36 Years Ago, Homosexuality Had To Be Explained on TeeVee Because Many People Did Not Know That It Existed

I came across a clip that demonstrates just how intense the propagandizing and normalization of sexual perversion has been over the past few decades.  A lot of people today are young enough that they don’t remember a world in which sexual perversion was so rare, and so rightfully loathed by decent people (actually, it still is loathed by decent people – loathing sexual perversion is a requirement for human decency, it is just the number of decent people remaining that has changed), that it simply wasn’t discussed, and therefore many people simply were not aware of the sickening behaviors that are constantly displayed and glorified in every media genre, and aggressively taught in schools to children.  Yes, that’s right, YOUNG CHILDREN are being taught about sodomitical behaviors in school that just a few decades ago many people did not even know existed in the world.

This clip is from the wildly popular sit-com of the 1980s, “The Golden Girls”.  This particular episode ran in the early fall of ARSH 1986.  I remember it well. I was nine years old at the time, going on ten. 

The joke here is that Blanche confuses the words “lesbian” and “Lebanese”.  Stop and think about this.  This adult woman hears the word “lesbian” and doesn’t know what it means. 

Furthermore, the Blanche character’s main attribute was the fact that she was a wildly sexually promiscuous widow.  This wasn’t the country-bumpkin character (played by Betty White) who didn’t know the word “lesbian”, this was the uber-worldly slut, Blanche, who wasn’t quite aware of sodomy to the point of knowing the word “lesbian”… AND THIS JOKE WENT OVER WITH NO DIFFICULTY.  For a joke to be funny, there has to be at least a grain of plausibility to it.  This was plausible.

It was completely plausible 36 years ago to write a comedy scene in which a hyper-promiscuous upper middle-class widow in her mid-50s literally didn’t know what the word “lesbian” meant.

Looking back at “The Golden Girls”, it is clear that the “respectability” and implied social conservatism of the older women qua older women depicted on the show was aggressively leveraged in order to push and ratify sexual immorality and perversion of every stripe, including masturbation, sodomy and sexual self-mutilation (transsexualism).

The more I think about it, the more I settle on the idea that TeeVee went completely to hell when Don Knotts left the Andy Griffith Show. I think that can be called “the line”.  Year? ARSH 1965.  Boy, it’s almost as if something happened in the mid-1960s that caused a massive increase in the power and influence of the demonic….

Wherein Ann Paraphrases Churchill…

The Novus Ordo Church was offered a choice between heresy and schism.  It chose heresy.  It will get schism too.

Not the potato.

All it would take to end the Bergoglian Antipapacy would be a man in a position of authority, such as a Cardinal who might be the deposed Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, or something, to make the following simple press statement:

“Significant canonical irregularities have been identified with regards to the putative resignation proffered by Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013. Pending further investigation, I hereby declare a state of emergency suspense.”

32 words. Almost always in this life, the solutions to problems are so very, very simple… if only we would DO it.

Barnhardt ‘15 CMR Interview: So When Do We Start Shootin?

Here is Part 3 of my interview series from the summer of ARSH 2015 with Pat Archbold of Creative Minority Report.

Summer of ’15.

Summer. Of. ’15….

How young and naïve we were in the summer of ’15.

————————–

Pat Archbold: At what point is it legitimate to take up arms against this illegitimate government? I think that armed resistance might be legitimate as a defensive act if several states secede. Just war theory requires a reasonable chance of success? Without secession of multiple states, can armed defense be legitimate?

Alpha Bravo: Well, isn’t that the question du jour? I always snicker at Dennis Miller’s old joke that George Washington started blowing people’s heads off for taxing his breakfast beverage… and it wasn’t even coffee. First, as we discussed earlier, the whole American paradigm was and is deeply, deeply flawed and contained in itself from the beginning the seeds of its own inevitable collapse and destruction as John Adams himself was sure to point out, so we must be careful when citing the American Revolution as a positive example. But, those of us still capable of nuanced thought can tease out useful information from even a Deist-Freemasonic construct.

First, the founders of the American Republic did in fact do what I referenced as a current impossibility earlier. Namely, they FIRST established a replacement government so that there would be no absence of government, no state of anarchy. As St. Thomas teaches, it is gravely, gravely sinful to take up arms against a tyrant without first providing for a replacement government. If a people simply liquidate a tyrannical oligarchy (because there is in actuality no such thing as a pure tyranny consisting of one man – even the most powerful tyrants are still undergirded and enabled by an oligarch class) without providing for the replacement, the result of the state of anarchy will be the ascendancy of an even worse tyrant. Anarchy, by definition, enables the biggest psychopath thug to take control. Anarchy, therefore, is an always-fleeting interstitial period between a bad government and an even worse government.

The primary problem with the post-American populace is a near-unanimous unwillingness to defend itself against tyranny (!!!!! -AB ’22), and thus even contemplate or discuss the formation of a replacement government. As long as the Mickey-D’s is still slinging burgers and Cokes, and they can still watch all of their favorite agit-porn teevee shows and gaze upon this year’s popular and oh-so-lovable psychopath characters and their wacky, psychopathic hijinks, the very notion of rocking the boat, much less laying down one’s life, will engender nothing but contempt and hatred of the Jeremiahs by even the so-called “conservative right”. Believe me, I know.

But for the sake of the discussion, another problem with the former United States is the fact that the post-Christian, modernist cancer has so thoroughly metastasized. Any notion of geographical boundaries representing a sufficiently clean ideological compartmentalization is pure delusion. Every urban area will be its own discrete theater. There is no “Mason-Dixon Line”. Take Wichita, Kansas for example. One might be tempted to think that central Kansas, bordered on the south by Oklahoma, would be a “gimme”. No way. Wichita is a cesspit and stronghold of the rap/hip-hop culture, which is, of course, the Stepin Fetchit of the Washington DC regime. Every urban area is poisoned. Only the tiniest rural towns could establish a physical perimeter without sealing the enemy inside.

Beyond that, the possibility of establishing any sort of redoubt or new country by those attempting to flee is, for the first time in human history, impossible. (!!!! -AB ’22) The migration, spread and settlement of the entire planet has largely been driven by people trying to get the hell away from some other group of people. For some it was done with a handshake, for most it was done as a pure matter of survival: either go elsewhere or be killed. That is no longer possible as there is no more “unsettled land” and technology has effectively put us all in the same room. (!!!! -AB ’22) But more importantly, the forces of evil will not permit any competition. Any state secessions will be instantly crushed. The (former) US military “can’t” fight a few dozen inbred musloid retards to anything better than a draw, but rest assured that the full force and power of the American military AND economic complex would be brought to bear on any group of people that simply wanted to relocate to Montana, delink from Washington and be left the hell alone. Any sane, Christian state established anywhere on the planet would be instantly crushed, both militarily and economically, without mercy, because in the age of “tolerance”, “dialogue” and “accompanying one another, body-to-body, with tender caresses of mercy”, the jackboot stomps the face forever.

Having said all that, we return to supernatural. The Battle of Lepanto was a supernatural victory. On paper, it was suicide, and on a purely natural level would not have passed the Thomistic requirement that there be a reasonable chance of victory. But through Our Lady of the Rosary it was a decisive victory. The Battle of the Milvian Bridge was a supernatural victory. As was, in all likelihood, the Battle of Tours. St. Joan of Arc, by virtue of her very command, much less her victories, enjoyed supernatural support.

I heard it said not long ago that a group of people “with nothing to lose” must be assembled to advance the cause. I disagree. Only when people who have EVERYTHING to lose lay down their lives and sail into a battle that, like Lepanto, looks impossible on paper, will there be hope. Has that time to lose everything come? Oh, yes. Most definitely it has.

Thermonuclear for Aggressive Distribution: September ARSH 2016 article on Moderna that is one of the most damning things I have ever read.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’m going to reprint the entire article here AGAIN just to defend against it being memory-holed, but I would encourage all of you to share the source link, and even to save it as a PDF if you can.  This article proves that the toxicity of these injections was 100% known. And beyond that, as the remnant of humanity left with even a shred of moral sanity sits in abject stupefaction as a large percentage of the population continues to line right up for even more “doses” of these poison injections, it was known years and years ago and freely admitted by Moderna and other companies looking at these so-called mRNA injections that the toxicity curve increased markedly with each dose.  

As I said to the person who sent this article link to me, “Almost every sentence is a pull-quote.”  Emphases mine below in RED.  As you read this, remember that it was written in ARSH 2016, and until the CoronaScam DeathJab, Moderna had STILL not brought one single drug or therapy to market.  Not ONE.  And it is very, very clear that the Moderna CEO, Stéphane Bancel, is a textbook Diabolical Narcissist psychopath – raging and firing competent staff when experiments failed, when having experiments fail is actually the entire point of the scientific method – it’s a process of elimination. The good news there is, DN psychopaths ALWAYS overplay their hands and self-destruct. Let’s all help speed the plough of Bancel, Moderna and mRNA’s destruction, shall we? -AB


Ego, ambition, and turmoil: Inside one of biotech’s most secretive startups

By Damian Garde Sept. 13, 2016

Ego, ambition, and turmoil: Inside one of biotech’s most secretive startups

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — At first glance, Moderna Therapeutics looks like the most enviable biotech startup in the world. It has smashed fundraising records and teamed up with pharmaceutical giants as it pursues a radical plan to revolutionize medicine by transforming human cells into drug factories.

But the reality is more complicated.

A STAT investigation found that the company’s caustic work environment has for years driven away top talent and that behind its obsession with secrecy, there are signs Moderna has run into roadblocks with its most ambitious projects.

At the center of it all is Stéphane Bancel, a first-time biotech CEO with an unwavering belief that Moderna’s science will work — and that employees who don’t “live the mission” have no place in the company. Confident and intense, Bancel told STAT that Moderna’s science is on track and, when it is finally made public, that it will meet the brash goal he himself has set: The new drugs will change the world.

But interviews with more than 20 current and former employees and associates suggest Bancel has hampered progress at Moderna because of his ego, his need to assert control and his impatience with the setbacks that are an inevitable part of science. Moderna is worth more than any other private biotech in the US, and former employees said they felt that Bancel prized the company’s ever-increasing valuation, now approaching $5 billion, over its science.

As he pursued a complex and risky strategy for drug development, Bancel built a culture of recrimination at Moderna, former employees said. Failed experiments have been met with reprimands and even on-the-spot firings. They recalled abusive emails, dressings down at company meetings, exceedingly long hours, and unexplained terminations.

At least a dozen highly placed executives have quit in the past four years, including heads of finance, technology, manufacturing, and science. In just the past 12 months, respected leaders of Moderna’s cancer and rare disease programs both resigned, even though the company’s remarkable fundraising had put ample resources at their disposal. Each had been at the company less than 18 months, and the positions have yet to be filled.

Lower-ranking employees, meanwhile, said they’ve been disappointed and confused by Moderna’s pivot to less ambitious — and less transformative — treatments. Moderna has pushed off projects meant to upend the drug industry to focus first on the less daunting (and most likely, far less lucrative) field of vaccines — though it is years behind competitors in that arena.

The company has published no data supporting its vaunted technology, and it’s so secretive that some job candidates have to sign nondisclosure agreements before they come in to interview. Outside venture capitalists said Moderna has so many investors clamoring to get in that it can afford to turn away any who ask too many questions. Some small players have been given only a peek at Moderna’s data before committing millions to the company, according to people familiar with the matter.

“It’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes,” said a former Moderna scientist. “They’re running an investment firm, and then hopefully it also develops a drug that’s successful.”

Like many employees and former employees, the scientist requested anonymity because of a nondisclosure agreement. Others would not permit their names to be published out of fear that speaking candidly about big players in the industry would hurt their job prospects down the road.

Moderna just moved its first two potential treatments — both vaccines — into human trials. In keeping with the culture of secrecy, though, executives won’t say which diseases the vaccines target, and they have not listed the studies on the public federal registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. Listing is optional for Phase 1 trials, which are meant to determine if a drug is safe, but most companies voluntarily disclose their work.

Investors say it’ll be worth the wait when the company finally lifts the veil.

“We think that when the world does get to see Moderna, they’re going to see something far larger in its scope than anybody’s seen before,” said Peter Kolchinsky, whose RA Capital Management owns a stake in the company.

Bancel, meanwhile, said he is aware of the criticism of him and has taken some steps to address it. After scathing anonymous comments about Moderna’s management began showing up online, Bancel went to Silicon Valley to get tips on employee retention from the human resources departments of Facebook, Google, and Netflix. But he makes no apologies for tumult past or present, pointing to the thousands of patients who might be saved by Moderna’s technology.

“You want to be the guy who’s going to fail them? I don’t,” he said in an interview from his glassy third-floor office. “So was it an intense place? It was. And do I feel sorry about it? No.”

An ambitious CEO dreams big

Bancel, 44, had no experience running a drug development operation when one of biotech’s most successful venture capitalists tapped him to lead Moderna. He’d spent most of his career in sales and operations, not science.

But he had made no secret of his ambition.

A native of France, Bancel earned a master’s in chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota and an MBA from Harvard in 2000. As Harvard Business School classmates rushed to cash in on the dot-com boom, Bancel laid out a plan to play “chess, not checkers.”

“I was always thinking, one day, somebody will have to make a decision about me getting a CEO job,” he told an audience at his alma mater in April. “… How do I make sure I’m not the bridesmaid? How do I make sure that I’m not always the person who’s almost selected but doesn’t get the role?”

He went into sales and rose through the operational ranks at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, eventually leading the company’s Belgian operation. And in 2007, at just 34, he achieved his goal, stepping in as CEO of the French diagnostics firm bioMérieux, which employs roughly 6,000 people.

The company improved its margins under Bancel’s tenure, and he developed a reputation as a stern manager who got results, according to an equities analyst who covered bioMérieux at the time.

“He doesn’t suffer fools lightly,” the analyst said, speaking on condition of anonymity to comply with company policy. “I think if you’re underperforming, you’ll probably find yourself looking for another job.”

Bancel’s rise caught the eye of the biotech investment firm Flagship Ventures, based here in Cambridge. Flagship CEO Noubar Afeyan repeatedly tried to entice him to take over one of the firm’s many startups, Bancel said. But he rejected one prospect after another because the startups seemed too narrow in scope.

Moderna was different.

The company’s core idea was seductively simple: cut out the middleman in biotech.

“It’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes. They’re running an investment firm, and then hopefully it also develops a drug that’s successful.”

FORMER MODERNA SCIENTIST

For decades, companies have endeavored to craft better and better protein therapies, leading to new treatments for cancer, autoimmune disorders, and rare diseases. Such therapies are costly to produce and have many limitations, but they’ve given rise to a multibillion-dollar industry. The anti-inflammatory Humira, the world’s top drug at $14 billion in sales a year, is a shining example of protein therapy.

Moderna’s technology promised to subvert the whole field, creating therapeutic proteins inside the body instead of in manufacturing plants. The key: harnessing messenger RNA, or mRNA.

In nature, mRNA molecules function like recipe books, directing cellular machinery to make specific proteins. Moderna believes it can play that system to its advantage by using synthetic mRNA to compel cells to produce whichever proteins it chooses. In effect, the mRNA would turn cells into tiny drug factories.

It’s highly risky. Big pharma companies had tried similar work and abandoned it because it’s exceedingly hard to get RNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects. But if Moderna can get it to work, the process could be used to treat scores of diseases, including cancers and rare diseases that can be death sentences for children.

Bancel was intrigued. He knew it was a gamble, he told STAT, “but if I don’t do it, and it works, I’m just going to kick myself every morning.”

And so he became the company’s CEO — and soon developed an almost messianic reverence for the mRNA technology.

Despite having never worked with RNA before, Bancel said he sat around the table with his core team in the early days of the company, dreaming up experiments. As a result, he is listed as a co-inventor on more than 100 of Moderna’s early patent applications, unusual for a CEO who is not a PhD scientist.

Though he’s been here several years now, Bancel stands out in the freewheeling startup hub of Kendall Square. He prefers tailored suits over the industry’s fleece-heavy wardrobe, and he doesn’t shy away from sweeping promises that might trouble CEOs more concerned with managing expectations.

Under Bancel, Moderna has been loath to publish its work in Science or Nature, but enthusiastic to herald its potential on CNBC and CNN, taking part in segments on the world’s most disruptive companies and the potential “cure for cancer.”

Bancel lays out those grand ambitions in an accent that bends his own company’s name into something more akin to the Italian city. In conversation, Bancel has a salesman’s skill of making complex concepts seem simple, but with an earnestness that keeps his spiel from feeling like a con.

He peppers his speech with Silicon Valley buzzwords, many of which are scrawled on a giant whiteboard in his spacious office. Messenger RNA “is like software,” he explained: If it works in one disease, it should work for thousands.

Most biotech startups focus on one or two leading drug candidates at first, pushing them through human trials before turning to another target. Moderna, by contrast, has nearly 100 projects going at once. With mRNA, “you can just turn the crank and get a lot of products going into development,” Bancel explained, flashing a smile as though he himself was bemused by the idea’s simplicity.

Resignations, dismissals, and churn

From the beginning, Bancel made clear that Moderna’s science simply had to work. And that anyone who couldn’t make it work didn’t belong.

The early Moderna was a chaotic, unpredictable workplace, according to former employees. One recalls finding himself out of a job when a quick-turnaround experiment failed to pan out. Another helped train a group of new hires only to realize they were his replacements.

“There was a kind of Jack Welch-ian, ‘We fire the bottom 10 percent’ from the very beginning,” said a former Moderna manager. “That’s probably the biggest HR difference between Moderna and virtually any other biotech, where they talk so much about developing their people.”

Moderna went through two heads of chemistry in a single year, according to former employees, and its chief scientific officer and head of manufacturing left shortly thereafter. Those who fell out of favor with Bancel would find themselves excluded from key meetings, pushed aside until they resigned or ultimately got dismissed, employees said.

“You want to be the guy who’s going to fail [patients]? I don’t. So was it an intense place? It was. And do I feel sorry about it? No.”

STÉPHANE BANCEL, MODERNA CEO

Most stunning to employees was the abrupt departure of Joseph Bolen, who came aboard in 2013 to lead Moderna’s R&D efforts.

Bolen was a big-name hire in biotech circles, an experienced chief scientific officer who had guided Millennium Pharmaceuticals to FDA approval for a blockbuster cancer drug. He’d been profiled in The Scientist, which dubbed him “the people’s CSO” for his ability to keep morale high and research focused. Landing him was a coup.

But two years into his tenure at Moderna, he abruptly stepped down last October, making no public statement save for changing his LinkedIn status to “resigned.”

No scientist in his right mind would leave that job unless there was something wrong with the science or the personnel,” said a person close to the company at the time.

Insiders said Bancel had effectively pushed Bolen out, hiring parallel executives until Bolen was in charge of just “a postage stamp” worth of territory, as one former Moderna manager put it. Bolen declined to comment.

For his part, Bancel acknowledged the changes that limited Bolen’s power but insisted the parting was friendly. Bancel said he tried to convince Bolen to stay, but the scientist “voted himself off the island.”

Bolen wasn’t alone. Chief Information Officer John Reynders joined in 2013 to make Moderna what he called the world’s “first fully digital biotech,” only to step down a year later. Michael Morin, brought in to lead Moderna’s scientific efforts in cancer in 2014, lasted less than 18 months. As did Greg Licholai, hired in 2015 to direct the company’s projects in rare diseases. The latter two key leadership positions remain unfilled.

“You wonder,” influential biotech blogger Derek Lowe wrote last year, “if Moderna really is a rocket ship getting ready to launch and spray a formation of new drugs across the sky, then why are these people leaving?”

The company has a simple explanation: Moderna lives in dog years compared with other biotechs.

“We force everyone to grow with the company at unprecedented speed,” Moderna Chief Financial Officer Lorence Kim said. “Some people grow with the company; others don’t.”

Bancel is sprightly in describing the company’s future, but his tone hardens on the topic of its formative years — Moderna 1.0, as he calls it.

“The people in the 1.0 team who did not really live the mission ended up either leaving or being asked to leave because they were not accomplishing what we needed them to accomplish,” he said.

Moderna’s internal turmoil came spilling messily into public view starting in late 2012, as more than a dozen harsh critiques popped up on Glassdoor, a website that allows a company’s employees — or anyone, for that matter — to write anonymous reviews of management and workplace culture.

The posts, full of invective for company leaders, eventually came to the attention of the board. “And you’d be lying to say it didn’t affect you emotionally,” said the company’s president, Dr. Stephen Hoge, a former emergency medicine physician whose tendency for self-deprecation cuts a disarming contrast to Bancel’s intensity. “Like, what if my dad sees that?”

The company sought to improve its workplace, and Hoge said the once-high turnover rate has fallen to within industry standards, though he declined to disclose specifics.

“You wonder, if Moderna really is a rocket ship getting ready to launch and spray a formation of new drugs across the sky, then why are these people leaving?”

DEREK LOWE, BIOTECH BLOGGER

Moderna — which now offers Silicon Valley-style perks like a daily catered lunch and iPhones for all employees — has roughly doubled in size each year, meaning most of the company’s current workforce of about 450 has joined since 2013. They’re spread out among three locations, and many are siloed off from top executives. Survey data from such junior employees helped vault Moderna to Science magazine’s list of top employers of 2015.

Those who buy in are all in: Some employees speak with respect bordering on awe about Moderna’s promise, with one likening the technology to “magic.”

The two current employees put forward by the company to talk with STAT sounded a note of pride at Moderna’s reputation for driving its staff hard.

“In a way, it’s a blessing in disguise,” said Edward Miracco, a senior scientist who started at Moderna in 2014. “It separates the wheat from the chaff.”

Not everyone is cut out to work at Moderna, where “things change daily, hourly,” said Dan Brock, an associate director who joined the company in February. “Everyone who comes here already kind of gets it.”

But the recent departures and vacancies suggest that turmoil continues in the top ranks — those who most closely deal with upper management, including Bancel.

He believes in a bigger stick than carrot,” a former manager said. “Moderna has some growing up to do, no question about it.”

A gold rush for Moderna

Hoge, who joined the company in 2012, describes the early days of Moderna as “when we were living in the caves.” The company often had only enough cash to keep the lights on for six months at a time, he said. “The strategy was just to survive.”

Moderna 1.0, and life in the caves, came to a close in 2013, according to company lore.

That’s when Moderna — which had just 25 employees — signed a staggering $240 million partnership with UK pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. It was the most money pharma had ever spent on drugs that had not yet been tested in humans.

The agreement is commemorated in one of Moderna’s offices by a framed clipping from the New York Times. Page B7 of the March 21, 2013 edition: “AstraZeneca Makes a Bet On an Untested Technique.”

For AstraZeneca, the unprecedented deal came at a time of uncertainty. A series of clinical failures had led the firm to fire its head of research and lay off 1,600 scientists. Pascal Soriot, just six months into his tenure as CEO, was under pressure from investors to chart a new course. And Moderna, with its brash ambition to bring 100 drugs to clinical trials within a decade, gave Soriot a way forward.

The rich deal started a gold rush for Moderna. Everyone, it seemed, wanted in.

Before the end of 2013, Moderna would turn heads again with a $110 million investment round, followed by a high-dollar partnership with biotech giant Alexion.

In early 2015, Moderna disclosed a $450 million financing round, the largest ever for a private biotech company. This month, the company broke its own record, raising another $474 million.

The run-up was “biotech fervor to the extreme,” according to a venture capitalist not involved with the company, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. While bigger investors got to see all the company’s data from animal experiments, some of Moderna’s smaller investors put in funds based on just a peek, according to people familiar with the process. Moderna’s fundraising success had created a seller’s market: Why deal with the questions of one potential investor when it had 10 more lined up?

Afeyan, Moderna’s chairman and cofounder, insists the company’s investors have done their homework. To say they bought in without due diligence “would be a bit of an insult to these people,” he said.

“I hope they solve those challenges, because it’s not going to be good for the broader biotech industry in general if this thing implodes.”

BIOTECH INVESTOR

Though it has yet to reveal data from a single clinical trial, Moderna is now valued at $4.7 billion, according to Pitchbook.

That’s twice as much as Spark Therapeutics, the company widely expected to market the United States’s first gene therapy, which has shown signs in clinical trials that it can reverse blindness caused by a rare genetic disorder. Moderna is also worth billions more than Juno Therapeutics and Kite Pharma, startups developing novel treatments for cancer that have demonstrated promising results in early human trials.

Moderna has long shaken off rumors that it is soon to market its shares on Wall Street, with Hoge likening the company to a child star: “You don’t want to go through your adolescence publicly,” he told STAT.

But that’s about to change. Moderna’s next planned step is an initial public offering, according to a person close to the company. Bancel declined to say just when Moderna might go public, but the company has already prepared: In its latest filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Moderna changed its business structure from an LLC to a C corporation, completing a necessary step before mounting an IPO.

A strategic shift to less ambitious targets

With a public listing come required disclosures, and many are eager to see what Moderna’s been keeping under wraps all these years.

Outsiders and competitors, looking only at Moderna’s public statements, have noted a shift in strategy that might signal undisclosed setbacks.

From the start, Moderna heralded its ability to produce proteins within cells, which could open up a world of therapeutic targets unreachable by conventional drugs. The most revolutionary treatments, which could challenge the multibillion-dollar market for protein therapy, would involve repeated doses of mRNA over many years, so a patient’s body continued to produce proteins to keep disease at bay.

But Moderna’s first human trials aren’t so ambitious, focusing instead on the crowded field of vaccines, where the company has only been working since 2014.

First are the two vaccine trials for undisclosed infectious diseases. Coming next is a one-time treatment for heart failure, developed in partnership with AstraZeneca, followed by another experimental vaccine, for Zika virus, which several other pharma companies are also working to develop. And after that, Moderna is planning a human trial of a personalized cancer vaccine using mRNA, something it just came up with last year.

The choice to prioritize vaccines came as a disappointment to many in the company, according to a former manager. The plan had been to radically disrupt the biotech industry, the manager said, so “why would you start with a clinical program that has very limited upside and lots of competition?”

The answer could be the challenge of ensuring drug safety, outsiders said.

Delivery — actually getting RNA into cells — has long bedeviled the whole field. On their own, RNA molecules have a hard time reaching their targets. They work better if they’re wrapped up in a delivery mechanism, such as nanoparticles made of lipids. But those nanoparticles can lead to dangerous side effects, especially if a patient has to take repeated doses over months or years.

Novartis abandoned the related realm of RNA interference over concerns about toxicity, as did Merck and Roche.

“Now, as we’re going to human [trials], it’s pretty clear no one else is going to catch us.”

KENNETH CHIEN, SCIENTIST WHO WORKS WITH MODERNA

Moderna’s most advanced competitors, CureVac and BioNTech, have acknowledged the same challenge with mRNA. Each is principally focused on vaccines for infectious disease and cancer, which the companies believe can be attacked with just a few doses of mRNA. And each has already tested its technology on hundreds of patients.

“I would say that mRNA is better suited for diseases where treatment for short duration is sufficiently curative, so the toxicities caused by delivery materials are less likely to occur,” said Katalin Karikó, a pioneer in the field who serves as a vice president at BioNTech.

That makes vaccines the lowest hanging fruit in mRNA, said Franz-Werner Haas, CureVac’s chief corporate officer. “From our point of view, it’s obvious why [Moderna] started there,” he said.

Moderna said it prioritized vaccines because they presented the fastest path to human trials, not because of setbacks with other projects. “The notion that [Moderna] ran into difficulties isn’t borne in reality,” said Afeyan.

But this is where Moderna’s secrecy comes into play: Until there’s published data, only the company and its partners know what the data show. Everyone outside is left guessing — and, in some cases, worrying that Moderna won’t live up to its hype.

“Frankly, I hope that there’s real substance and I hope they solve those challenges, because it’s not going to be good for the broader biotech industry in general if this thing implodes,” said one investor not involved with Moderna.

And it could still go either way, former employees said. If Moderna’s promises come to fruition, it could be a pillar of the biotech industry. If they don’t, it could find a place among a short list of companies that have cast a shadow over the entire industry and left investors disillusioned.

“Either we’ll be talking about it as the next Genentech,” a former Moderna manager said, “or we’ll think, ‘Well, back then, first there was Turing, then there was Valeant, and then there was Moderna.”

Enough cash to absorb some setbacks

Moderna’s management and its investors are keeping the faith, pointing to the company’s pipeline of 11 drug candidates and more than 90 preclinical projects.

And with Moderna’s huge cash reserves — estimated at $1.5 billion — it can afford a few setbacks, proponents said. The company said it’s pouring money into its manufacturing operation, planning to spend $100 million this year on a new plant. Moderna has pioneered an automated system modeled on the software Tesla uses to manage orders, Bancel said: Scientists simply enter the protein they want a cell to express, and testable mRNA arrives within weeks.

“If we have a bump in the road in the clinic, we will not have to wait years to go back to the drawing board,” Bancel said.

That has always been part of the plan, former employees said, pointing to Bancel’s fascination with the tech industry. Uber and Amazon were not the first to come up with their respective business ideas, but they were the ones that built enough scale to ward off competition. And Moderna is positioning itself to do the same in mRNA.

“Now, as we’re going to human [trials], it’s pretty clear no one else is going to catch us,” said Dr. Kenneth Chien, a professor at Karolinska Institutet working with Moderna and AstraZeneca.

Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer, promises that the company will soon break its silence on the publishing front. He said next year Moderna will disclose the animal data that helped get its two vaccines into the clinic. The company has also committed to publishing full results from all of its human trials, starting with the vaccine studies next year.

Moderna’s reticence to share data earlier is “not because we decided to be secret,” Zaks said. “This is the natural evolution of a platform. As we go into the clinic, we will be very transparent.”

For all the tumult at Moderna these past few years, Bancel said the company remains true to its mission statement: “Deliver on the promise of mRNA science to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients.”

The message, which adorns the walls of Moderna’s offices, was first to be printed on posters, but Bancel insisted it be inscribed in paint.

“Because that,” he said, pointing to the first word, “is not ever going to change.”

The most terrifying repost I’ve ever made: The ARSH 2015 Barnhardt Interview Series with Creative Minority Report: Part 1, America is Dead

I recently had occasion to go back and re-read the interview series I did with Pat Archbold over at Creative Minority Report.  Even I was taken aback at how “well” this series is aging, and by “well” I mean TERRIFYINGLY.  Once again, events of the past year make these pieces even more horrifically prescient than they were when published (she said with dazzling, almost Bergoglian humility).  I asked if it world be okay with CMR if I reposted them here, if full.  They happily agreed.  So, here is Part 1, America is Dead, originally published on July 2, ARSH 2015.

2015. Sit in stillness with that. Think of everything that has happened in just the past seven short years. This was written in … 2015.

——————————————————————————————————————-

Pat Archbold: Over the course of the next week, a week which spans the celebration of America’s Independence Day, I will daily be publishing segments of an interview I conducted with Ann Barnhardt. For those few who may not be familiar with Ann, she is a fire-breathing dragon of truth and one of my favorite writers on the internet.

Ann and I will be discussing the United States of America, our present and our future, from our Catholic perspective. Enjoy Part 1.

PA: I am constantly telling my readers that America, the America they thought they knew, is done; that this growing unconstitutional tyranny is not reformable by elections or the electorate. I know from reading you that you came to this conclusion before I did. What convinced you and how do you convince people that this is the case?
AB: While I recognized that the Constitutional Republic was probably mortally wounded with the usurpation and installation of the Obama regime in 2008, even I held out hope that there was a possibility that the obviously foreseeable carnage the Obama regime would create would wake enough people up to drag the Nation back from the brink. I did not fully appreciate at the time the depths of the psychopathy and corruption of the political/oligarch class, the effeminacy and pathological indifference of the masses, nor did I fully understand the massively flawed and unsustainable nature of the American system itself, namely its Freemasonic foundation and the utter impossibility of a state which defines itself by its separation from the Church remaining benign, much less not descending into abject evil. In other words, I was still under the spell of the Americanist heresy, and failed to yet grasp that the State exists, first and foremost, to back up the Church. In terms of pedagogy on this point – which I think most Americans today, including most American Catholics, which let’s face it, are merely “baptized pagans” as Pope Benedict XVI put it, will formally apostatize before accepting – whatever intellectually honest remnant remains may have had its cognitive soil fertilized by the sodomite faux-marriage SCOTUS decision. Marriage is a sacrament, and the state should back up, support and facilitate marriage first in obedience and fealty to Jesus Christ the Sovereign King and His Holy Church, and second as true marriage is essential to the common social order and good.

After the 2010 mid-term elections in which the so-called Republican opposition scored a massive victory and then proceeded to give the Obama regime absolutely everything they wanted, I knew the extant political paradigm was hopelessly corrupt kabuki theater, and that is when I began discerning avenues of civil disobedience and withdrawal of consent to the regime. In late 2011 after the MF Global theft by Jon Corzine of $1.6 billion in sacrosanct segregated customer deposits, with the full cooperation of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Justice, the judiciary and the United States Congress, I knew that the Rule of Law was, in fact, dead, and that I lived no longer in a nation of laws, but a nation of men. I did not and do not consent to being ruled by a putsch regime of psychopathic oligarchs masquerading as “the United States of America”, and thus I formally and publicly withdrew my consent, publicly declared a tax strike, began liquidation of my estate in anticipation of being declared a tax “evader” and felon by the IRS, and still enjoin in the most vigorous terms that all other people of good will in the former United States do the same, now if only to reallocate as much of their extant estate as possible into defensible assets in preparation for the inevitable hot war/Christian persecution which will come to the North American landmass. (Again, this was written not today, not even last year or two years ago. This was written in ARSH 2015. -AB ’22)

It is now, of course, too late for there to be any non-violent resolution to this horrific situation, but I felt it morally incumbent upon myself to at least try to lead by example and give the final non-violent means of resistance to the Washington DC putsch regime a chance. Obviously, I failed spectacularly.

At this point, I think most people are so morally obtuse, effeminate and cowardly that there is no non-supernatural eventuality that will convince the average post-modern, post-Christian man to stand and fight. Let’s be honest. Is it realistic to expect a nation of men who can’t even be bothered to reproduce to fight and die for anything? I reckon that after the SCOTUS decisions of the past week, the lines are probably drawn, and the sort is all but complete.

If a person hasn’t figured out the situation by now, or is too cowardly to face up to it, they almost certainly, barring supernatural intervention, will die in their delusion, be it sooner or later.

-Ann Barnhardt, July 2, ARSH 2015

Mailbag Q&A: How do we know that Pope Benedict’s attempt to expand the Papacy was out-of-bounds?

Hi Ann,

I’ve been reading your site and find your writing very edifying and helpful in these difficult times we live in. Of particular interest to me is your thesis that Jorge Bergoglio is not the legitimate successor of St. Peter.

While trying to understand the arguments you make to support this thesis, it has been very interesting to read about how Pope Benedict XVI believed he could somehow expand the Papacy. (see your article here: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/06/01/hey-remember-when-ganswein-doubled-down-on-his-20-may-2016-speech-a-week-later/) As you assert in another article, I believe that the Papacy was instituted by Jesus Christ himself and is therefore immutable. https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/05/25/the-papacy-is/

Here’s my question: How do we know that Benedict XVI was in error when saying that the Papacy could not be changed in this way? What aspects of the Papacy are immutable and which ones are changeable? If any kind of ‘expansion’ is theologically possible, then would Jorge Bergoglio be a legitimate ‘participant’ in the Papacy and not an antipope? I’m asking in good faith to try to understand the argument better.

I appreciate your consideration. God bless your work. Please pray for me and for the conversion of my non-Catholic family.

-E


Great question, E! This is a cross post of a piece that NonVeni Mark actually put together several years ago which answers your question directly. -AB


GUEST POST: “The Perverse Opinions of Those Who Distort the Form of Government Established by Christ the Lord in His Church”

The following is a guest post by Mr. Mark Docherty of the NonVeniPacem Blog.

“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture are the perverse opinions of those who distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church”

Note well the two-pronged attack on error, via proper Authority and Jurisdiction, woven throughout this quote:

“We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.

“For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, “You shall be called Cephas” (John 1:42), that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, addressed these solemn words: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” (Mt 16:16-19).

“And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His Resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold, by the words: “Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17).

“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.

If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.
Pope Pius IX, PASTOR AETERNUS, 18 July 1870

What can we learn from this?

-Pio Nono was never vague or squishy

-The form of government of the Church, and the primacy of juridical and jurisdictional authority of the Church, was dictated by Christ Himself

-Since it was established by God Himself, it is immutable; not to be messed with in any way, no matter what the majority of 1960s German theologians thought HERE

-The Papacy was then, is now, and ever shall be until the consummation of the world, a Divinely Instituted Monarchy with full and universal power

-The transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors (not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church to Peter… if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)

-Yes, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a new pontiff, provided that the See is vacant (ahem, canon 359). But even if the See is indeed vacant and they validly elect a new pontiff, the papacy is bestowed upon the new pope directly by Christ Himself, not by the Cardinals, and not by the Church.

Let’s assume for a moment for the sake of argument that the 2013 “conclave and election” were valid, in the sense that Benedict’s failed partial abdication was not at issue. Let’s say the Cardinal electors followed all the rules, and voted legitimately. But the man they elected is an arch-heretic Marxist masonic non-Catholic, avowed enemy of the faith, who operates only in the material, non-supernatural realm of politics, economics, sociology, and ecology, extolling mankind to strive towards an earthly utopia as the ultimate good.

If that were to happen, is Christ really bound to confer the crown? While we have had awful, immoral, degenerate popes in the past, we have never, ever had a man like this one-world government, one-world religion poseur, squatting on the Chair of St. Peter. Never.

Think about this.

Now if the election/conclave were invalid, or in fact was not merely invalid, due to some procedural violations of UDG 81/82, but did not even take place, what would that mean? Would Christ transfer the keys to a man who was faux-elected in a faux-conclave that didn’t really take place? We are talking about ontological reality, not appearances. Sometimes appearances have nothing to do with reality, because as we learned, “An act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation” HERE.

So if someone were to tell you that “the Church” has the power to grant or deny the papal office out of some majority opinion, or even super-majority opinion, or even “Universal Acceptance,” they would go against settled doctrine, and it would mean any pope could be deposed by mob rule.

If then they say that the super-majority (it’s certainly not “universal acceptance”) didn’t directly CAUSE the “resignation” to be valid nor CAUSE the subsequent “election” to be valid, but rather they invert the premise and say that the visible existence of the super-majority, while not causal, is in fact the PROOF SET of God accepting and acting, well then they would be claiming that the will of men forces the hand of God. God has NO CHOICE, and must act in accord with mob rule.Either this, or else they would have to claim that no no no, God accepts and acts on his own, of course, but then imposes His decision onto the minds of the super-majority, overriding their individual free will, and thus forcing the result of Universal Acceptance, in some sort of divine brainwashing.

These are circular arguments within circular arguments.

Note well, canon 332.2 is not a general norm, nor some kind of obscure/arcane law, but rather deals precisely with the occasion of a pope choosing to resign, and the required conditions for the validly of the resignation. 

The majority of the Catholic world is operating as if this canon does not exist or does not matter:

Can. 332§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

This tells us that:

-A papal abdication depends upon the free and proper manifestation of the resignation itself.

-The Cardinals have no authority to “accept” said resignation – their acceptance or rejection of the resignation has zero bearing the on the ontological reality of its validity; rather, its validity depends on it being freely and properly manifested. Christ is the arbiter, and Christ has bound Himself to the Law specifically to preclude the possibility of an “unknowable chaos” and guarantee the visibility of the Church, including at its earthly head.

We also have canon 188 fully in play in this matter, as there is a mountain of evidence that Benedict intended to create, and today believes he is participating in, an “Expanded Petrine Ministry,” which would be a most colossal “substantial error:”

Can. 188. A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

So again, if someone claims that “universal acceptance” of the election by the Cardinals, or even by the whole Church, guarantees both the acceptance of the election AND the acceptance of the antecedent resignation, remind them of a couple things:

-Whatever his reasons, Pope Benedict did not resign the Munus in his Latin Declaratio

-Pope Benedict (in his mind) created, defined, and executed his future role, which should have been at the sole discretion of the new Supreme Pontiff, had one actually been elected

-“Pope Emeritus” is not a real thing, is not provided for anywhere in canon law, and is an impossibility: When a bishop retires his office and becomes an ‘emeritus’ per can. 402.1, he becomes bishop emeritus of his diocese precisely because he remains a bishop but without the office…one cannot “remain pope” without the office

Benedict demonstrates his continued pontifical duties in various ways, including writing books and granting interviews, refusing to live in seclusion, imparting “MY Apostolic Blessing”, addressed as His Holiness, continuing to sign correspondence “HHPBXVI,” wearing the papal garb (because ahem “no other clothes were available”), prevented the fisherman’s ring from being destroyed, newly minted Cardinals are brought before him for his blessing…

-Benedict testified numerous times about his belief in the indelible nature of accepting the papacy, once pope always pope, that he is not fleeing but remaining “in a new way” in the enclosure of St. Peter, to fulfill the “essential spiritual nature” of the papacy as its contemplative participant, while delegating the governance aspect to the active participant

-All of the above point to an invalid non-resignation of the Munus per can. 332.2, and by “substantial error” per can. 188, and subsequently a “conclave” and “election” in March of 2013 that never happened. This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s not crazy, it’s not schismatic. It’s the truth.

I (Mark Docherty) don’t have a degree in canon law, nor any advanced degrees of any kind. I have a diploma from a public high school and a B.S. in Food Marketing (from a Jesuit institution, no less… AMDG, y’all). But I can tell you this: Words have meaning; in the law, and in actions. That words are to be taken at face value, both in the law and in specific acts, is actually part of canon law (more to come on this). Everything presented here is done so according to the plain meaning of words, and you don’t need to be a genius to decipher it. Otherwise, it would be Gnosticism.

I’ll leave you with this little bit from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Church’s ultimate trial

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576
676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.578
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581

The Fauxp reverencing the Pope, while the Pope’s warden looks on.

Other Human Beings Matter.

“Not my circus, not my monkeys.” “Not my problem to fix.” “Above my pay grade.” “All I can do is focus on myself and my immediate household.” “If other people are scandalized, that’s their problem and their own fault.” “I can’t be arsed.” “This bores me. I’m not interested.”

This is just a sample of things you hear every day that are not only contrary to the virtue of fraternal charity, but even trying to use its inverse, the vice of indifference and acedia, as a proof of sanctity. Everything must be rooted in charity. Every soul is infinitely precious to Our Lord who knit every man together in his mother’s womb, and incarnated, suffered, died and rose again so that men might be with Him forever in the Beatific Vision. ANY blanket statement of indifference or acedia towards one’s fellow man is massively disordered. 

Our Lady, in her first trimester, underwent a long and physically arduous journey (probably on muleback) to help her elderly cousin Elizabeth then in her third trimester. Say what Our Lady said: “I have to go help.” Even with God Incarnate residing inside her womb, the ultimate paradigm of recourse, Our Lady didn’t merely pray for her cousin Elizabeth to the Infant Christ residing in her own womb, she PHYSICALLY WENT. For the love of Her Son, that is God Himself, she was filled with FRATERNAL CHARITY, that is, love for other human beings, and a desire to be of help and service at no small risk, inconvenience and discomfort (have you ever ridden a donkey?) to herself.

A very wise priest told me years ago that the number one mode of oppression that satan and the demons use in Rome which is the root of all of the wickedness in Rome, including all of the various sins against the 6th Commandment, is the vice of ACEDIA.  There is a demonic cloud of oppression parked over the city of Rome that rains down upon those living there every day and every night an acid rain of ACEDIA, pathological indifference and lovelessness – and hardly anyone in Rome is carrying a proverbial umbrella.  The Divine Office is barely prayed in Rome.  The Rosary is held in eyerolling contempt.  Adoration is sparse.  And almost every church has been physically desecrated by sodomites whose presence is UBIQUITOUS.

Acedia is the vice of indifference – to simply not care, but beyond that to NOT CARE THAT YOU DON’T CARE.  This makes perfect sense in light of our work on Diabolical Narcissism, which is the freely chosen self-purgation of charity (love) from the soul. Indifference is the opposite of love.  

This cancer of acedia is why such massive corruption and sexual perversion has been able to explode into near-ubiquitousness over the past century.  Turning a blind eye.  Declaring indifference. “Not my problem.” “I can’t be arsed.”  “I don’t care who X is having sex with. I just like being fawned over by rich, powerful people.”  

When what you are turning a blind eye to is the attempted rape and murder of the Bride of Christ, and thus the loss of countless souls, every one the beloved of Christ, the gravity of the fault goes exponential.

Beyond this, the new trend in “Trad, Inc.” is to declare indifference for Pope Benedict XVI, and rejection in the narcissistic formula, “Even if he is the Pope, I don’t WANT him back!”  Joseph Ratzinger matters.  The fact that he is the Vicar of Christ on Earth only underscores this.  The Blessed Virgin loved Peter even after he denied Our Lord and ran away from the foot of the Cross on Good Friday.  And she WOULD have received Judas Iscariot too, if he had gone to her.

Direct application to the Bergoglian Antipapacy: Other human beings matter.  Barricading yourself in your house – just “me ‘n Jesus” – washing your hands of the Bergoglian Antipapacy,  and declaring that it isn’t your problem is a lie and a cop-out. Publicly declaring and ginning up aggressive indifference to Pope Benedict XVI, and thus the Papacy itself is a species of acedia.  It is our problem, because other human beings are being scandalized unto damnation by it. Our Lady didn’t barricade herself in her house – just her and Jesus. She prayed AND acted.

Happy Feast of the Visitation.

Saint Elizabeth, pray for us.

Saint Zachariah, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Our Lady, undoer of knots, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

The Visitation, Ghirlandaio, ARSH 1491, Louvre

Mailbag: Gentleman reader sends a companion piece on dressing for the counter-Revolution

Now that we have the ladies on-side and on-the-march, here is a piece by a reader that I thoroughly recommend on dressing well:

Counter-Revolt HARDER… Why Dressing Like a Real Man is Easier (and Way Cooler) than You Realize

One distinction I would like to make: when I envision gentlemen being well-dressed again, I am NOT talking about the gay-dandy look with bright, feminine colors, and especially NOT ridiculously cut trousers, pencil thin with inseams five inches too high. I’m talking about masculine suits – waistcoat, high waist trousers, full-cut leg, inseam that breaks and rests atop the top of the shoe, and the only possible bright color being the tie and/or pocket square. Perhaps a VERY subtle pin striped or checked fabric. Masculine.

1930s

1940s

1950s