation. Though this list is not exhaustive, it demonstrates Zubair’s penchant for fake news.
Pratik Sinha’s penchant for peddling fake news
Pratik Sinha, the co-founder of Alt News, has an equally unenviable record of peddling fake news. Besides his predilection for fake news, the Alt News co-founder has been a staunch defender of Islamists, and has also indulged in cyber stalking and doxxing private individuals online which has earned him the moniker ‘Stalker Sinha’.
There have been various instances when the so-called ‘fact-checker’ was caught red-handed for disseminating propaganda.
In the aftermath of demonetisation back in 2016, Sinha had shared images of people standing in long queues at financial institutes to allege that people had to go through hardships because of the Modi government’s decision. However, in doing so, Sinha shared a picture from 2014, about two years before the Demonetisation to portray that the decision had caused misery among people.
.@free_thinker is just a hindu hater, masquerading as a fact-checker. made his career abusing Modi n fake propagandas, using Truth of Gujarat, then eopinion/Altnews. 1- Using picture of 2014 to show a woman suffering due to demonatisation in 2016. archive- https://t.co/sHo79qniafpic.twitter.com/hHz5C2JFFW
In another instance shared by the Twitter user, Sinha was caught using an image from 2004 to peddle the condition of cows in Gujarat in 2016. In the year 2016, Sinha shared another picture on his Twitter account where cows were seen lying on the road.
Sinha, in his bid to mock the Gau Rakshaks, commented, “Gau Matas rotting and being scavenged on in Gujarat. Where are the sons professing undying love for their mata?”
The image shared by Sinha was from 2004 when many cows had died because of Nitrate poisoning but Sinha felt no compunction in using a 12-year-old picture to ridicule the Gau Rakshaks.
Sinha also actively participated in perpetuating the lie regarding PM Modi’s alleged promise to transfer Rs 15 lakhs to bank accounts if elected to power.
How TIME and Zubair unite in their support for Islamists
It is profoundly ironic but not entirely surprising that TIME Magazine chose Mohammed Zubair as among the ‘favourites’ to win the Nobel Peace Prize, given that the Alt News co-founder had touched off a raging Islamist fire earlier this year that engulfed many Hindus, most notably Kanhaiya Lal and Umesh Kolhe.
But it is a far cry to expect TIME Magazine to acknowledge the menace of Islamists afflicting India, as the organisation has a long history of shielding and glorifying Islamists while perversely portraying their victims as aggressors. In the aftermath of Kanhaiya Lal’s brutal beheading, TIME Magazine published an article that whitewashed the Islamists and instead held the victim responsible for his predicament.
While trying to contextualise the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, Sanya Mansoor, the author of the TIME article, suggested that the poor Hindu tailor had drawn the wrath of the Islamists upon himself by supporting the ‘derogatory comments’ of ex-BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
In light of historical prejudice exhibited by TIME against Hindus and its favouritism for the Islamists, it is not entirely surprising they had speculated Mohammed Zubair of Alt News to be among the ‘favourites’ to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
The 2003 movie, “The Italian Job,” is a good metaphor for the ‘job’ that Giorgia Meloni, the first female party leader to win the Italian elections, will undertake at the helm of her new government.
The genre classification of the film is action thriller, and that is pretty much what the new government will have to be. It does not bode well either that the president of the European Commission threatened Italian voters with unmistakable openness even before the elections that if they voted in the “wrong direction,” she would have the means to reverse the course. To illustrate this, she cited Hungary and Poland as examples, in case anyone had any doubts about the existence of these tools.
In order to understand this better, let us look at the general situation in Italy, particularly from the point of view of why the direction in which Italy is heading, and what the “right” direction is, is such a sensitive issue for Europe as a whole. The fact that Italy has had 68 successive governments in 76 years, including the new one, suggests that the social and political structure is not very stable, and that any construct that might have been intended to achieve stable governance is falling apart in a short space of time. This was also the case when the traditional two major political forces, the Christian Democratic Party and the Socialist Party, were driving the political process, and the rapidly changing political climate meant that governments changed almost every year. In an average four-year term, at least three governments followed one another.
Then, over the course of a decade or two, both major parties collapsed, and the resulting vacuum was filled by parties that were rebuilt partly from the ruins of the old and partly from at least new-looking parties, further undermining the chances of stability. The world of politics is, of course, only a mirror image, showing, albeit through many different channels, the state of a given society. In other words, it is not simply politics that is unstable, but the whole of Italy’s social structural dynamics. This has been the case for a very long time, and as things stand, this is not going to change any time soon.
As we know in the eurozone countries, the ratio of public debt to GDP must not exceed 60 percent, but today, at most, 3 out of 18 countries meet this criterion, and in Italy the ratio is above 150 percent. Public debt amounts to €3.2 trillion, by far the largest in the European Union and roughly five times the size of Hungary’s total national wealth.
All of this cannot be explained by the prevailing narrative, so for a while it was placed under the direct control of the global financial power system of Mario Draghi, but this construct has now fizzled out. The old order has finally collapsed, replaced by a confused liberal-globalist complex and an equally rather incoherent national right. But the three parties of the radical right that are now entering government are also divided on migration, climate, and the war in Ukraine, and they so far have no coherent strategy for interpreting and managing socio-economic tensions.
So we should be pleased that, after Hungary and Poland, there will now be a third country in the group of openly and courageously “rebellious” member states, and look upon it with cautious optimism. However, so far, we know little about the strategy on which the new governing coalition will base its ideas. So let us wish those taking on the “Italian job” good luck.
French General Christian Blanchon, aged 58, commanded the 1st Parachute Regiment at Toulouse. He served as an officer in operations in Lebanon, Chad, Central Africa and Kosovo. And on September 9, 2022, this highly respected general published a tribute to the unvaccinated, which has gone viral on social media, but is being ignored by the mainstream media.
The content reads:
“They’re there, by your side, they seem normal, but they’re superheroes. Even if I were fully vaccinated, I would admire the unvaccinated for withstanding the greatest pressure I have ever seen, including from spouses, parents, children, friends, coworkers, and doctors.
Humans who have been capable of such personality, such courage, and such critical ability undoubtedly embody the best of humanity.
They are everywhere, in all ages, levels of education, countries and opinions. They are of a special kind; these are the soldiers that any Army of Light would wish to have in their ranks. They are the parents every child desires and the children every parent dreams of. They are beings above the average of their societies, they are the essence of the peoples who built all cultures and conquered horizons. They are there, by your side, they seem normal, but they are superheroes.
They did what others could not, they were the tree that withstood the hurricane of insults, discrimination and social exclusion. And they did it because they thought they were alone and they believed they were alone.
Shut out from their families’ Christmas tables, they have never seen anything so cruel. They lost their jobs, they dropped their careers, they ran out of money…but they didn’t care. They suffered untold discrimination, denunciations, betrayals and humiliations… but they carried on.
Never before in humanity has there been such discrimination, we now know who the resisters are on Planet Earth. Women, men, old, young, rich, poor, of all races and all religions, the unvaccinated, the chosen of the invisible ark, the only ones who managed to resist when everything collapsed. i
It is you who passed an unimaginable test that many of the toughest Marines, Commandos, Green Berets, astronauts and geniuses could not pass.
– Christian Blanchon, General of the French Army”
Mainstream politicians, media want to forget their imposed vaccination terror
This public tribute to the unvaccinated has already been translated into many languages. Critically thinking people and vaccination critics were insulted as “Nazis”, liars, idiots or worse. For example, the Austrian ÖVP Constitutional Minister Edtstadler said that it “actually is illegal to live in Austria and not be vaccinated” and that it “is probably also possible to fire someone who is not vaccinated.”
The insults, persecutions, disadvantages, the disenfranchisement of the unvaccinated are suddenly being swept under the carpet and in the system parties no one wants to talk about it. The mainstream media and the medical profession are also mum since the topic has become so embarrassing for some.
Nothing is forgotten
That is why this public message is so important: It honors the courage, principles and attitude of the unvaccinated. And it shows strikingly what was done to the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated will remember the pressure, if not the “terror” they were subjected to. But also the vaccinated, who were forced to be vaccinated against their will, and all those who were injured as well as their families.
In “Francis Forgives Everyone,” I suggested that the main thrust of the Francis papacy is to de-emphasize sin.
But if Francis wants to forgive everyone, he’d better hurry up before some European bishops beat him to the punch. Just recently, the Flemish bishops of Belgium published a document for the pastoral care of homosexuals, which included a liturgical blessing for same-sex couples.
As several Catholic theologians were quick to point out, however, the blessing is problematic because, unlike the general blessing at the end of Mass, it is intended to bless a specific arrangement—namely, a same-sex union.
Some fear that the proposed blessing (the Flemish speaking bishops plan to present it to Francis later this year) could tear the Catholic Church apart. That may seem like an exaggeration, but there is good reason to believe that the Belgian bishop’s proposal is meant to bring things to a head by forcing Francis’s hand on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”
One reason to think so is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)—the ultimate authority on doctrinal definitions—has already made clear that “the Church does not, have and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.” The document was published in March of 2021 with the express approval of Francis.
The CDF isn’t saying that a priest can’t give his blessing to a homosexual individual, only that he can’t bless a same-sex union. By the same token, the Church can’t bless the union between a man and a woman living in adultery. The problem with the “Belgian blessing” is that it is intended to bless same-sex unions—the very thing that the CDF says the Church has no power to do.
To a non-Catholic, this may seem like a tempest in a teapot, but it is, in fact, a very big deal because it constitutes a challenge to the Church’s teaching authority. The Belgian bishops are saying, in effect, that the Church has been in error to teach that homosexual acts are sinful. This puts the CDF on the spot, it puts Francis on the spot, and it puts the Church in danger of schism.
It could also prompt Francis’s resignation. Although Francis is quite obviously a friend of the LGBT movement in the Church (just look at his appointments), he seems also to have reservations about going too far too fast. Despite what some conservative Catholics may think, Francis does appear to have some fear of God—and also of the Devil. Perhaps, he would prefer to leave the decision to his successor.
Coincidentally, one of the prelates who is often mentioned as a possible successor to Francis just happens to be the top bishop in Luxembourg—the small country which borders Belgium. As president of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conference of the European Union (COMECE) Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich is also the top bishop in Europe. As an additional sign of his faith in Hollerich, Francis recently appointed him as the realtor general of the much-heralded Synod on Synodality.
Should Hollerich be elected pope and should he continue to insist that the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is erroneous, it will likely set off a firestorm of controversy both inside and outside the Church.
Another key player in this drama is Father James Martin, SJ. who is currently the most prominent Catholic advocate of the LGBT movement. Martin says that chastity is not required of homosexuals because the teaching (to remain chaste) has not been “received” by the Catholic LGBT community. Martin also states that Catholics must “reverence homosexual unions.” In short, like Cardinal Hollerich, Martin seems to be saying that existing Church teaching about homosexuality is in error.
It’s not as though Francis is firmly opposed to the position taken by Hollerich and Martin. Hollerich has said that he is “in full agreement with Pope Francis.” Moreover, Francis has showered praise on Fr. Martin, encouraged him in his work, admitted him to a private audience, and appointed him as a consultant to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications.
If the debate about homosexual unions does lead to some kind of schism it will most likely result in a schism between orthodox (traditional) Catholics and “progressive” Catholics like Francis, Hollerich, and Martin. The blessing of same-sex unions may well be the final straw for those Catholics who not only object to Francis’s “progressive” reforms, but also doubt whether he is really the legitimate pope.
As I have suggested elsewhere, the ultimate aim of Francis and other progressives is not to reform the Church but to transform it into a humanistic rather than a supernatural faith.
Although the Church has always been in some sense a humanitarian faith, there are some crucial areas in which a purely humanistic philosophy is opposed to Christian teaching.
The main point of division is sin. Although the Church affirms that we are made in the image of God, it also maintains that we are sinners in need of a Savior. Although Christ mingled with prostitutes and tax collectors, he did not bless their sins. Rather, he told them to sin no more, and to follow him.
By contrast, humanists tend to think that people are fine the way they are. Like Francis, they may be concerned with corporate sins and sins against the environment, but not so much with personal sins.
But from an orthodox Christian perspective, minimizing sin is self-destructive. That’s because salvation from sin is the essence of the Christian story. When you take away sin, you take away the whole rationale for Christianity. If I’m okay the way I am, why do I need the “transformation in Christ” that Paul speaks of in his epistles?
The current humanist movement in the Church is not a brand-new phenomenon. It owes a lot to the modernist movement in the Church at the turn of the 20th century, and also to the human potential movement of the late 20th century. The later merged with the popular self-esteem movement and became a powerful force in both Church and society.
The main argument of the self-esteem gurus and of their counterparts within the Church was that people who feel good about themselves aren’t tempted to do bad things. As a result, examination of conscience and frequent confession gave way to an emphasis on self-acceptance—on learning to love yourself just the way you are and on having confidence that God loves you just the way you are.
Fr. Martin is, of course, a product of this 60’s-style “follow-your-feelings” approach to morality. His fuzzy argument about the LGBT community not being bound by the rule of chastity because they haven’t “received” it is evidence of this. For Fr. Martin, the only thing that matters is that you feel good about yourself and your relationship with partner X. Nothing else is required and you can be sure that God will smile on your union.
One hitch in the self-esteem hypothesis that was apparently overlooked by Martin is that further research revealed that psychopaths and prison inmates tend to have exceptionally high self-esteem scores. Feeding one’s self-esteem doesn’t necessarily result in better behavior, and it can result in worse. Consider the recent experiments with reducing or eliminating bail, defunding the police, and giving their jobs to idealistic social workers. Such experiments often feed the sense of law-breakers that they are special, that the rules don’t apply to them, and that there should be no consequences for their behavior.
And that should give us second thoughts about the current eruption of self-acceptance theory among progressive Catholics. A certain regard for one’s self—self-respect—is good up to a point. But beyond that point it can lead to self-absorption and self-centeredness. Catholics and other Christians are called to avoid this temptation and to examine their conscience in light of scripture and tradition. But progressives think it’s enough for people to simply celebrate themselves as they are. But “celebrate yourself” is a very slippery slope and it can lead to some dark places. Currently, for example, some elements of the pro-choice movement have been calling on women to celebrate their abortions.
Cardinal Hollerich approaches the matter from a somewhat different angle than Martin, but not one that inspires confidence in his ability to lead the Church. What’s missing in the theology of Hollerich (and also Martin) is any sense of objective morality—what Cardinal Francis Arinze refers to as “the order established by God the Creator.” According to Church teaching and tradition, the nature of marriage is revealed to us both by scriptural revelation and by natural law— “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” referred to in the Declaration of Independence. In place of the order of marriage established by God, Cardinal Hollerich offers thinly disguised relativism. Hollerich seems to think that criticism of same-sex unions is founded on outmoded biology and anthropology and must now be revised in light of recent advances in sociology and science. But he fails to explain how morality can be deduced from either sociology or science. Perhaps by polling a sufficient number of people? By consulting Kinsey? By capturing the elusive pregnant man? The effectiveness of sociologically and scientifically “correct” sex education can be gauged by the wreckage of the sexual revolution.
The damage we have already seen suggests that we can’t afford any more experiments with readjusting the order established by God to suit our own inclinations. If the Belgian bishops don’t accept natural law (which is based on biological and anatomical facts) or revealed law, then what is to be the standard? Is each person to be a law unto himself or herself?
If European bishops continue to mislead Catholics about the nature of marriage, their efforts will turn out to be much more of a curse than a blessing.
More than half a million Austrians have signed a petition calling for a referendum on the constitutional enshrining of the right to unlimited cash payments. In a country of 8.9 million, the massive show of support for the “right” to pay with cash demonstrates the growing movement against digital currencies promoted by central banks across the world and institutions like the World Economic Forum (WEF).
The deadline for submission of petitions regarding proposals for seven national referendums ended on Monday. As reported by the Austrian daily Kurier, the right to cash payments received the most support of seven different petitions, with 530,938 Austrians signing it.
Only petitions that receive the signatures of 100,000 citizens or more can force a debate in parliament on the topic. Given the overwhelming support behind the “right to cash” petition, there may be strong pressure to move forward with an effort to secure cash payments in the country.
Unlike Greece, the U.K., Scandinavia, and the Benelux countries, cash is still king in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, which have all bucked the trend towards a cashless society. In Austria, 50 percent of all transactions are still conducted in cash, far above the European average of approximately 30 percent. Germans are also against digital transactions, with just 9 percent saying they would use mobile payments.
The effort to enshrine the right to cash payments in the country’s constitution has already been a topic for a number of years, with the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) already suggesting making a constitutional change to protect cash transactions in 2019.
Austrians may be especially sensitive to the enormous state power that would come with a completely cashless society. The academic, author, and specialist in economic psychology Erich Kirchler said that World War II still influences the thinking of Germans and Austrians regarding the dangers of giving too much power to the state.
“In that case, the efficiency of state institutions becomes dangerous,” Kirchler told AFP.
German-speaking countries place a high value on privacy, and the fact that cash payments leave a minimal trace, makes it the most secure and private means of conducting transactions.
Other countries, such as Sweden, have enacted laws to ensure society continues to have access to cash and the ability to make payments in cash. However, if Austria enshrined the right to cash payments in the constitution, it would mark the most dramatic step yet in Europe to secure cash payments in the future.
Why protect cash?
Privacy and civil rights organizations have long advocated the right to cash with the argument that privacy, civil liberties, and finical security are at stake. Abolishing cash would force citizens to conduct all transactions through a digital medium, such as mobile payments, credit cards, or digital currencies. Banks and electronic mediums remain vulnerable to hack attacks and even natural disasters, for example, if the power grid were to be knocked out. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, which is a part of the Ministry of Justice, warned in a report that a totally cashless society would be extremely vulnerable if the country were attacked or exposed to a natural disaster
For those concerned about privacy, such as those in Germany and Austria, digital payments give law enforcement and government authorities a direct window into all transactions.
Even more worrying for some, digital money could one day be linked to political and social behavior in Western countries in a social credit system, as seen in China. Already, during the “Freedom Convoy” trucker protests against Covid-19 policies in Canada, the left-wing government of Justin Trudeau took the unprecedented step of freezing the bank accounts of protesters. Although civil liberty groups decried the authoritarian action as a flagrant abuse of power, many critics worry that the action could now serve as a template to deal with protesters and dissent in the future. If dissidents and those critical of government cannot keep their money outside the digital space, then they will have nowhere to hide their finances should governments, like the one in Canada, take action against them.
The financial columnist and analyst Matthew Lynn wrote for the U.K.’s Telegraph in 2015 that the core issue for maintaining cash is the freedom it provides.
“More importantly, cash is about freedom. There are surely limits to the control over society we wish to hand over to governments and central banks? You don’t need to be a fully paid-up libertarian to question whether, in a world where we already worry about the amount of data that Facebook and Google can gather about us, we really want the banks and the state to know every single detail of what we are spending our money on and where. It is easy to surrender that freedom — but it will be a lot harder to get it back.”
On the other end of the spectrum, globalist institutions like the World Economic Forum have long lobbied for a cashless society and have routinely run articles such as “Why we should try to make cash obsolete,” “The benefits of a cashless society” and “Should cash be abolished?” Back in 2017, economist Joseph Stiglitz called for banning all paper currency in the United States, a position the WEF also positively reported on. Central banks across the world are also currently “leading the way” in the race to institute digital currencies. Although digital currencies and physical currency are expected to run in tandem for many, numerous globalist think tanks and economists are pushing for a complete phase out after an adjustment period.
The debate over cash is expected to rage on, but Austria’s case may not only demonstrate the societal challenges of abolishing cash but also the problems associated with countries giving up their national currency. Some critics point to the fact that Austria’s national currency is the euro may jeopardize the entire effort to secure cash payments. After Austria gave up its own national currency, the schilling, in 2002, it lost a considerable amount of control over its own finances. If the EU were to mandate a digital currency, Austria may be able to carve out a temporary exception, but may ultimately have little power to reject such a mandate.
