How to respond to Questions in a Genocidal Dictatorship

On the Biblical Teaching about when it is a sin and when it is a virtue
to tell the false

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We are all living under a Dictatorship, a genocidal dictatorship which has the aim of exterminating humanity. They are using the claim of a pandemic to establish the laws and medical procedures to justify killing us all. And in this process they are asking us questions to prepare us for death and kill us.

We do not have to cooperate. We can resist. And we do not have to answer their questions as they would like us to.

But how to do this as Christians is something unknown to most since except in times of gravest persecution, this Biblical teaching is rarely explained.

In my recent discussion with Rabbi Weissman I mentioned that when we are asked if we are Vaxxed, we do not have to tell the truth. We can lie.  As my response has incited trolls, I will explain what it means to lie, and when this is a sin and when it is not a sin, or even a virtue.

First, in English the word, “lie” and the verb “to lie” are ambiguous. The former can mean a false statement, or falsehood, or it can mean an intentionally deceptive statement.  The same for the verb.  For this reason the English words cross the boundaries of morality. Since something said is right or wrong, not according only to its content but also according to its intention.

So, to distinguish the moral cases we have

  • To speak the false
  • To be deceptive, mendacious, or to prevaricate

Sometimes when we say, “lie” in English we mean the first, sometimes the second. Many do not understand this or even pay attention to it.

As a translator, I am very sensitive to this problem, which does not exist in Latin, for example.

So in the above mentioned video, when I say, if you are asked whether you are vaxxed or not, to lie, I mean it in the sense of, to speak the false, and I say this for biblical reasons: because no one has the right to ask such a question and thus you have no duty before God to answer it without a mental reservation. Now if it is a friend, or friendly doctor, you can answer truthfully. But if it is a Globalist happy nutcase, policeman or other possible threatening person, you can say you are vaxxed, even if you are not. I did not explain how to say it, so here I will explain this.

If they ask if you were Vaxxed, say yes, and intend that you were vaccinated years ago for some other disease. Or say you were vaxxed, presuming you were during your last PCR swab test, on account of widely reported hidden tech in these swabs.  If they ask by which brand of Vaxx, say you cannot remember, because if you were not or were in your youth, then certainly you cannot remember.  The human imagination and creativity can always invent ways of responding to such questions. Such responses are based on what is called a mental reservation, where you intend to signify something they do not intend to understand and so are mislead or misdirected.

However, when asked before a court or civil authority, whether we believe in God or are Christians, we must answer directly, because in this case we are commanded by Our Lord, who said, “If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before My Father who is in Heaven”.  Our Enemies today want us to regard the NWO as a religion which we can never deny, and so they are trying to invert the categories of sin on the matter of telling the false, which is commonly called “lying” in English.

The case of the Vaxx is the same as the case of a mugging. If a mugger asks if you have money on you, you can say no, when you do, because you can intend that you have no money for him, or that you cannot afford to give him any. Likewise, if you son asks you in which shops they sell pornography, you have not only the duty not to respond truthfully, but you have the duty to divert his question or say the false, such as: None of them (meaning, none that I know of, or none where you can do so without grave sin). Again, in a mental asylum, there are certain persons, to whom, if you said the truth, they would become violent and harm themslves and others, so you must respond withing the reality in which they live, to keep them calm so that they eat their food, wash themselves and not harm others. If your spouse goes into wild rages of jealousy and they ask you with whom you were speaking or what you did, you can use a mental reservation, however, to keep them from sinning. None of this is being deceptive.

None of this regards how we should speak in normal discourse, that is, when we are not asked a threatening question by an untrustworthy person. In all other cases we are gravely obliged to tell the truth and never to use a mental reservation, unless of course those to whom we are talking are not capable yet of accepting the whole truth, because they labor under some grave vice. We must love the truth, because each truth has God as its Exemplar and Author. We should never be mendacious or prevaricate and we should not deceive others. And thus, you cannot morally use mental reservations, for example in matters of religion, commerce, contracts, promises, testimonies etc.. However in a dictatorship you can use it with the police, law courts, etc., if it regards something other than professing Jesus the Lord and His teachings.

So to sum up: Yes, it is a mortal sin to intentionally give an answer which is contrary to what you know to be the truth, WHEN you are obliged to tell the truth to a person who has the right to know the truth. This is strictly speaking the only proper sense of the word, “lie”, when it is say that “lying is a sin”. However, the common use of “to lie” in English does not have all these qualities.  And that is why I said “to lie” in response to such questions as the NWO Gestapo might propose to you.

The problem for non-Catholics who claim to be Christian is that they tend to believe that the Bible was written in a Western Language, and in the English speaking world, that it was written in English. So when they see the word “lie” in Scripture, they distort the teaching of scripture according to their distorted or wrong understanding of the word, “to lie”, since in English we use this word to mean “to speak the false” or “to deceive”.  Whereas the Commandment of God, “Though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is linguistically structured by the Holy Spirit to avoid this kind of manipulation.

This is why, what I have just expounded is the correct understanding of the following passages, which in English are often mistranslated with the ambiguous word, “lie”:

Proverbs 12:22: The actual reading here is not “lying”, but mendacious, which means deceptive, not telling the false.

Hebrews 6:18: The actual reading is not “to lie”, but “to speak falsely, to deceive, to be mendacious, to praevaricate” .

Proverbs 19:9: Here again, the word is not “lies”, but “deceptions” or “mendacities”

Ephesians 4:25: This is said in reference to other Christians who are worthy of trust and merit a true response.

Colossians 3:9: This is said also in regard to Christians. And the word is not “to lie”, but “to deceive or be mendacious”.

Because of this teaching the Fathers of the Church debated whether Abraham told Sarah to “lie” when he instructed Sarah to say that she was his sister (the Hebrew word here means, “sister”, by one or the same parents) not his wife (Genesis 12:11-13).  The case is exactly that which I have discussed above. Those asking him intended to murder him if he was the husband, but on account of this way of responding to his question they might only fornicate with his wife, and not murder him, which would have been a letter sin. Abraham told her to say the false, but he did not lie, that, is, he was not deceptive or mendacious. He said the truth in regard to a question which was not asked (Is this woman your relative?), but those asking their question would have convicted him of lying or being deceptive. In truth they deceived themselves by assuming he meant what they wanted him to say and mean. And he did not. What he said did not harm them, rather it prevented them from committing the greater sin, and thus was moved by charity. It is with the same motive we should tell the false to the Gestapo of the NWO when they ask if we are Vaxxed.

FOOTNOTE: Some Protestants, who call Jesus a liar by refusing to believe Him, when He declared to Simon Peter, “You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against Her”, have a psychological need to fault us Catholics as liars — it’s call projection — to justify their separation from the Church Christ founded upon Peter (of whom the Roman Pontiff Benedict is the unique successor) and their opposition to the will of Jesus Christ as regards one Church which has existed from the beginning and ever been called the Catholic Church. And so, it is not infrequent that they attack us Catholics on the point of lying or the use of mental reservations, since as in most things, they deny the meaning of Scripture while exalting themselves as its perfect practitioners and thus fall condemned under the commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.

12 thoughts on “How to respond to Questions in a Genocidal Dictatorship”

  1. Thanks for this clarification, Brother. Sadly, regarding the portion: “WHEN you are obliged to tell the truth to a person who has the right to know the truth”

    I think I can foresee someone making the case that the authorities and their agents have the right to know the truth (some use Jn 19:11 to justify this), ergo to give them false information is a mortal sin.

    1. Since a Dictatorship intent on genocide is not a legitimate government, they are no authority whatsoever, since there is no authority apart from justice.

  2. It’s a lot simpler than that, The Catechism addresses this issue directly, and indirectly under the topic of self defense, if a needle is a weapon. There are definitely authoritative situations where police and others try to destroy our lives with falsehoods. If we are attacked by people who are perfectly comfortable using falsehoods and lies against us there’s no such thing as truthful discourse; they will twist and manipulate everything in their favor no matter what. Remember Jesus remained silent in the end. It may come to that at some point if all else fails. We are dealing with a situation here in the US where the Supreme Court has failed us, the courts have largely failed us, and so have most of our attorneys.

      1. If I’m not mistaken, in Gen. 26:7 Isaac (Jacob) claims Rebecca is his sister, for the same good reason as Abraham claimed Sarah as his sister.

  3. Br. Alexis. While I greatly appreciate your explanation, I find part of it rather perplexing.

    You have recently expressed the view that it is acceptable to rob a shop in order to steal food, should the “vax passports” make the buying of food legally impossible.

    You have also suggested in the past that people should arm themselves, wherever possible, for the purpose of self-defence. This is in line with the Christian notion that proportionate self defence is permitted, even where it may result in the death of the opponent/aggressor. Joan above has also expounded on this matter.

    In this post, you mention that we are facing “genocidal dictatorship which has the aim of exterminating humanity”. That’s clearly no joking matter. You and I are therefore both potential victims of a lethal attack upon ourselves.

    So my question is: what is a proportinate response when faced with the potential threat of lethal force? If I am permitted, under the rubric of proportinality, to bring a gun to a gunfight and a knife to a knife fight, it is reasonable (or proportionate) to have to resort to “clever” or “lawyerly” lies (eg “I am not having sex with that woman”) when the other side will have no such self-imposed restraints?

    1. You must live in a country where it is legal to own a gun or carry a knife and where everyone is capable of taking down the 2 armed policemen in front of them. Mist places are not like that.

      1. Commenting on the legality, or practicality, of carrying a gun or knife is rather missing the point, is it not? If a dictatorship that wishes to kill us legislates that we should all take a lethal poison, we are entitled to ignore and/or actively resist that law. That it is not yet mandatory in most countries is probably just a question of time.

        My question was: what is a proportinate response when faced with the potential threat of lethal force? In the context of your article, what is an acceptable lie when facing a lethal threat?

      2. Vincent, my article does not regard your topic, which is entirely different. It presupposes occasions in which the one being questioned has no arms and no recourse to arms and is in a highly vulnerable situation even if it is not a formal threat. Many of our neighbors are in their own minds already deputized Gestapo, and so we must be prudent. I will perhaps write an article to answer you question in the near future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.