Banging Those "Tom-Toms" Once Again
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Many falsehoods were put forth by then President George Walker Bush and then Vice President Richard N. Cheney in 2002 and early-2003 as a means to convince the American public to support an invasion of the country of Iraq. Exploiting the national outrage over the attacks that took place on American soil on September 11, 2001, Bush and Cheney and a veritable phalanx of neoconservative war hawks banged the "tom-toms" for war, making all many of extravagant claims that had no foundation in reality whatsoever.
Among those claims were the following: 1) Saddam Hussein was hiding "weapons of mass destruction" that posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States of America; 2) Saddam Hussein was attempting to get enriched uranium from the country of Niger, Saddam Hussein was working with agents of al-Qaeda to foment another attack on the United States of America; 4) according to then President Bush, in an address given on October 7, 2002, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had
a "growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas" (see George W. Bush: Address to the Nation on Iraq From Cincinnati, Ohio). This last point was particularly laughable.
Growing fleet? How about two unmanned aerial vehicles? That's right, two. Their range? About 650 miles, which means that these unmanned aerial vehicles would had to have been transported by the nonexistent Iraqi navy undetected by satellite reconnaissance in order to get close enough to the United States to drop the nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" that Saddam Hussein was alleged to have possessed or was in the "process" of developing. Absolute absurdity designed to frighten the American public and win international support for his scheme of "regime change" to aid the not-so-"democratic" State of Israel and American corporate interests.
Behold the results in the unnecessary loss of American lives, the wreckage done to so many thousands of the families of our service personnel as even wives and mothers were sent into combat and as husband and wives took up with others either while in Iraq or in this country as their spouses were serving in Iraq, the spread of the evils of American culture, including contraception, into Iraq, the Balkanization of that country into warring Mohammedan provinces, the use of hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars to subsidize the corruption of the new Iraqi regime and the shoddy, incompetent work of American contractors to rebuilt a country torn apart by American bombs, and the carnage of the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been killed or wounded and/or displaced from their homes and even their country for no good reason whatsoever (see Selective Use of Executive Power and
Go Tell Iraq's Catholics--and American Babies--About The "Lesser of Two Evils").
The government of the United States of America has always failed in its efforts to use "social engineering" to advance its policy goals.
The American Indians of the western part of the United States of America were treated well when Father Pierre Jean De Smet was consulted by United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Thereafter, however, the American Indians became the subject of a gigantic enterprise of Protestant and Masonic social engineering, consigned to reservations and the ill-treatment accorded them thereon. The former United States Secretary of the Department of the Interior, James Watt, was indeed correct when he said on January 18, 1983, "If you want an example of the failure of socialism, don't go to Russia--come to America and go the Indian reservation" (see Watt Sees Reservations As Failure of Socialism).
President Thomas Woodrow Wilson wanted to use the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, created in an act passed by the Congress of the United States of America and signed into law by Wilson on December 23, 1913, as the means to centralize the banking and monetary systems under the authority of the government of the United States of America in order to restrict the legitimate freedom of Americans to control their own private property and to make private industry dependent upon the "direction" provided it by governmental regulators and overseers. It was for this reason as well that Wilson saw to it that Congress enacted legislation, following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, to create our current system of confiscatory taxation on our incomes. And it was Wilson, of course, who believed that the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, aping the "example" established by the French Revolutionaries, could "build" or "engineer" the "better" society in Our Lady's country by the killing of thousands upon thousands of Catholic:
"Wilson replied [to a Father Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the longtime Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'
"Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries ." (Robert Leckie, Catholic and American, p. 274).
Social engineering was, of course, was what Woodrow Wilson sought to accomplish by means of involving the United States of America in the conflagration known at the time as the "World War" or the "Great War." Wilson, ever the anti-Catholic, blamed the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire, at least in part, for having started what we call today World War I on August 3, 1914, and that one of the ways to "engineer" a "better" world was to break-up the Austro-Hungarian Empire into individual nation-states that would be organized along the Masonic lines of the "democratic" United States of America, a country that was not so "democratic" during the war as Wilson had the United States Congress pass the Espionage Act on June 15, 1917, and the Sedition Act, passed by Congress on May 16, 1918, that effectively suppressed all dissent against the conduct and policy of the government of the United States of America during World War I. The quasi-public, Wilson-backed American Protective League was a fascistic means to silence dissent and conduct warrantless searches, making a mockery of Wilson's World War I slogan that he was going to "make the world safe for democracy." Wilson was a social engineer here and abroad from beginning to end.
Social engineering was also used in the private sector to seek to enslave black Americans once again on de facto basis in the 1920s and thereafter by the likes of Margaret Sanger and her Birth Control League (whose motto on one of the issues of the Birth Control Review boasted, more from the fit, less from the unfit. That is the chief issue of birth control"). Sanger and her fellow social engineers and racialists sought to use contraception as the means to eradicate "undesirables," including blacks, on a gradual basis, making those who survived the effective wards of the civil state as the stability of black family life was undermined quite deliberately by providing black men with incentives to commit acts of marital infidelity, thereby abandoning their wives and children to the care of various nascent welfare programs, whose administrators, of course, propagandized in favor of the very thing that had caused the problem to begin with, namely, birth control.
Sanger told us in her own words exactly what she intended to do:
I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, p.366)
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
On adultery:
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11
On the Catholic Church's view of contraception:
"...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
On motherhood:
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) (Margaret Sanger Quotes.)
Margaret Sanger worked closely with Rexford Guy Tugwell, a socialist, one of the late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "brain trust" who served as the director of Resettlement Administration, a quintessential enterprise of social engineering in Roosevelt's empire of social and economic engineering known as the New Deal. Tugwell served also as Roosevelt's appointee as the territorial governor of Puerto Rico from 1941-1946, a position he used to encourage the sterilization of Puerto Ricans. Social engineering, including the Social Security system and Medicaid, which is a form of rationing health-care, and the late President Lyndon Baines Johnson's "War on Poverty" and "Great Society" and George Walker Bush's "no child left behind" program--along with scores of other programs and policies--have been efforts to "engineer" the better society.
One would think that the failure of these programs, founded in variants of the naturalism of John Locke's false assertions that human beings could, by the use of human reason alone unaided by the light of Divine Revelation or by Sanctifying grace, devise various sorts of social structures to "improve" the condition of man without any change in behavior on the part of men, to work would discredit the naturalistic approach to life and public policy that has no place for the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, at the Annunciation, and no place at all for the Deposit of Faith that the Divine Redeemer has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. No, those who are steeped in the errors and the lies of naturalism can never admit that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. They keep on giving us failed domestic programs that bankrupt the citizenry and foreign wars that only worsen the state of the world.
The difference between the social engineering of naturalists in the United States of America and of the French or Mexican or Maoist or Bolshevik revolutionaries is a matter of degree, not of kind. It can be argued that the domestic and international social engineering of American naturalists of both major organized crime families in the United States of American (the Republicans and the Democrats) has been more successful in establishing permanent structures of social control, including mind control, than those that existed in Nazi Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The naturalists in the United States of America have simply taken advantage of the precedents established by the Protestant Revolutionaries in England and Ireland in the Sixteenth Century, who engineered the poor off of convent and monastery lands and forced them into dire poverty and oppression. American naturalists also took advantage of the efforts of social engineering and social control established by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck during his Kulturkampf, which was condemned by Pope Pius IX in
Etsi Multa, November 21, 1873, and by the hideous Masons in Italy during the Risorgimento following the overthrow of the Papal States on September 20, 1870.
The fundamental building-block of the naturalistic heresy of liberalism, which is really nothing other than a form of semi-Pelagianism (the belief that men more or less stir up graces within themselves without the Sacraments and that they can, therefore, do "anything" they set their minds to doing), is premised upon the belief that majorities would consist, at least in most instances, of "reasonable" men who would agree to do what it is in their best interests and make whatever sacrifices, including of their own legitimate liberties, in order to accomplish their goals. Statism is the only thing that can result over the course of time as conditions within and between nations deteriorate as a consequence of believing in man's ability to improve himself and the world absent a due subordination to the Deposit of Faith in all that pertains to the good of souls. Chaos has been produced within the United States of America as a result of these false premises. It has been produced in the lands, such as Iraq, that have been the object of "nation-building" by means of wars of "liberation."
Consider what I wrote about eighteen months ago concerning the moral, geopolitical, and economic catastrophe that has been American involvement in Iraq, a country which posed no real or immediate threat to the security of the United States of America:
The American invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, nearly five years ago now, displaced a tyrant responsible, most estimates indicate, for around 1.5 million deaths during the thirty-four years or so of his rule in Iraq. Some of those deaths occurred as a result of a stockpile of biological and chemical weapons that the administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan sold to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Reagan's Middle East Envoy, a chap by the name of Donald D. Rumsfeld, arranged for this sale in a visit to Iraq on December 20, 1983:
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. (National Security Archive, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ There is an interesting, fact-based article, replete with links to national security documents, available at: Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein.)
Hussein stockpiled the weapons sold to him by the United Sates of America, choosing not to use them in the war against Iran, which did not end until 1988, and used them instead on the Kurds in northern Iraq following the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, a war that was launched to expel Iraq's forces from a country, Kuwait, which Hussein believed that American Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, 1990, had signaled to him was not of significant enough interest for the United States of America to do anything other than express a verbal condemnation in its behalf should he, Hussein, decide to reclaim Iraqi land that was taken away from it following the end of World War I.
Thus it is that the former American "ally" during the era of the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein, became the focal point of President George Walker Bush's "axis of evil" in 2001, 2002 and 2003 leading up to the American invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. A man, George Walker Bush, who had said when he was running for President of the United States of American in the year 2000 that he was opposed to efforts to engage in "regime change" and nation-building" did exactly this in Iraq to do the bidding of the State of Israel at the behest of the war-mongering neoconservatives who believed that they could remake the Middle East in a manner that would "help" the Zionists in Israel to crush all opposition to their hegemonic schemes of regional control.
This is what I wrote in November of 2002 about the then impending invasion of Iraq:
The principle of proportionality contained in the Just War Theory requires a very careful and prayerful prudential judgment to be made by a policy-maker prior to the advent of war. This is not a matter of infallibly received truth. This is a judgment that has got to be based on a clear-headed and most realistic assessment of the harm that will be caused by the onset of armed hostilities. The impending war with Iraq will cause far more harm than good, as I outlined in my previous section. Rather than making us more secure, we will be less secure. We will contribute to the furtherance of anti-American sentiment around the world, and will contribute to deteriorating, not improving, the situation within Iraq itself. How many truly innocent Iraqis must die to liberate their country of a man who is far less of a threat to them on a daily basis than American "freedom" is to unborn children every day in this country?
(The Real Enemies Are Within, Part One and
The Real Enemies are Within, Part Two. This excerpt came from part two.)
Please, go tell the Iraqi people that George Walker Bush was the "lesser of two evils." Despite the much vaunted "surge" of overtaxed American forces last year, death and destruction are being dealt upon innocent civilians in Iraq on a daily basis. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. As bad as he was, however, he killed the same amount of people during a reign of over thirty years as are killed in this country on an annual basis by means of surgical abortions alone, not counting the millions more who die as a result of abortifacient contraceptives and embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization. Hussein was not allied with al-Qaeda. The last thing that an organized crime head such as Hussein wants is a potential rival to power, which is why Iraq's borders were sealed shut to the likes of al-Qaeda until after the American invasion in 2003 made those borders as porous as the border between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico.
Unfazed by the huge moral and economic and political costs of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, American and British and French policy-makers are banging on the tom-toms of war again, trying to create a public opinion groundswell in favor of a war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, once again, of course, to do the bidding of the State of Israel, whose armed forces are certainly more than capable of defending that country against any attack from Iran or any other source as it has, by conservative United States Defense Intelligence Agency estimates, between sixty and one hundred nuclear weapons of its own to deploy. Why should Iran's possession of plants capable of making nuclear weaponry be seen as more of a threat to American national security than the arsenals possessed by the Russian Federated Republic or by the so-called "People's Republic of China," otherwise known as Red China?
While it is true that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a repressive state, so is Red China. Current Russian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin, a former office in the Soviet KGB, used repressive measures against political opponents off and on when he served as the President of Russia from May 7, 2000, to May 7, 2008. The government of the United States of America maintains liberal trade relations with the Russian and Chinese oligarchs, enabling the Red Chinese, in particular, to enslave its citizens all the more to its anti-life policies as American products are made cheaply by poorly paid Chinese workers, some of whom, at the very least, are political prisoners forced to work in the factories of multinational corporations. And this is to say nothing of how the government of the United States of America aids and abets state-sponsored terrorism against the innocent preborn both here and around the world by chemical and surgical means. The Islamic Republic of Iran is no worse an offender than Russia or Red China or even the United States of America in the matter of human rights and international intrigue.
The sole difference between Iran and the rest of the world is exactly the same now as it was in 2002 and 2003 with Iraq, namely, the pressure brought to bear on American policy-makers by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Among those banging the tom-toms right now is United States Senator John Kyl, R-Arizona, who said the following yesterday on Meet The Press on the National Broadcasting Company television network:
What we're trying to do here eventually is get a regime change," he said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Get a group of people in there that are more representative of the Iranian people, that we really can talk with in a way that might end up with a good result. I think it's very difficult to do that with the current leadership and especially the elected president," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
While not advocating an immediate U.S. military strike against Iran, Kyl has been a strong backer of American missile defense programs and has strongly criticized President Barack Obama's decision to cancel a U.S. anti-missile site in Europe. (Kyl: 'Regime change' is goal in Iran.)
Uh, excuse me, Senator Kyl, what gives the United States of America the "right" to impose "regime change" on independent nations? Would you like it if a modern-day Saint Wenceslaus talked openly about "regime change" in the United States of America to stop such evils as baby-killing under cover of the civil law? The arrogance of American imperialism is truly astounding to behold.
United States Senator Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, was a bit more dramatic in his own assessment of the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although favoring military action as a last result, Graham said the following on the Columbia Broadcasting System's Face The Nation interview program yesterday, Sunday, September 27, 2009:
"They are trying to develop a nuclear weapon," the senator said. "If they are successful, the Sunni Arab states will want a nuclear weapon. Israel becomes much at risk. We are walking down the road to Armageddon. (Graham: We're headed for 'Armageddon')
It might be only a matter of time before more and more members of the War Party bang on their own tom-toms, made in Red China with Israeli money, of course, long enough to convince even some of those who were opposed to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq that military action is "necessary" to stop the "madman"
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from "destroying" the State of Israel.
Statists love a good war to consolidate their control over citizens, and the current Iranian "crisis" is a thoroughly manufactured one as Iran had fully informed the International Atomic Energy of its nuclear facility in Qom, Iran, prior to the chest-thumping by Western leaders that took place at the G-20 meeting Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, last Thursday, September 24, 2009.
Leaders of multinational corporations love all of the booty that fills their blood-stained coffers during modern wars launched by naturalists for the aggrandize of the state and/or for the aggrandizement of various ideological or nationalistic or geopolitical objectives.
It is the same now as it was a century ago as all manner of naturalists, including socialists, believed that what became World War I would have a "cleansing" effect on Europe and the world as, to use Woodrow Wilson's own term, a "new world order" was imposed. Then President George Herbert Walker Bush, a member of Skull and Bones, used the phrase "new world order" in the preparation for the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Naturalists remain the same now as they have always been: men who believe that they and their domestic plans and international wars can created that "new world order."
As I have noted on this site repeatedly, the Catholic Church teaches us that there are Just Wars. Various conditions must be fulfilled (see Moral Monsters). God Himself has called for wars to be fought in His Holy Name.
He raised up Saint Joan of Arc to fight--and to kill--the English who were occupying her country, France. Popes preached for the Crusades to be won in the Holy Name of Christ the King. Catholics are not pacifists. Saint Francis of Assisi himself prayed for the success of the Crusades and sought to convert the Muslims (see Frank Rega, Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims).
Catholics, however, will not give their support to unjust wars fought for no good purpose without each of the predicates of the Just War Theory being met. We will not give our support to the neoconservative War Party, which is just as much in charge now under Caesar Obamus as it was during the administration of former President George Walker Bush. Whatever differences exist among the different camps in the War Party about foreign policy and the pursuit of war a means of social engineering/regime change/nation-building, and there are some important differences, to be sure, each camp in the War Party wants to use unjust and immoral wars as the means to increase the size and the power and the scope of the civil government.
It is not to dismiss the legitimate threats posed to American national security by al-Qaeda, whose forces are now based mostly in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan where American policy-makers are failing to in their efforts at social engineering in that country as well as in Iraq, or Mohammedanism's hatred of the West to note that there is no justification for a military confrontation with Iran. Whatever threat it poses to the State of Israel can be dealt with by the Israeli Defense Force. Whatever threat its funding of Mohammedan terrorists pose to American national security can be dealt with in a variety of ways short of the sort of military confrontation desired by the War Party.
The principles of the Just War were not followed prior to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Behold the price that has been paid as Chaldean Rite Catholics have been driven out of their country and as believing Mohammedans have gained the sort of power that was denied to them by the thug Saddam Hussein. A mess of equal proportions awaits the War Party if they try to propagate the same kind of lies to create a mass hysteria against Iran as they did seven years ago prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Modern warfare, waged by naturalists to accomplish naturalistic end, has simply been a means for the civil state to clamp down on the citizens and for the military-industrial complex that then President Dwight David Eisenhower, a thorough-going naturalist and absolute religious indifferentist who had spent most of his life in the United States Army, warned us about in his farewell address on January 17, 1961 (Dwight D. Eisenhower -- Farewell Address):
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. (Dwight D. Eisenhower -- Farewell Address)
Alas, what the late President Eisenhower, who made many fine points in his farewell address, did not understand that modern warfare, planned and executed by naturalists to achieve naturalistic goals of one sort or another, is founded on the belief that it is neither necessary or desirable to fight for the Sacred Rights of Christ the King. Modern warfare has been premised on the belief that military power, aided by some naturalistic "ideal" or dogmatic political ideology, build "peace," which is, of course, but the result of the peace that subsists in souls by means of their persevering in states of Sanctifying Grace.
Indeed, the anti-Incarnational lies of Modernity were born in the blood of Catholics. This is as true of the Protestant Revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church as it has been of the various social revolutions of the past two hundred-twenty years. Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., made this point very clear in his discourse about Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen in The Liturgical Year:
Protestantism was established and rooted by the shedding of torrents of blood; and yet Protestants count it as a great crime that, here and there, the children of the true Church made an armed resistance against them. The heresy of the sixteenth century was the cruel and untiring persecutor of men, whose only crime was their adhesion to the old faith--the faith that had civilized the world. The so-called Reformation proclaimed liberty in matters of religion, and massacred Catholics who exercised this liberty, and prayed and believed as their ancestors had done for long ages before Luther and Calvin were born. A Catholic who gives heretics credit for sincerity when they talk about religious toleration proves the he knows nothing about the past or the present. There is a fatal instinct in error, which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her children. Heresy starts with an attempt to annihilate them that remain faithful; when it has grown tired of open persecution it vents its spleen in insults and calumnies; and when these do not produce the desired effect, hypocrisy comes in with its assurances of friendly forbearance. The history of Protestant Europe, during the last three centuries, confirms these statements; it also justifies us in honouring those courageous servants of God who, during that same period, have died for the ancient faith.
Protestantism's initial warfare against Catholics the the Catholic Faith sounds a whole lot like conciliarism's warfare against Catholics who have "prayed and believed as their ancestors had done for long ages" before Roncalli and Montini and Luciani and Wojtyla and Ratzinger. And it is warfare against the Holy Faith that makes warfare among men and their nations all the more inevitable. The forces of Modernity and Modernism have indeed waged a constant, unremitting remitting warfare against the Faith, united as one, despite differences on other matters, in their mutual aggression against the Sacred Rights of the Social Reign of Christ the King.
The path of peace of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, runs through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, not through the illusory and delusional plans of the War Party, whose members are to be found in both the two major organized crime families in the United States of America, the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. The false opposites of the naturalist "right" and the naturalist "left" simply contend with each other to see who can be the better statist, who can be the better at using the brute power of American imperialism or the surrender of American national sovereignty to Judeo-Masonic international organizations to achieve "peace" and "security." Both the Republicans and Democrats are but two sides of the same naturalistic, religiously indifferentist, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian coin.
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order.
The Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary is the path to personal and social peace. Hasn't Our Lady herself told us so in her Fatima Message? Shouldn't we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states in life permit and also add the devotion of her Seven Dolors to our daily spiritual life if we have not done so already?
Father Frederick Faber alluded to this in The Foot of the Cross:
Lastly, we must say a few words of the measures and dimensions of her Compassion. We have drawn such a picture of it as we are able. It not only falls far below the truth, but it sensibly falls fall below the real image of it in our own minds. A thousand unexpressed thoughts are teasing us at this moment, but the difficulty is how to express them fitly. Words do not seem to be measures for them. They are thoughts of love; and love does not speak; it burns. Moreover, there must be limits to all things except loving. There are not limits there. Love is an eternal work. Love alone can measure the Compassion of Mary. Think of the sufferings of Jesus. They open at our feet like a huge abyss. Can we fathom their dreadful depths? Or do we not rather shrink in conscious nothingness from a task so hopeless and so rash? Yet Mary's Compassion contains that world-wide abyss, measures it, and holds its miraculously within its own dimensions. It we speak of the beauty of Jesus, straightway the vision of a shoreless sea, which no horizon bounds, over which the sun is rising and setting at the same moment, the half disk sunken in the west already rising in the east, and the waters rolling on and on for evermore. Yet as are the waters of that beauty, so were the waters of Mary's bitterness. By an opposite miracle to that of Moses, the wood of the Cross thrown into those waters of beauty has converted them into bitterness. If we think of men's cruelty in the Passion, it is a mystery nearer to our understanding; yet it is not that nearness almost an infinite distance? Are we not obliged to call to our aid the theory of diabolical possession? even then the horrors of the Passion are almost incredible, because they are so nearly inconceivable. Yet these horrors were but a part of Mary's Compassion; and truly, compared with the wrath of the Father, and the beauty of Jesus, they were the very least part of it. If we think of her deep love of Jesus, it is only to delight in its interminable magnificence. It is beyond our definitions, out of the sphere of our comprehension. We make wild comparisons of all angels and of all saints, indulge in fanciful arithmetic, repeat our superlatives, but we only do so to convince ourselves more satisfactorily that it is all beyond us, just as a man uses violence with himself to be sure he is awake. Yet the dimensions of that love do not each to the dimensions of her Compassion, because there is another love yet, to which it marvellously outstretches. It is the deep love of Jesus for her. Who can tell it? Who can speak of it even figuratively? for where is our figure to come from? Yet the breadth, and the depth, and the height of that love of Jesus for His Mother are the only true dimensions of her Compassion. Here are five abysses, five measure, five standards, His sufferings, His beauty, men's cruelty, her deep love of Him, His deep love of her. We must do our poor best with them all, and we shall reach a view of our Blessed Mother's Compassion which will be good for us and acceptable to her, but it will be below the truth. A work which Jesus sand Mary made together, out of God's wrath and man's sin, and the Hypostatic Union, and the sinlessness of a pure creature, must be a marvel about which at best we can but stammer, and lovingly go wrong; and such a work is Mary's Compassion. Our task is ended, and love will give our poor thoughts a truth of its own which will make them good for souls.
It is a beautiful and a dread sight to see all the sorrows of fallen earth resumed in the broken heart of our own Mother. Has it moved us? Then why not for the rest of life, in sober panic at the world, and worldliness, go and sit at our Mother's feet and meditate her griefs? Is there a fitter work for prodigals come back to their Heavenly Father? Compassion with her is already compassion with Jesus; and we may say that compassion with the Invisible Creator Himself is the devotional feeling out of which we shall serve Him most generously, and realize Him most tenderly as our Eternal Father,--eternal because He has been--blessed be His Majesty!--from all eternity, and eternal because we shall be--blessed be His compassion!--with Him, His happy sons, His pardoned, sons to all eternity. Truly Mary lays up evermore in the lap of God. Truly by some celestial logic of their own, all Christian things, be they doctrines or devotions, come out at last in that one compendious, melodious, alone-sufficing world, Eternal Father! (Father Frederick Faber, The Foot of the Cross, published originally in England in 1857 under the title of The Dolors of Mary, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 404-406.)
The modern religiously indifferentist state is evil. It needs to be replaced by the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, a work that starts with our own total consecration to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother and the enthronement of our very homes to these same matchless twin Hearts of Love and Compassion. We are changing the world by the changing of souls to the true Faith, starting with our own on a daily basis as we cleave to true bishops and true priests in the catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds.
We must never forget these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained n Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.
The true religion is Catholicism, not conciliarism, not any secular, naturalistic ideology of the "left" or of the "right." We must enfold ourselves into the love of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we make reparation for our own many sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, as we seek to restore all things in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.
Saint Wenceslaus, whose feast we celebrate today, ruled according to the Mind of Christ the King. He was killed because his own brother, Boleslaus, hated him for his holiness and fidelity. May it be our privilege to make reparation for our own sins by being hated by the naturalists and the conciliarists for remaining faithful to Christ the King through Mary our Immaculate Queen and the confessionally Catholic civil state no matter what may befall us in this passing, mortal vale of tears.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
