Do You Hear the People Sing in 2025?

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?
Courfeyrac:
Then join in the fight
That will give you the right to be free!

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Will you give all you can give
So that our banner may advance
Some will fall and some will live
Will you stand up and take your chance?
The blood of the martyrs
Will water the meadows of France!

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Les Miserables--Do you hear the people sing?

Do you hear the people sing?

Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables was condemned by the Catholic Church in 1814, a condemnation that was lifted a year after the Rosicrucian Mason and Sillonist named Angelo Roncalli became the first in the current line of usurpers of the Throne of Saint Peter. The lyrics from the long-running musical adaptation of the novel that ran on Broadway for seventeen years speak of triumph of the rights of man in the years between 1815 and 1832 in the aftermath of the French Revolution, and it is the diabolical, Judeo-Masonic spirit of that anti-Theistic revolution that inspire what passes for electoral politics in the so-called “civilized world” today.

The French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is still recognized by the preamble of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic of France (adopted fifty years ago this year), helped, along with the American Declaration of Independence, which is a religiously indifferentist document that refers to God in generic, Judeo-Masonic terms, to enshrine the "reign of man" as the ultimate replacement for the Social Reign of Christ the King. Certainly, as has been noted on this site on many occasions, the Protestant Revolt against the Divine Plan that God Himself had instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church helped to pave the way for this revolutionary "reign of man."

The twin revolutions of 1776 and 1789 (and the subsequent French Revolutions of 1830, 1848, and 1871), however, helped to institutionalize the triumph of the false concept of the "sovereignty of the people" over that of Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church. Naturalism and anti-Theism have been the logical consequences of these anthropocentric revolutions, and there is no "electoral" way by which the evil effects of these revolutions is going to be reversed.

Father Denis Fahey, writing in his The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, explained that we cannot be neutral in the battle between the reign of man and the Social Reign of Christ the King:

We can thus easily see that the entrance of Christianity into the world has meant two things. Primarily and principally, it has meant the constitution of a supernatural society, the Mystical Body of Christ, absolutely transcending every natural development of culture and civilisation. Secondly, it has had as result that this supernatural society, the Catholic Church, began to exercise a profound influence upon culture and civilisation and modified in a far-reaching way the existing temporal or natural social order. The indirect power of the Church over temporal affairs, whenever the interests of the divine life of souls are involved, presupposes, of course, a clear distinction of nature between the ecclesiastical authority, charged with the care of divine things, and the civil authority, whose mission is concerned with purely temporal matters. In proportion as the Mystical Body of Christ was accepted by mankind, political and economic thought and action began to respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church, endowed, as she is, with the right of intervention in temporal affairs whenever necessary, because of her participation in the spiritual kingship of Christ. Thus the natural or temporal common good of states came to be sought in a manner calculated to favour the development of true personality, in and through the Mystical Body of Christ, and social life came more and more under the influence of the supreme end of man, the vision of God in the three divine Persons.

Accordingly, the divine plan for order in our fallen and redeemed world comprises, primarily, the supernatural social organism of the Catholic Church, and then, secondarily, the temporal or natural social order resulting from the influence of Catholic doctrine on politics and economics and from the embodiment of that influence in social institutions. From the birth of the Catholic Church on Calvary and the solemn promulgation of her mission at the first Pentecost, the Kingdom of God in its essence has been present in the world. As a result of the gradual acceptance of the role of the Church by the temporal representatives of Christ the King, the social institutions of states and nations became deeply permeated with the influence of the supernatural life of Christ. Then, and only then, could the Kingdom of God in its integrity or the rule of Christ the King in its integrity, be said to exist. The Kingdom of God or the rule of Christ the King is present in its integrity only in so far as the whole social life of states, political and economic, is permeated with the influence of the Church. To put it in other terms, Christ fully reigns only when the programme for which He died is accepted as the one true way to peace and order in the world, and social structures in harmony with it are evolved.

The Kingdom of God in its essence is always with us, but the influence of the Church on politics and economics, in other words, the extension of the Kingdom of God in its integrity, has varied with the centuries. Broadly speaking, the thirteenth century has been, so far, the high water mark of that influence. Since then, until recently, there has been steady decay. No particular temporal social order, of course, will ever realise all that the Church is capable of giving to the world. Each of them will be defective for several reasons.

First of all, the action of the Church, welcomed by some Catholics, will be opposed by the ignorance, incapacity and perversity of others.

Secondly, even if all Catholics did accept fully, they could only reflect some of the beauty of the Gospel as the saints reflected some of the infinitely imitable holiness of Christ.

Thirdly, there would still remain the vast number of non-Catholics to be won for Christ and have their social life organised under His rule. It is towards this latter goal that every generation of Catholics is called upon to work. The aim is not, needless to say, to bring back the Middle Ages, for the river of time does not turn back in its course, but the aim is to impregnate a new epoch with the divine principles of order so firmly grasped in the thirteenth century. The result of the so-called Reformation and the French Revolution has been to obscure the rights of God proclaimed by our Lord Jesus Christ and to diffuse naturalism.

Naturalism consists in the negation of the possibility of the elevation of our nature to the supernatural life and order, or more radically still, in the negation of the very existence of that life and order. In our day owing to the progress of the anti-Christian revolt, the more radical meaning has become common. Naturalism may be defined therefore as the attitude of mind which denies the reality of the divine life of grace and of our Fall therefrom by original sin. It rejects our consequent liability to revolt against the order of the divine life, when this life has been restored to us by our membership of Christ, and maintains that all social life should be organized on the basis of that denial. We must combat that mentality and proclaim the rights of God.

In his Encyclical letter on Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII teaches authoritatively: “From what we have already set forth, it is indisputably evident that their [the Freemasons’] ultimate aim is to uproot completely the whole religious and political order of the world, which has been brought into existence by Christianity, and to replace it by another in harmony with their way of thinking. This will mean that the foundation and the laws of the new structure of society will be drawn from pure naturalism.” Now, it is historically certain that the Declaration of the Rights of Man had been conceived and elaborated in the Masonic lodges before it was presented to the States-General of France. Accordingly, the infamous Declaration, a naturalistic or anti-supernatural document, is in reality a declaration of war on membership of Christ and on the whole structure of society based on that supernatural dignity. The same naturalistic hostility to membership of Christ and the supernatural life of grace runs through all the documents concerning human rights drawn up under the influence of the organised forces that were responsible for the Declaration of 1789. That is the real struggle going on in the world, and in it every member of Christ is called upon to play his or her part. There can be no neutrality. “He that is not with me is against me.” (St. Matthew XII, 30.) (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)

In other words, it is not possible to retard social evils by naturalistic means. Evils are the only thing that result from naturalism. In other words, it is not possible to retard social evils by naturalistic means. Evils are the only thing that result from naturalism. To refuse to be informed about these facts and/or to be indifferent about them is be more than "neutral" in the struggle that Judeo-Masonic naturalism is waging against the Social Reign of Christ the King. It is to take naturalism's side in this struggle, which means to take the side of the devil himself.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, specifically and categorically rejected the diabolical falsehood of the "sovereignty of the people:"

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.  (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) 

Yes, the madness of the universal franchise, as Pope Pius IX termed it in an allocution in 1874, arrogates unto the people what belongs to Christ the King. The "people" come to believe in a governmental system based on false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles that "they" get decide the inherent morality of human actions by means of their legislative bodies and/or by means of direct plebiscites (votes of the "people" on ballot propositions--initiatives and referenda--that become the civil law once approved in a general or special election). This is one of the major consequences of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the triumph, albeit temporary, of the reign of the devil by means of the "reign of man" wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry.

It is curious, though, that the so-called “civilized world” is seeing acts of random and planned violence that would have shocked the consciences of even the Huns.

Indeed, a recent poll survey explained that a third of young people believe that violence against political opponents is fully justified in “some circumstances” and, overall, fully a quarter of the American public believes in justifiable violence against political opponents:

A significant portion of young Americans believe there are cases when political violence is acceptable, according to a troubling survey released Monday. 

More than one-third of Americans under the age of 45 agreed with the view that political violence can be justified, in certain cases, the Politico/Public First poll found. 

The portion of young people who think political violence sometimes has a place in society was about 10 percentage points higher than the overall population, of which, disturbingly, 24% believe it is justified in some instances. 

Politico did not release the crosstabs of the survey, but said “there was little partisan divide” in the question about condoning political violence. 

Most voters, 64%, rejected political violence and indicated that it is never justified. 

The survey of 2,051 US adults was conducted between Oct. 18 and Oct. 21, just over a month after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and roughly four months after the assassination of former Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband.

The shocking poll also comes after President Trump survived two assassination attempts during his 2024 campaign and the official residence of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was set on fire with the Democrat and his family inside in April.

“What’s happening is public support for political violence is growing in the mainstream, it’s not a fringe thing, and the more it grows, the more it seems acceptable to volatile people,” Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor, said of the poll’s findings. 

Despite younger voters being more OK with some political violence, fewer felt it was likely to increase, compared to older voters.
Among voters between the ages of 18 and 34, about half – 49% – expected political violence in the US to increase. 

By comparison, 61% of voters over the age of 55 anticipated a rise in political violence. 

However, overall, Americans broadly expect a rise in politically-motivated violence, with 55% responding that they anticipate it will increase. (More than 33% of young Americans believe political violence can be justified: poll.)

Yes, do you hear the people sing in 2025?

Consider the fact that voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia overwhelmingly elected a man named Jay Jones, a pro-death, pro-sodomite member of the organized crime family of naturalism of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” to be the commonwealth’s Attorney General despite the fact that he had posted his wish that a political opponent get two bullets in his head and to see the man’s children dead:

Jay Jones, D, 1,764,970, 52.8%

Jason Miyares, Incumbent, R, 1,562,922, 46.8%

Write-ins, 113,462, 0.4%

Total, 3,341,354 (Virginia Attorney General Election 2025 Results: Jay Jones Wins    .)

Democrat Jay Jones will win the Virginia attorney general's race, CBS News projects, surviving a scandal that arose late in the race over violent text messages he had written in 2022 about a Republican legislator. 

Jones defeated GOP incumbent Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, who had tried to seize on the resurfaced text messages to portray him as unfit for the office. But Miyares, who was backed by President Trump, was confronted by the headwinds of the federal shutdown and the president's government cuts in a state with high numbers of government workers — over 147,000 — according to Office of Personnel Management data.

In his sole debate against Miyares, Jones apologized multiple times for the texts, but maintained Miyares' connections to Mr. Trump were worse. 

Jones resisted calls from Republicans to drop out after the text message scandal.

Although Jones was denounced by the Democrats' nominee for governor, Abigail Spanberger, who also won on Tuesday night, over the text messages, he was part of the Democrats' closing rally over the weekend with former President Barack Obama. 

In the text messages, Jones wrote that he would "piss on graves" of GOP opponents and mused about a fantasy hypothetical shooting of Republican Todd Gilbert, who was then speaker of the House of Delegates. In a statement to CBS News at the time, Jones said he took full responsibility for his actions and apologized for the texts. 

Jones had been leading the race according to a Washington Post poll in early October, but before the poll was released, the text messages resurfaced. 

Miyares had seized on the texts, too, running ads saying, "Can you trust Jay Jones to protect your children?"

Miyares was elected in 2021 as part of the red wave in Virginia that swept Gov. Glenn Youngkin into office. As attorney general, Miyares brought lawsuits  against the Biden administration, but has so far only joined one lawsuit against the Trump administration. Jones during the primary campaign vowed he'd sue the Trump administration "into oblivion" on his first day in office. (Democrat Jay Jones wins Virginia attorney general's race despite text message scandal.)

It was only a matter of time before someone like Jay Jones could survive politically despite desiring the death of his political opponents and their children as it is a short step from supporting the destruction of the innocent preborn in their mothers’ wombs by chemical and surgical means to wishing the destruction of hated opponents. Those who do not see the Divine impress in the preborn by defying the Fifth Commandment’s clear prohibition of willful murder must wind up refusing to see that Divine impress in others as anyone who supports willful murder has given his soul over to the adversary to a greater or lesser extent and thus is filled with the adversary’s hatred for God and His rational creatures even though they themselves may be entirely unaware of this in the subjective order of things. Virginians also elected a militant pro-abort, Abigail Spanberger, to be the next Governor of Virginia, and this poor soul believes in the killing of babies and the “right to die” without any restrictions and waffled when asked about a school district in Centreville, Virginia, was exposed for helping teenaged students to kill their babies with taxpayer funds without notifying their parents.

Here is a report from three years ago about the matter:

Bombshell allegations that public school staff arranged secret, taxpayer-funded abortions for minors without informing parents and a newly surfaced video of Abigail Spanberger endorsing assisted suicide are pulling the mask off the Democrat gubernatorial nominee’s “moderate” persona in the final weeks of the Virginia governor’s race.

As first reported by investigative journalist Walter Curt earlier this month, officials at Centreville High School in Fairfax County, Virginia, allegedly facilitated and paid for abortions for at least two underage girls without informing their parents.

One student, then 17, was taken to Fairfax Healthcare Center by school social worker Carolina Díaz, who scheduled the appointment, paid the bill, and told her to keep it secret. The second girl, five months pregnant, says Díaz told her she “had no choice” but to abort her unborn child. The minor then fled the clinic instead, and her family never knew.

Principal Chad Lehman allegedly knew about both incidents but did nothing. Virginia law requires parental notification before a minor undergoes a serious medical procedure like an abortion unless a judge grants a bypass. Curt found no bypasses in either case – indicating that, if the allegations are indeed true, school officials could face civil and criminal liability.

Mrs. Zenaida Perez, a teacher who went on the record on the story, said administrators tried to silence her after one of the girls confided in her. “The girl never wanted that abortion, and her family was never told,” Perez said.

WJLA/7News reached out to Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) about the claims. The district said it had only learned of the “concerning allegations from 2021” the previous day and was “launching an immediate and comprehensive investigation.” When asked whether FCPS staff had ever arranged abortions for students, officials responded, “Not to our knowledge.”

A recording later released by Curt, however, shows Perez telling an FCPS investigator about the allegations months earlier, directly contradicting the district’s claim that it had just learned of them.

On Wednesday, Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin directed the Virginia State Police to launch a full criminal investigation into the allegations, citing concerns that school officials “arranged for minors to get abortions without parental consent and may have misused public funds to pay for them.”

The story has now also become a major issue in the Virginia governor’s race with Election Day just a few months away on November 4. During a live TV interview, Spanberger awkwardly dodged a question about whether parents have a right to know if their minor daughter is undergoing an abortion. Rather than answer the question, she launched into a rambling defense of a constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion access.

“I think it is important that we have a constitutional guarantee of access to abortion,” Spanberger said. “Notably the constitutional amendment that is going through the process here in Virginia is similar, almost identical, to what has passed in states like Michigan and Ohio and other states. Very mixed political states, uh, where the issue of, and the question of abortion is a very politically charged one.” Critics were quick to slam Spanberger for her non-answer and for her support for late-term abortion-on-demand.

The amendment to which Spanberger is referring would change the state constitution to guarantee abortion rights for “every individual,” with virtually no restrictions, including in the third trimester of pregnancy. While the amendment says the Commonwealth may regulate third-trimester abortions, in no circumstance can it prohibit one if a doctor deems it necessary to protect the pregnant female’s life or health, or if the fetus is deemed not viable. Because “health” includes mental health and is left entirely to a physician’s discretion, a provider could authorize an abortion at any stage of pregnancy if he or she states that continuing the pregnancy could affect a patient’s mental well-being.

This effectively permits abortion through all three trimesters for both minors and adults. Once such language is in a state constitution, it becomes the highest law in Virginia and overrides any conflicting statute — meaning parental consent and notification laws could be struck down immediately.

Lt. Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, the Republican nominee for governor this year, has seized on Spanberger’s waffling to draw a clear contrast between herself and her Democrat opponent.

While Spanberger refused to condemn schools facilitating abortions without parental consent, Sears slammed FCPS in a statement, calling it “abhorrent” that the school “provided minors with access to abortion services without any parental knowledge or consent.” Sears has also been unequivocal in pledging to defend life and strengthen parental consent laws so no mother or father is ever blindsided by a secret procedure on their child.

As if this one scandal weren’t bad enough for Spanberger, just days after it broke another video began making the rounds online showing her backing the legalization of assisted suicide in Virginia and saying she would force doctors to participate, regardless of their moral or religious convictions.

“I support and I would support legislation that legalizes the right to die,” Spanberger states in the video, aligning herself with the global assisted suicide movement that has drawn intense backlash in recent years for pressuring veterans with PTSD and physically healthy individuals with psychological disorders to kill themselves, as AMAC Newsline has chronicled.

In Canada, which has one of the most extreme assisted suicide laws in the world, the practice now accounts for one in 20 deaths. According to government data, more than 600 Canadians whose deaths were not deemed “reasonably foreseeable” (as the law stipulates) were euthanized last year.

In some cases, veterans with PTSD have been pressured to take lethal injections in place of treatment, offering a chilling glimpse of where such policies can lead. “Offering MAID is like throwing a cinder block instead of a life preserver,” Canadian veteran Mark Meincke told reporters.

Perhaps even more outrageously, Spanberger said during the same video that doctors should be forced to administer abortions and physician-assisted suicide even if it violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.

“I oppose the ability of religious institutions to put their religious-based ideas on individuals and their health care choices and options,” Spanberger states. “I do not believe that people should have the option to allow their own personal belief to dictate the type of medical care that they are providing their patients.”

Each of these stories in isolation is enough to cause Spanberger’s carefully constructed “moderate” persona to crumble. Together, they completely destroy all notion that Spanberger is not every bit as radical as the most far-left Democrat in New York or California. These are not the positions of a “common-sense soccer mom,” as her campaign branding suggests. It is the record of a deeply entrenched progressive who supports abortion on demand without limits, taxpayer funding for abortion providers, and the legalization of assisted suicide.

As conservative radio host Kerry Dougherty put it in a post on X, “Spanberger is part of a death cult. She would force Catholic hospitals to euthanize patients and provide abortions. Evil.”

Virginia elections are often decided by suburban parents and independent voters — the same coalition that put Glenn Youngkin in the governor’s mansion in 2021 on a wave of parental rights fury. With the Fairfax scandal, Spanberger’s evasions, and her on-camera support for assisted suicide, Republicans have an opening to run that playbook again.

This race isn’t just red versus blue. It’s Virginia’s chance to defend life and parental authority, or surrender both to a radical agenda. Spanberger’s record leaves no mystery: she’s chosen the latter. (Abigail Spanberger Abortion Scandal Rocks Virginia Governor Race.)

The young graduate from Hillsdale College who wrote the report above does not as yet understand that the “people” in the “blue states” long ago made their peace with the slaughter of innocent children and that Virginia, thirty percent of whose population lives in the greater Washington, District of Columbia area, long ago made their peace with baby-killing and do not consider child butchery to wrong and who actively support candidates for publiandc office who facilitate this genocide. The election results on November 4, 2025, bear this out:

Abigail Spanberger (Dem)57.2%1,923,605

Winsome Earle-Sears (GOP)42.6%1,434,833

Other candidates0.2%6,711 (2025 Election Results: Live.)

The people of Virginia have “sung.”

As I tried to explain a year ago after the election of President Donald John Trump to a second, nonconsecutive term as President of the United States of America, election results one year have come to mean nothing as predictors of the future, and while it is certainly true that the states where important elections were held this year have electorates that have long supported the pro-death, pro-sodomite statist crowd in the false opposite of the naturalist “left,” it is also true that the “people” nationally are discomfited by the president’s impositions of tariffs, which violate Congressional law and will likely be struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and by the president’s continued of grandiose language to describe himself and his policy “successes.”

The “people” next year are likely to make the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” the majority in both houses of the Congress of the United States of America, replacing the always hapless Republicans, and that will be followed by the bread and circuses of more presidential impeachment proceedings and Congressional inquiries into the Trump administration.

This is all a farce, and I have been explaining this farcical nature of American electoral politics for decades now, not that that matters, obviously.

Similarly, another pro-abort, pro-sodomite statist, Rebecca Michelle Sherrill Hedberg, who, just by and by, yet another of the legion of Catholics in public life who maintain their “good standing” within the conciliar structures, won an even more decisive victory in the Garden State of New Jersey on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, the Feast of Saint Charles Borromeo:

Mikie Sherrill (Dem)56.5%1,830,620

Jack Ciattarelli (GOP)43.0%1,392,697

Other candidates0.6%19,246 (2025 Election Results: Live.)

Yes, the people of New Jersey have sung and have made Rebecca Michelle Sherrill Hedberg their next governor, thus preserving baby-killing, high taxation, and excessive regulations fully “safe and legal”—but hardly rare—in the nation’s most densely populated state per square mile.

Across the Hudson River, though, a political earthquake reflecting decades of very effective promotion of socialism throughout the five boroughs of the City of New York resulted in the election of an avowed Marxist-Leninist socialist of the Democratic Socialists of America, the Ugandan-born Mohammedan named Zohran Mamdami, as Mayor of the City of New York. Running on the Democratic Party line and cross-endorsed by the Working Families Party, Mamdani won a majority of votes by defeating Figlio di Sfachim, Andrew Mark Cuomo, the pro-abort, pro-sodomite cad who consigned thousands of elderly New Yorkers to death in 2020 by using nursing homes to treat those infected with SARS-CoV-2, a who was even more arrogant and more thuggish than his late pro-abortion, pro-sodomite demagogue of a father, Mario Matthew Cuomo (see It Is Still A Terrible Thing to Fall into the Hands of the Living God), and Guardian Angels vigilante group founder Curtis Sliwa:

Zohran Mamdani (Dem)50.4%1,036,051

Andrew Cuomo (Ind)41.6%854,995

Curtis Sliwa (GOP)7.1%146,137 (2025 Election Results: Live.)

Mamadani, who is thirty-four years old and proposes to have the all “solutions” income inequity and “social justice,” including sending social workers instead of the police to respond to some 911 emergency calls, is a true social revolutionary who is intent on turning the City of New York into a dystopian experiment in socialism and social censorship more than it has ever been previously.

Alas, as Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn noted at Harvard University on June 8, 1978, the errors of Western pluralism must inevitably result in the triumph of Marxism:

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that "communism is naturalized humanism.'     

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. (This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.   

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism's crimes. When they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them. In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)  

Solzhenitsyn, who is should be pointed out, was a Russian nationalist and thus had a bias against the Catholic Church and her teaching authority, especially as pertains to Papal Primacy and to her constant condemnation of contraception, which he, Solzhenitsyn supported in the name of “population control,” explained forty-one years that his condemnation of socialism did not mean that he could recommend the Western culture of consumerism and materialism as the model for his own country should Communism end there (as it supposedly did on December 25, 1992, as the flag of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was lowered and the tri-color flag of Russia was raised up a flagpole in its place):

But should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society in its present state as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through intense suffering our country has now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just mentioned are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger -- 60 years for our people and 30 years for the people of Eastern Europe. During that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. Life's complexity and mortal weight have produced stronger, deeper, and more interesting characters than those generally [produced] by standardized Western well-being.

Therefore, if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores. It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering of many years of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today's mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.

There are meaningful warnings which history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their offensive; you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?  (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart, June 8, 1978, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts .)

The Nobel Laureate gave this address nearly eleven months after riots had broken out in the Borough of Brooklyn in the City of New York, New York, when the inept utility company, Consolidated Edison, suffered an outage at a power plant in Astoria in the Borough of Queens on Wednesday, July 13, 1977. Solzhenitsyn was saying in his address, in effect, that Americans are in trouble if the only thing keeping the masses from rioting and looting is Consolidated Edison, known colloquially in New York and environs as “Con Ed.”

Neither liberalism nor its variants nor socialism and its variants are the foundation of social order. Catholicism, though not a guarantor of order given the vagaries of fallen human nature, is alone the only means that can provide men and their nations with the foundation for a just social order.

Professor George O'Brien, cited in Father Fahey's The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, summarized his judgment about the effects of Protestantism upon the contemporary world in An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation (IHS Press, Norfolk, Virginia, 2003): 

The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation. 

We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs. 

The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice. 

The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted  in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality.  Dr. George O’Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation, IHS Press, Norfolk, Virginia, 2003.) 

Zohran Mamdani  “squad” in his compatriots around the world, including Aleandra Ocasio-Cortez, who is going to have significant support for the 2028 Democratic Party presidential nomination if she chooses to seek it, are but the products of a false conflict between different sides of the same anti-Incarnational, naturalistic and Pelagian coin, something that was touched upon by Father Edward Leen, S.J., in The Holy Ghost:

A shudder of apprehension is traversing the world which still retains its loyalty to Jesus expressing Himself through the authority of His Church. That apprehension has not its sole cause the sight of the horrors that the world has witnessed in recent years in both hemispheres. Many Christians are beginning to feel that perhaps all may not be right with themselves. There is solid reason for this fear. The contemplation of the complete and reasoned abandonment of all hitherto accepted human values that has taken place in Russia and is taking place elsewhere, causes a good deal of anxious soul-searching. It is beginning to be dimly perceived that in social life, as it is lived, even in countries that have not as yet definitely broken with Christianity, there lie all the possibilities of what has become actual in Bolshevism. A considerable body of Christians, untrained in the Christian philosophy of life, are allowing themselves to absorb principles which undermine the constructions of Christian thought. They do not realise how much dangerous it is for Christianity to exist in an atmosphere of Naturalism than to be exposed to positive persecution. In the old days of the Roman Empire those who enrolled themselves under the standard of Christ saw, with logical clearness, that they had perforce to cut themselves adrift from the social life of the world in which they lived--from its tastes, practices and amusements. The line of demarcation between pagan and Christian life was sharp, clearly defined and obvious. Modern Christians have not been so favorably situated. As has been stated already, the framework of the Christian social organisation has as yet survived. This organisation is, to outward appearances, so solid and imposing that it is easy to be blind to the truth that the soul had gradually gone out of it. Under the shelter and utilising the resources of the organisation of life created by Christianity, customs, ways of conduct, habits of thought, have crept in, more completely perhaps, at variance with the spirit of Christianity than even the ways and manners of pagan Rome.

This infiltration of post-Christian paganism has been steady but slow, and at each stage is imperceptible. The Christian of to-day thinks that he is living in what is to all intents and purposes a Christian civilisation. Without misgivings he follows the current of social life around him. His amusements, his pleasures, his pursuits, his games, his books, his papers, his social and political ideas are of much the same kind as are those of the people with whom he mingles, and who may not have a vestige of a Christian principle left in their minds. He differs merely from them in that he holds to certain definite religious truths and clings to certain definite religious practices. But apart from this there is not any striking contrast in the outward conduct of life between Christian and non-Christian in what is called the civilised world. Catholics are amused by, and interested in, the very same things that appeal to those who have abandoned all belief in God. The result is a growing divorce between religion and life in the soul of the individual Christian. Little by little his faith ceases to be a determining effect on the bulk of his ideas, judgments and decisions that have relation to what he regards as his purely "secular" life. His physiognomy as a social being no longer bears trace of any formative effect of the beliefs he professes. And his faith rapidly becomes a thing of tradition and routine and not something which is looked to as a source of a life that is real. 

The Bolshevist Revolution has had one good effect. It has awakened the averagely good Christian to the danger runs in allowing himself to drift with the current of social life about him. It has revealed to him the precipice towards which he has was heading by shaping his worldly career after principles the context of which the revolution has mercilessly exposed and revealed to be at variance with real Christianity. The sincerely religious--and there are many such still--are beginning to realise that if they are to live as Christians they must react violently against the milieu in which they live. It is beginning to be felt that one cannot be a true Christian and live as the bulk of men in civilised society are living. It is clearly seen that "life" is not to be found along those ways by which the vast majority of men are hurrying to disillusionment and despair. Up to the time of the recent cataclysm the average unreflecting Christian dwelt in the comfortable illusion that he could fall in with the ways of the world about him here, and, by holding on to the practices of religion, arrange matters satisfactorily for the hereafter. That illusion is dispelled. It is coming home to the discerning Christian that their religion is not a mere provision for the future. There is a growing conviction that it is only through Christianity lived integrally that the evils of the present time can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted. (Father Edward Leen, The Holy Ghost, published in 1953 by Sheed and Ward, pp. 6-9.)

Father Leen was overly optimistic about the ability of Catholics to reject the effects of Bolshevism, which have indeed made their way to our own shores (have you noticed?), as he could never have envisioned that Modernists would come up from the underground after the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, and effect a coup against the Catholic Church while representing themselves to be Catholics despite the fact that they had expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by their embrace, no less public promotion of, one heretical proposition after another, including an overt "reconciliation" with the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Father Leen did, of course, see very well the dangers in a world shaped by naturalism as it is very easy for Catholics to become so immersed in the world and its distractions and agitations as to lose the sensus Catholicus over the course of time. Thanks to the conciliar revolutionaries, of course, the genuine sensus Catholicus has been destroyed by the effects of the "reconciliation" between Modernism and Modernity.

The very basis of the “reconciliation between the conciliar revolutionaries and “the world” was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in his encyclical letter condemning The Sillon, August 15, 1910, that prophesied socialism as the only end that could come from the principles that were admired by Father Angelo Roncalli at the time even after their condemnation and were later incorporated into Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, and the “magisteria” of the postconciliar antipopes:

Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation, indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church! But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, "the reign of love and justice" with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them - their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them - a "generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can" When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace - the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man - when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.  

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."  

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity,would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.) 

Human dignity?

What about the sacred rights of the Social Reign of Christ the King?

The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God. That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which, please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier times to come. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself" (John xii., 32). (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.) 

Most of the people who are alive today do indeed want to hear about the “rights of man,” and most of those others who profess some kind of generic or inchoate belief in God have no understanding that His own Divine Son made Incarnate in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary must reign over men and their nations and that every religion other than Catholicism is false and is loathsome in His sight.

Moreover, anyone who believes that there can be some “shortcut” to a respite from the conflicts that are taking place in the United States of America are badly mistaken as those conflicts are but the logical consequence of the needless divisions among men and nations engendered by the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry and all of its naturalist errors, including liberalism and socialism.

The angry men have spoken again, and they will continue to speak even more loudly and with violent actions against persons and property sanctioned by the authority of some municipality, state, or national government as long as men to ignore these words from the Book of Proverbs:

[34] Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable. (Proverbs 14: 34.)

Our true popes have taught us clearly and unequivocally that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, remembering always to speak as Catholics at all times without ever dissenting from anything contained within the Deposit of Faith at any time for any reason, something that Pope Leo XIII made clear Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

We must always speak, think, and act as Catholics as the only way out of this mess runs through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Let us call to mind Dom Prosper Gueranger’s words as we celebrate the Octave Day of All Saints and the Commemoration of the Four Holy Crowned Martyrs:

How could we more appropriately conclude the teachings of this Octave, than by quoting the words used by the Church herself in today’s Liturgy? “Strangers as we are and pilgrims on the earth, let us fix our hearts and our thoughts on the day which will give to each of us a home, and restore us to Paradise. Who, that is on a voyage, would not hasten to return to his country! Who, that is on the way home, would not eagerly desire a favorable wind, that he might the sooner embrace his dear ones! Parents, brothers, children, friends in multitudes impatiently await us in our heavenly fatherland; blessed crowd! already secure of their own eternal happiness, they are solicitous about our salvation. What joy for them and for us, when at length we see them and they may embrace us!

“How great the delight of that heavenly kingdom: no more fear of death; but eternal and supreme happiness! Let all our earnest desires tend to this: that we may be united with the Saints, that together with them we pay possess Christ.” (St Cyprian, On Mortality, 26)

These enthusiastic words, borrowed from St. Cyprian’s beautiful book “On Mortality,” are used by the Church in her second Nocturn; and in the third she also gives us the strong language of St. Augustine, consoling the faithful, who are obliged still to remain in exile, by reminding them of the great beatitude of this earth: the beatitude of those who are persecuted and cursed by the world. To suffer gladly for Christ, is the Christian’s glory, the invisible beauty which wins for his soul the good pleasure of God, and procures him a great reward in heaven. (St Augustine, De Sermone Domini in Monte, Book 1, Ch. 5)

He that hurteth, let him hurt still, says our Lord; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is just, let him be justified still; and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still. Behold I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Apocalypse 22:11-13) Patience, then, Christians! Patience, all who are now despised, for time is short; the fashion of this world passeth away! (1 Corinthians 7:29-31) It is in the light of our Baptism that we must look upon those foolish men, who think themselves strong, because they are violent; who call themselves wise, because pleasure is their only law. When the Man-God, with the spirit of his mouth, shall take vengeance on Satan their leader, their lot will be the indignant sentence heard by the Prophet of Patmos: Without are dogs, murderers, everyone that loveth and maketh a lie. (Apocalypse 22:15) Meanwhile the whole creation, which they made the unwilling slave of their corruption, will answer to their disgraceful fall by a triumphant song of deliverance. Itself will be transformed into new heavens and a new earth. It will partake of the glory of the children of God, delivered like itself, and will be worthy to contain the new Jerusalem, the holy city, where in our flesh we shall see God; and where, seated at the right hand of the Father in the Person of Jesus Christ, our glorified human nature will enjoy forever the honors of a bride.

Let us go in spirit to Rome, and direct our steps towards the ancient church on the Cœlian Hill, which bears the name of the Four crowned Martyrs. There are few Saints whose Acts have been more disparaged “by a superficial criticism ignorant of archeological science,” such as that of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. But now “the history and traditions relating to the august monument on the Cœlian have been restored to honor by learned men and antiquaries, whom no one could accuse of superstition, or of a blind credulity with regard to medieval legends.” (De Rossi, Bulletin, 1879) Such is the unanswerable decision of the Commandant de Rossi. Let us, then, with the holy Liturgy, offer our homage and prayers to the titular Saints of this venerable church, who once held offices of trust in the empire; and let us not forget those other Martyrs, the five sculptors, who like the former preferred death to infidelity, and now share the glory of their tomb. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Octave of All Saints and the Commemoration of the Four Holy Crowned Martyrs November 8.)

Let us always live in light of eternity and in the shadow of the Holy Cross as we entrust ourselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying our Rosaries this day with love, fervor, and devotion.

Remember, the only election that really matters is the one that took place in the Baptismal font when we were elected to be citizens of Heaven. This is our destiny, please God and by the graces that flow forth from the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother we persevere to the points of our dying breaths in states of Sanctifying Grace.

No matter the results of a particular election or the results of a particular plebiscite, we can be assured that our efforts to restore the Social Reign of Christ the King by means of our total consecration to Him through Mary our Immaculate Queen will help to plant a few seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith as we, recidivist sinners that we are, attempt to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, remembering to say each day:

O Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary." 

These are the words spoken by the Mother of God in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, one hundred seven years ago. They should be on our lips at all times so that there will come a day when the words uttered by the Cristeros in Mexico and the brave Catholics during the Spanish Revolution will be on the lips of all men and heralded on the flags of all nations:

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

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

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

All the Saints, pray for us.

The Four Holy Crowned Martyrs, pray for us.

Appendix

Explaining Why Naturalism Must Yield to Barbarism Over Time

Here is a summary of the major principles that explain why naturalism is incapable of providing the framework for social order and must yield to the forces of barbarism over the course of time:

1) There are limits that exist in the nature of things beyond which men have no authority or right to transgress, whether acting individually or collectively in the institutions of civil governance.

2) There are limits that have been revealed positively by God Himself in his Divine Revelation, that bind all men in all circumstances at all times, binding even the institutions of civil governance.

3) A divinely-instituted hierarchy exists in man’s most basic natural unit of association: the family. The father is the head of the family and governs his wife and children in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law. Children do not have the authority to disobey the legitimate commands of their parents. Parents do not have the authority to issue illegitimate and/or unjust commands.

4) Our Lord Himself became Incarnate in Our Lady’s virginal and immaculate womb, subjecting Himself to the authority of His creatures, obeying his foster-father, Saint Joseph, as the head of the Holy Family, thus teaching us that all men everywhere must recognize an ultimate authority over them in their social relations, starting with the family.

5) Our Lord instituted the Catholic Church, founding it on the Rock of Peter, the Pope, to be the means by which His Deposit of Faith is safeguarded and transmitted until the end of time. The Church is the mater, mother, and magister, teacher, of all men in all nations at all times, whether or not men and nations recognize this to be the case.

6) The Pope and the bishops of the Church have the solemn obligation to proclaim nothing other than the fullness of the truths of the Faith for the good of the sanctification and salvation of men unto eternity and thus for whatever measure of common good in the temporal real, which the Church desires earnestly to promote, can be achieved in a world full of fallen men.

7) It is not possible for men to live virtuously as citizens of any country unless they first strive for sanctity as citizens of Heaven. That is, it is not possible for there to be order in any nation if men do not have belief in access to and cooperation with sanctifying grace, which equips them to accept the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith and to obey God’s commands with diligence in every aspect of their lives without exception.

8) The rulers of Christendom came to understand, although never perfectly and never without conflicts and inconsistencies, that the limits of the Divine positive law and the natural law obligated them to exercise the powers of civil governance with a view towards promoting man’s temporal good in this life so as to foster in him his return to God in the next life. In other words, rulers such as Saint Louis IX, King of France, knew that they would be judged by Our Lord at the moment of his Particular Judgment on the basis of how well they had fostered those conditions in their countries that made it more possible for their subjects to get to Heaven.

9) The rulers of Christendom accepted the truth that the Church had the right, which she used principally through her Indirect Power over civil rulers by proclaiming the truths of the Holy Faith, to interpose herself in the event that a civil ruler proposed to do something or had indeed done something that violated grievously the administration of justice and thus posed a grave threat to the good of souls.

10) The Social Kingship of Jesus Christ may be defined as the right of the Catholic Church to see to it that the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law are the basis of the actions of civil governance in all that pertains to the good of souls and that those who exercise civil power keep in mind man’s last end, the salvation of his immortal soul as a member of the Catholic Church. Civil leaders must, therefore, recognize the Catholic Church as the true Church founded by God Himself and having the right to reprimand and place interdicts upon those who issue edicts and ordinances contrary to God’s laws.

This is but a brief distillation of the points contained in the brilliant social encyclical letters of Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI, in particular, although Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX also contributed to their reiteration and explication. I have spent much time in the past twenty-five years or so illustrating these points with quotations from these encyclical letters, which contain immutably binding teachings that no Catholic may dissent from legitimately (as Pope Pius XI noted in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio in 1922).

The Modern State, including the United States of America, is founded on a specific and categorical rejection of each of these points. Consider the following:

1) Martin Luther himself said that a prince may be a Christian but that his religion should not influence how he governs, giving rise to the contemporary notion of “separation of Church and state,” condemned repeatedly by Popes in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.

2) Martin Luther planted the seeds of contemporary deconstructionism, which reduces all written documents to the illogical and frequently mutually contradictory private judgments of individual readers, by rejecting the Catholic Church as the repository and explicator of the Deposit of Faith, making the “private judgment” of individuals with regard to the Bible supreme. If mutually contradictory and inconsistent interpretations of the Bible can stand without correction from a supreme authority instituted by God, then it is an easy thing for all written documents, including a Constitution that makes no reference at all to the God-Man or His Holy Church, to become the plaything of whoever happens to have power over its interpretation

3) The sons of the so-called Enlightenment, influenced by the multifaceted and inter-related consequences of the errors of the Renaissance and the Protestant Revolt, brought forth secular nations that contended the source of governing authority was the people. Ultimately, all references to “God” were in accord with the Freemasonic notion of a “supreme intelligence” without any recognition of the absolute necessity of belief in and acceptance of the Incarnation and of the Deposit of Faith as it has been given to Holy Mother Church for personal happiness and hence al social order.

4) The Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not believe that it was necessary to refer all things in civil life to Christ the King as He had revealed Himself through His true Church, believing that men would be able to pursue “civic virtue” by the use of their own devices and thus maintain social order in the midst of cultural and religious pluralism. This leads, as Pope Leo XIII noted of religious indifferentism, to the triumph of the lowest common denominator, that is, atheism.  

5) As the Constitution of the United States of America admits of no authority higher than its own words, it, like the words of Holy Writ are for a Protestant or to a Modernist, is utterly defenseless when the plain meanings of its words are distorted and used to advance ends that its framers would have never thought imaginable, no less approved in fact. The likes of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Kamala have no regard for the words of the Constitution or for the just laws passed by Congress, and Donald John Trump is plainly ignorant of some of the fact that there are seven articles in the Constitution and twenty-seven amendments to it since its ratification in 1788. We are governed by men who are contemptuous or law or wholly ignorant of it. Quite a state of affairs.

6) This is but the secular version of Antinomianism: the belief advanced by those who took the logic of Luther’s argument of being “saved by faith alone” to its inexorable conclusion that one could live a wanton life of sin and still be saved. Luther himself did not see where the logic of his rejection of Catholic doctrine would lead and fought against the Antinomians. In like manner, you see, the Constitutionalists and Federalists of today do not see that what is happening today in Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, is the inexorable result of a Constitution that rejects Christ the King and the Catholic Church. These Constitutionalists and Federalists will fight time and time again like Sisyphus pushing the bolder up a hill. They will always lose because they cannot admit that the thing they admire, the Constitution, is the proximate problem that has resulted in all of the evils they are trying to fight.

A nation founded on false premises, no matter the "good intentions" of those whose intellects were misinformed by several centuries of naturalist lies and Protestant theological heresies and errors, is bound to degenerate more and more over time into a land of materialism and hedonism and relativism and positivism and utilitarianism and naturalism and paganism and atheism and environmentalism and feminism and barbarism. Many evils, including the daily carnage against the preborn, both by surgical and chemical means, continue to be committed in this country. American "popular culture" destroys souls and bodies both here and abroad. Full vent is given each day to a panoply of false ideas that are from Hell and confuse even believing Catholics no end as they try to find some "naturalist" hero or idea by which to win the "culture wars," oblivious to the fact that it is only Catholicism that can do so.

The United States of America will never know true liberty until it submits itself to the sweet yoke of Social Reign of Christ the King and raises the holy standard that Emperor Constantine saw in the sky: the Holy Cross of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Pope Saint Pius X explained that the true shining city set on a hill is the Catholic City. None other:

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The city we must build up every day within our own souls is the Catholic City. We must conform everything in our own lives to the immutable truth of the Holy Faith as we seek to cooperate with the graces won for us by Christ the King by virtue of the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. The Catholic City can only be built up in the world after we have sought to build it up within the fortress of our immortal souls, which have been redeemed at so great a cost.

The farces of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are converging to impose upon us an era of persecution and hardship. These forces are driven by principalities and powers, and they will not be defeated in an election. They can be defeated only by the use of supernatural means. Nations whose citizens fail to understand this truth are destined to be governed by tyrants, no matter how “soft” and “tolerant they may seem.

A system of civil governance that fosters conditions that are inimical to man's last end is bound to degenerate over the course of time into a such a state of lawlessness that a "state religion" will be imposed by the brute force of the civil state, namely, that of statism itself, the worship of the state and of its leaders as omniscient and omnipotent. The antidote to this is not found in any naturalistic philosophy, such as libertarianism or conservatism, but in Catholicism alone. There is no way—as in no way—to retard the evils caused by the separation of Church and State wrought by Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry and their actual, concrete expressions in the American and French Revolutions except by planting the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King and Our Lady, she who is our Immaculate Queen,

This is the work to which each of us is called. We are called to look beyond the lies of office-seekers steeped in naturalism and are clueless about First and Last Things in order to build up Christendom in our homes, starting with their being Enthroned to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pulsating with the rhythm provided by the liturgical life of the Church, especially (where this is possible) daily Mass in the Catholic catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or its false shepherds who are opposed to the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King, and animated by fervent family prayer, especially by means of the daily family Rosary and frequent visits to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament. We must be about the business of penance and of making reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world.

We are not called to be worldlings. We are not called to be grubby Calvinist materialists. We are not called to be successful careerists willing to compromise the Faith at any given moment in order to "get ahead." We are called to be faithful to Christ the King and to ever reliant upon Mary our Immaculate Queen, ever desirous of scaling the heights of sanctity, which is the sole foundation of order in the soul and hence of order within society itself.

The entire framework of the modern civil state is built upon the heresies and errors of Martin Luther that made possible the triumph of the naturalism that has been propagated and institutionalized since then by the interrelated, multifaceted forces of Judeo-Masonry, and this what so many unthinking Catholics celebrate without realizing that they are placing themselves in perfect communion with the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio  himself.

Consider the history of the Anabaptists in Europe, whose descendants in heresy are the Southern Baptists, as described by William Thomas Walsh in Philip II and ask yourselves if the United States of America has not suffered—and is not suffering now—from the fatal errors that continue to be held by various Protestant sects from its inception to the present day:

At no time, during the eight years after his return to Spain, could Philip's policy in the Low countries be called tyrannical. He made one concession after another. He assumed the huge and mounting deficit of the government of a rich country. He went to great pains to avoid any undue interference with the lives and privileges of his subjects. As regards religion, he insisted that the Catholic Faith must not be destroyed. What else could a man say of a truth he believed to be divinely ordained?

Even in that respect, considering the times and the anarchical and anti-social tendencies of sixteenth-century Protestantism, he was more lenient than most rulers. It was considered an unusual event, worthy of comment, when a notorious heretic and agitator was burned in Valenciennes in 1563. The man who ordered the execution was not the King, but one of the chief advocates of freedom of worship, the Marquis of Berghes. Jews and heretics acted and spoke as they pleased in Antwerp, without much hindrance. Many of them were Marranos, fugitives from Spain, of whom the Inquisitors in Madrid sent full information.

Granvelle sadly wrote to his friend Perez, “It is laughable to send us depositions made before the Inquisition of Spain so that we can seek the heretics here, as if there were not thousands here to whom we dare say nothing and of whom the King's officers arrest none. Indeed, it is more than a year since a single Calvinist has been arrested in Antwerp. The chief Inquisitor at Antwerp was a rather pathetic fellow, a good studious professor of the University of Louvain with the rare name of Jude Titelmanus (or Tiletanus), who begged to be relieved from his office because the enemies of Christendom mocked and hindered and threatened him and he felt powerless to cope with them.

Philip was lenient, but not from choice. If he had had plenty of money, he probably would have wasted little time in persuasion with the heretics of the north. He understood better than most modern historians the significance of the revolutionary movement. Hence, early in 1563, he sent Margaret a list of suspects in Antwerp, many of them refugees from Spain, and urged her to look into their intrigues; especially those who had thrown stones at the executioner of the notorious heretic Fabricius at Antwerp and then circulated threats of vengeance written in the dead man's blood. He wanted her to give particular attention to one Jean Tulet, fugitive from Bruges and Frankfort, a confessed Anabaptist, and to another named Juan de Moya, “not less pernicious.” The King was informed also that there were in Antwerp “an infinite number of Jews, who assembled in their synagogues, circumcised themselves and performed their ceremonies publicly. He complained also of the open performance, in Antwerp, of some very scandalous comedies “in which they speak ill of my person –a matter of which I would take no notice, if, at the same time, they did not mock our holy Faith and Catholic religion.”

The chief target for the King's intolerance in this important long letter was the “cursed sect of the Anabaptists,” which was extending itself in Holland and Zeeland. “It is a great shame,” wrote Philip, “that this cursed sect which even the heretics of Germany cannot endure, finds a refuge and shelter in my Estates.” The international character of the conspiracy was evident. He was informed that the heretics of the Netherlands were in communication with those of France, and bade her stop this. As for the sect of Anabaptists, he requested her to exterminate the vile thing.

The modern reader who shrinks from all this as another example of medieval bigotry, difficult to understand and impossible to condone, has forgotten who and what the Anabaptists were. To Philip, and to most of the men of his time (including Luther and William of Orange) those fantastic forerunners of the Jacobins of 1792 and the Communists of twentieth-century Russia and Spain were enemies of God and man, whom no one in his sane senses could tolerate.

Philip could remember the time (he was then seven) when Melchior Hoffman, one of those furriers who traveled from one end of Europe to the other, let it be known through Lower Germany and the Netherlands that he was a Prophet to whom the Word of the Lord had come, bidding him to establish the New Jerusalem in Strasbourg. His program was simplicity itself, with some remarkable resemblances to that of Mohammed. He undertook to send through the world from the New Jerusalem a hundred and eighty-four Horseman of Extermination, who with Elias and Enoch should pass through the world with the sword, “vomiting flame to destroy the enemies of the Lord.”

Enoch presently appeared in the person a a baker, John Matthiessen. This latter transferred the New Jerusalem to Munster, in Westphalia, where his emissaries found allies in a cloth merchant name Knipperdollinck, who had been active in propagating Lutheranism, and a tailor of Leyden, on John Bockelsohn or Bokelsoon. So successful was their propaganda in Munster that Knipperdollinck was elected burgomaster, and the city passed into their hands. Bockelsohn now revealed himself as the King of Sion, Ruler of all the Earth, and Son of David, while Matthiessen disclosed that he was the Prophet Moses, come to organize a massacre of all the ungodly.

The Reign of Terror which followed would seem incredible if there were not more modern instances to demonstrate the depths of human degradation and blood-lust. The King of Sion, commanded all gold, silver and jewelry to be turned over to his treasury. Communism was proclaimed, with polygamy, community of women, and world-conquest. Rothmann, an ex-chaplain, had four wives. The King of Sion had sixteen. Mass executions began. The corpses of the ungodly piled up, rotting, in the streets. When the chief wife of the King of Sion objected, he cut of her head in the marketplace before a select group of his Loyalist. There followed a delirium of blood letting, with the usual accompaniments of mass drunkeness, mob insanity, indescribable scenes of sadism and bestiality. This went on until a force of landsknechte took the city and slew the leaders and instigators of the anarchy.

The story of Munster alone, to those who were near enough to it to comprehend its horrors and their causes, explains a great deal about Philip II and other men of his sort. To them it was the logical outcome of any departure from the sane unity of the Catholic Church. No one who knew the facts could separate it from Lutheranism and Calvinism and the ancient hatred of the Talmud. These elements were all bound up together in the Munster experiment. The germ of a sinister and growing chapter in modern history was there. The Catholic who loved Christian order and peace instinctively wished to destroy it before it should spread and destroy the world.

It was enough for Philip that Anabaptists were preaching in the Netherlands; the slaughter, the communism, the burning of churches and the torturing of priests and nuns, the anarchy and sex orgies would follow in due time, as a crisis follows pneumonia. It is doing him no injustice as a man of humane instincts and common sense, therefore, to say that he tolerated the Revolution for several years only because he lacked force with which to suppress it. Yes he did tolerate it. It is unhistorical to pretend that he was a tyrant in any sense in which a man of the sixteenth-century (with no heretical axe to grind) would have understood the word.

The results of his tolerance convinced him more and more that it was a mistake. The heretics were not looking for tolerance, of freedom of worship, or equality, or any of the other fine things they talked about. As Professor Merriman has acknowledged, “before long it became evident that some of the revolutionists would not be content with liberty to exercise their own faith, but were even intent of the destruction of Catholicism.” (William Thomas Walsh, Philip II, published originally in 1937 by Sheed and Ward and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, 1987, pp. 352-355.)

Is there any difference between then and now as the agents of the naturalist “left,” whose amorality, immorality,  communism, hedonism, heathenism, and seething hatred for Catholicism seek the elimination of all opposition and the exclusion of any mention of the Catholic Faith and of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour, Christ the King, Himself from public life?

Wake up.

The United States of America was founded on corrupt, decadent principles that are simply manifesting the perfection of the inherent degeneracy at this time. Nothing else. The degeneracy was there the beginning in 1776 and 1787, and it is irresponsible for anyone, especially for a Catholic, to turn a blind eye to this fact.

Once again, true love of one’s country, which is a precept of the Fourth Commandment and of the Natural Law, can never be confused with its idolatry as a force for “good” in the world. True love of country wills her good, the ul

Turn off the television and stop being agitated.

Stop getting lost in the “trees” of the latest outrages committed by and/or publicly supported, perhaps even by silence in the face of wanton destruction of private property, and justified by ideological, if not actual, descendants of the Anabaptists?

We must know our history, and it is impossible to keep focused on root causes if one is constantly lost in the “trees” of the outrage du jour or, worse yet, if one thinks that the very thing that got us into this mess. “modern democracy,” is going to get us out of the abyss. I mean, this is like saying the way to escape from Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s rotten agenda is to adhere to a “rigorous” understanding of the “true” meaning of the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council that gave birth to a false church with false doctrines, sacramentally invalid liturgies and invalid holy orders (see Counterfeit Church, Counterfeit Sacraments, Counerfeit Everything, part one, and Counterfeit Church, Counterfeit Sacraments, Counterfeit Everything, part two).

Modern “democracy,” such as it is, the natural result of Protestantism’s revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by Holy Mother Church to assure that those in public life pursue the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

Here is a reminder that democracy in and of itself is inherently unstable and, in a non-Catholic country, is based upon the abject lie of “popular sovereignty” that leaves no place for a due submission to Christ the King and His true Church in all that pertains to the good of souls, leads to the very sort of the tyranny that exists in Communist nations of the sort that existed with the Anabaptists two centuries before the French Revolution occurred and thus set the stage for the Bolshevik Revolution itself:

Dom Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, the great Dominican foe of Modernism and the Twentieth Century’s greatest exponent of the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, explained the flaws inherent in democracies that lead to their decay and dissolution over time:

Democracy is an imperfect regime, as a regime in ratione regiminis, as a result of the lack of unity and continuity in the direction of interior and exterior affairs. Also this regime should only be for the perfect already capable of directing themselves—those virtuous and competent enough to pronounce as is fitting upon the very complicated problems on which the life of a great people depends. But it is always true to say as Saint Thomas noted that these virtuous and competent men are extremely rare; and democracy, supposing such perfection among subjects, cannot give it to them. From this point of view, democracy is a bit in politics what quietism is in spirituality; it supposes man has arrived, at the age or the state of perfection, even though he still may be a child. In treating him as a perfect person, democracy does not give him what is required to become one.

Since true virtue united to true competence is a rare thing among men, since the majority among them are incapable of governing and they have a need of being led, the regime which is the best for them is the one which can make up for their imperfection. This regimen perfectum in ratione regiminis, by reason of unity, continuity, and efficacy of direction towards a single end which is difficult to achieve is monarchy. Above all a tempered monarchy which is always attentive to the different forms of national activity. It is better than democracy or than the feudal regime. Monarchy assures the interior and exterior peace of a great nation, and permits her to long endure. (Dom Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “On Royal Government: translated by Andrew Strain, On Royal Government)

“Democracy” is what got us into this mess, and “fighting” for its “restoration” is going to nothing but proliferate errors that have convinced a solid two-fifths of the American public to be committed to all the moral evils of the day and to look to “government” for the “solutions” to both personal and social problems that are but the consequences of their own sins and the multiple errors of Modernity and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.