Distracting Us With More Side Shows

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As I have noted on many occasions on this site, the "information age" has been used by the adversary to distract us from our sanctification and salvation as we get distracted by various "side shows." The devil does this to "excite" us into believing that there is some naturalistic short-cut to "save" the country or that it is possible for the Catholic Church to be responsible for the ambiguities, contradictions, falsehoods, blasphemies and sacrileges that have been promoted by the "popes" and the "bishops" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. People tend to get lost in the "trees" of particular problems without seeing that they are in a forest of darkness caused by the inter-related monsters of Modernity and Modernism.

What I would to do in this brief article, therefore, is to provide a few thumbnail commentaries, if you will, on some of the "side shows" that are currently "exciting" people. None of these subjects is worthy of an entire article as they are but variations on themes that have been explored repeatedly. There is a law of diminishing returns, at least as I see it, meaning that there are times when a few brief comments on the absurdities produced by the naturalists and the conciliarists are all that need to be made in order to demonstrate to those with minds that are halfway open to accept the truth that we cannot let ourselves be distracted by side shows that blind us to the proximate roots of our current difficulties in the temporal and ecclesiastical spheres. This is the same approach that I used in As New Dog and Pony Shows Come To Town, part one, As New Dog and Pony Shows Come to Town, part two, As New Dog and Pony Shows Come To Town, part three and As New Dog and Pony Shows Come To Town, part four (the end) three months ago now.

Caesars With Thin Skins

Caesar is displeased with us. Caesar is actually angry with us. Caesar has taken umbrage at the fact that many of the lesser creatures that he believes are beneath him intellectually and socially do not see him as the omniscient, benevolent leader whose policy decision are good for them even though they, the stupid beasts of the forest, do not realize that this is the case. Consider the following commentary from a naturalist who understands that Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus is just a typical leftist elitist who believes that his policies are beyond question and that it is the duty of American citizens to support him without fail, that those who do not support him are malevolent creatures who are misled by evil forces, perhaps even within themselves, to refuse see and to accept his own self-made aura of brilliance:

On his latest speaking tour, the president has continued to talk about a traditional midterm election — in which the country assesses the sitting administration’s agenda — as if it were some epic Manichean struggle, something akin to race relations: Jim Crow, civil rights, and now, most recently, the abolition of slavery. At best, Obama is implying that a referendum on his policies is of similar magnitude to an existential battle like the Civil War; at worst, he implies by analogy that he is the crusading abolitionist and his opponents the forces of slaveholding evil. And all of this from someone who campaigned on the notion of unity and national healing.

I’m sorry, but opposing higher deficits or cap-and-trade is not the same as denying someone civil rights, and Obama, the Ivy League graduate, is not a Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr.

In Obama’s world, there is no such thing as legitimate skepticism of his policies, even though they seem to millions to be radical and contrary to the notions of limited government, lower taxes, and personal freedom, notions that have long set us apart from our Western constitutional cousins in Europe. Instead (as can be seen in his latest Rolling Stone interview), those who oppose his policies — from the tea-party groups that resent his background to that destructive force on the national scene, Fox News — represent darker forces.

Looking back at 20 months, we see this Nixonian them-vs.-us world in which good progressives battle against those who make more than $250,000 per year; greedy doctors taking out tonsils; police who stereotype and act stupidly; Arizonan xenophobes who snatch kids out for ice cream; Islamophobes who would deny constitutional rights to Muslim moderates at Ground Zero; and racists who have traditionally stood in the way (mutatis mutandis, as they do now) of freeing the slaves.

All this psychodrama is beneath a president. It is a prescription for tearing the country in two — and about the dumbest thing you could do just weeks before an election. (Obama's World of Them vs. Us.)

 

Yes, we have seen this all before.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson was a thin-skinned caesar who tried to silent dissent during American involvement in World War II.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a thin-skinned caesar who used the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to hound and harass his critics (and who used several American bishops to convince Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, to silence the courageous opponent of Roosevelt's agenda of socialism and social engineering, Father Charles Coughlin).

Lyndon Baines Johnson was a thin-skinned caesar who watched each of the nightly newscasts of the American Broadcasting Company, National Broadcasting Company and Columbia Broadcasting System television networks on three televisions, placed side-by-side to each other, in the White House, taking it upon himself to telephone an anchorman or commentator who dared to criticize him. He was not averse to the use of electronic eavesdropping to gather information on his critics, something he learned from his mentor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Richard Milhous Nixon was a very thin-skinned caesar. We know full well how he, who had much native intelligence but squandered it on a view of the world born of naturalism and the amorality of Machiavelli, destroyed his own presidency as a result of his vanities, confusing the national interest with his own (see Poster Boys Of Modernity).

James Earl Carter, Jr., was an even more thin-skinned caesar than Richard Milhous Nixon. He seethed with resentment at criticism, something he did during his 1966 campaign for the gubernatorial nomination of the Democratic Party in the State of Georgia. He is still furious with the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) for having challenged him for the 1980 presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. He has spent the nearly thirty years of his ex-presidency justifying himself before men, sometimes bitterly so.

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was a thin-skinned caesar. His temper tantrums were both private and public. Remember Filegate? Remember how Jack Palladino, a private investigation, just "happened" to gather and to then disseminate damaging information about the late United States Representative Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) and former United States Representative Robert Barr (D-Georgia) and United States Representative Dan Burton (R-Indiana) and former United States Representative Robert Livingston (R-Louisiana) during the height of Monicagate in 1998? Various bedrooms in the White House and advanced weapons systems were for sale during his presidency (Chinagate). Pardons were for sale near the end of his presidency (Pardongate). Through it all, however, the thin-skinned Clinton, who barely avoided being prosecuted by perjury, remained (and remains) self-righteous and sanctimonious in the criticism of his critics.

The current caesar, Barack Hussein Obama, is just following a tradition of men who have believed themselves to be something akin to demigods, incapable of error, unwilling to accept criticism of any kind at any time. Our current caesar, however, is not bashful about expressing his disappointment in the lowly peons as he exalts himself and complains bitterly about the lack of appreciation that is being shown him and his policies. Caesar Obamus has lived in the rarified world of delusional self-affirmation, surrounding himself with like minded elitists of the naturalist"left," each convinced that they have a right and a duty to implement whatever policies they desire regardless of that little thing called the Constitution, no less, of course, of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

The naturalists of the false opposite of the "right," however, also have their thin-skinned caesars, men who bristle with resentment when they are criticized or when they are questioned by honest reporters (as opposed to those with an ideological agenda) about statements they have made or positions that they have taken. Criticism is just part of being in the public limelight. As one who has been criticized roundly in the secular and Catholic media over the decades, my good and increasingly fewer readers, I can report to you that one should not seek public office or make his comments about the events of the day public if he is unwilling to be criticized, which is why I rarely respond to critics, preferring to let readers assess the facts for themselves.

This is something that the surprise winner of the Republican gubernatorial nomination in the State of New York, Buffalo businessman Carl Paladino, is going to have to learn in a hurry if he has any chance of defeating the notoriously thin-skinned Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General of the State of New York and the son of the very, very, very, thin-skinner former Governor of the State of New York, Mario Matthew Cuomo, who was known to telephone pastors of conciliar parishes to complain to them personally if he, Cuomo, had been criticized from their pulpits for his support of chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law (see Mario Pilate, Pontius Cuomo and Memo to Andrew Cuomo). Paladino found himself in quite a brouhaha last week when he told reporters to investigate whether Andrew Cuomo had been unfaithful to his wife, Kerry Kennedy Cuomo, even though he had not a shred of evidence to back up this allegation and was totally clueless that in making such an allegation public he was violating the binding precepts of the Eighth Commandment.

Indeed, although Andrew Cuomo is publicly flaunting his relationship with a divorced woman, something that is fair game for comment and criticism (although he is not being so criticized as such behavior has become "accepted" in our culture of relativism and naturalism born of the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry), it is well known that he was the aggrieved party when the behavior of his wife became public eight years ago now. Carl Paladino did Andrew Cuomo and his children a grave injustice and he, Paladino, had do back down when he was pressed to provide any proof of his scandalous allegation.

Paladino did not, however, back down before confronting the dean of Albany, New York, political correspondences, the New York Post's Frederic Dicker, who asked Paladino for proof of his allegation against Andrew Cuomo. Paladino quickly changed the subject, focusing on the New York Post's staking out the house of his former paramour and their ten year-old daughter. Paladino flew into a thin-skinned, profanity-laced rage that ended with a not-so-veiled threat against Frederic Dicker:

But Mr. Paladino’s near-physical confrontation with a New York Post reporter on Wednesday night, along with his unsubstantiated assertions about the private life of his opponent, Andrew M. Cuomo, which he later retracted, have the political world grappling with this difficult question: In an election season defined by anger, how much is too much?

As a video of the confrontation ricocheted around the Internet and dominated cable news shows, those who watched it argued over whether Mr. Paladino had crossed a line or whether his plain-spoken fury, however undignified, was the perfect match for a restive electorate.

Nowhere was the debate more intense than among the fellow Republicans whose political fortunes are tied to Mr. Paladino’s in November. Already wrestling with how tightly to embrace Mr. Paladino, who is also the Tea Party-backed candidate, they found themselves newly divided, and some appeared to distance themselves from his behavior while clinging to his message.

Mr. Paladino refused to apologize for his eruption at the reporter, whom he blamed for sending photographers to take pictures of his 10-year-old daughter from an extramarital affair at her home. But he conceded in a television interview he had no evidence that Mr. Cuomo had been unfaithful during his marriage, which ended in divorce, and said he merely wanted reporters to scrutinize his rival’s personal life as closely as they had his own.

Still, his campaign released a blistering statement attacking the reporter, Fredric U. Dicker, and accusing The Post of harassing his family and skewing its coverage toward Mr. Cuomo, leaving his supporters to fret over whether Mr. Paladino’s reaction would overshadow what they believed was his appealing platform of steep cuts to taxes and spending.

“I think the campaign should be fought on issues,” said Michael Long, the chairman of the state Conservative Party, which endorsed Mr. Paladino for governor. “So I would hope it would stay that way.” Of the criticisms of Mr. Cuomo’s personal life, Mr. Long said, it was “not something I would do.”

Some Republicans found their doubts ripening overnight. In an interview earlier in the week, Representative Peter T. King, a Republican from Long Island, said that Mr. Paladino “may be reading the public mood better than anyone.” But in a follow-up interview on Thursday, Mr. King expressed concern about Mr. Paladino’s behavior.

“I’m always skeptical and concerned when a candidate goes into his opponent’s personal life,” Mr. King said, declining to elaborate.

Mr. Paladino’s broader challenge echoes those of other Tea Party insurgents around the country, as passionate but untested candidates have toppled more-established Republicans in primaries only to struggle under the bright lights and scrutiny of general election campaigns.

In Nevada, Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for senator, has had difficulty explaining positions she took in the past, like calling for the phasing out of Social Security, and she sharply cut down on public appearances soon after her victory in June, at one point running away from a television reporter.

And in Delaware, the Republican Senate candidate, Christine O’Donnell, remains at open war with the local Republican Party, even as she seeks to address revelations about teenage experimentation with witchcraft and exaggerations on her résumé. (Paladino and Anger: How Much Is Too Much?)

 

Leaving aside the Senate candidates of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle for a moment or two, the thin-skinned, provocative behavior of Carl Paladino is symptomatic of what happens to men when they are caught up in the vortex of electoral politics in a system where there is no consideration whatsoever of pursuing the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, which is, of course, 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. A system steeped in the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity that has been aided and abetted by the errors of Modernism produces men who are so thin-skinned as to forget, if they even were aware of, the horror that one of their least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother to suffer as those Seven Swords of Sorrow were pierced through and through her Immaculate Heart. Men who do not have the horror of their own sins uppermost in their minds will become sanctimonious, self-righteous and sometimes even downright violent when their own "prestige" or "wisdom" is called into question.

Men who do not meditate upon First and Last Things will not understand that it is good for them to be humiliated and crushed in the public eye as means by which their disordered self-love and pride may be beaten out of them, which is why we should meditate fervently upon how it is that our sins of pride caused Our Lord to be so cruelly crowned with thorns by the mocking Roman soldiers, and this is coming from one who has had to learn this lesson and who is still learning this lesson as it is not fun, humanly speaking, to see one's life's work caricatured and torn apart. Alas, of course, my sins deserve far, far worse than anything I have thus far suffered in this passing, mortal vale of tears, which is why I have come, solely by the graces sent to be by Our Lord through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to accept the mockery and scorn and rejection of the multitudes, recognizing that I am no better than any other person and, quite indeed, far, far worse than most others. It is good, very good, to be humiliated and scorned and mocked.

The caesars of this world, though, do not think in these terms. Why should they? Who has taught these lessons to them? The conciliar schools and/or the conciliar religious miseducation programs? The conciliar "bishops"? The conciliar "pastors"? Who? Who has attempted to refer all things in the temporal realm to those of Heaven above in the service of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen? To paraphrase Saint Augustine, you cannot teach what you do not know and you cannot give what you do not have. Such is the tragedy of Modernity in the world and of the counterfeit church's "reconciliation" with Modernity by means of the errors of Modernism critiqued and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Realpolitik Uber Alles

The petty caesars of the naturalist "right" are putting on their own side shows at the present time as they pull their hair and gnash their teeth at candidates who have not "risen through the ranks," which is why the likes of Sharron Angle, who spoke honestly recently about the Republican establishment's contempt of her, and Christine O'Donnell, who defeated the establishment candidate, United States Representative Michael Castle (R-Delaware), on September 14, 2010, rankle them so much. The careerists within the Republican Party and the political consultants who make oodles and oodles of money want all mention of the "social issues" to go away, and it appears as though Miss O'Donnell, who said recently that she would not let her "private" views interfere with her public policy positions (see Gatekeepers of the Mainstream, part two), has caved to the careerist pressure to accept "realpolitik uber alles" (that is, to accept the "reality" of hard-knocks politics before else that necessitates an essentially amoral, do-whatever-it-takes-to-win strategy regardless of one's "personal" views).

The "realpolitik uber alles" approach of establishment Republicans is there for all to see. It's been there forever. The "social issues" were only "acceptable" when "The Gipper" was president as it was immediately after his departure from the White House on January 20, 1989, that the then Chairman of the Republican National Committee, the late Lee Atwater, began talking up his "big tent" strategy that has been critiqued on this site endlessly (see Caring Not For Homegrown Terrorism for a recent commentary on the approach that was designed to curry favor with Republican donors and "swing" voters who believed in the nonexistent "right" of women to kill their preborn babies).

Protestants such as Howard Phillips, the Chairman of the Conservative Caucus Foundation, and Chuck Baldwin, who was the Constitution Party's presidential candidate in 2008, and Catholics such as Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, have critiqued the penchant of the Republican mainstream to make the life issues disappear in the context of electoral campaigns and to do things and to pursue policies once elected that are patently anti-life (see Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naïve, or Willingly Ignorant?). Another commentator, once who is unknown to me, assessed the current "realpolitik uber alles" as follows in a recent column:

Those in leadership should know that you can only have good governance and sound fiscal policy when you have sound social policy, but this gets ignored to our society’s detriment.

This summer, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels called for a truce on social issues. Recently, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said that candidates who do anything but focus on economic issues are “taking [their] eye[s] off the ball” and are “running down rabbit trails.” He went on to say that a candidate’s stance on abortion, “ain’t going to change anybody’s vote this year."

Therein lays the problem with the current Republican establishment. They don’t want to fight the good fight. The only value they hold true and virtue they proclaim is winning. Are the candidates “electable”? 

Look at how the Republican establishment, in particular the Beltway establishment, has acted in contested primaries: One of the most egregious examples we have seen is the recent Delaware GOP Senate primary. 

Christine O’Donnell who is both a fiscal and social conservative ran against a 30-year establishment fixture in Representative Mike Castle. The establishment coalesced around Castle, loaded up on opposition research, and attacked O’Donnell because of her financial struggles – something that too many Americans can relate to.

Even after she won the primary she’s still being called out as “unelectable,” and the Republican Senatorial Committee refuses to spend any money on the race. They are so blinded by a desire to declare a victory; they don’t see that mainstream Americans want principled leadership and spinal fortitude, something they don’t offer.

The political class always want to set the agenda, and in the recent past, they have. What they fail to realize is that the ultimate sovereigns, “We the People,” now set the agenda. We want more than electability. We want principles. We want leaders with conviction. (Shane Vander Hart, It's STILL the Social Issues, Stupid.)

 

A "truce" on the social issues, Governor Daniels? Go tell that to the four thousand babies who will be torn apart, burned, butchered and otherwise mangled today, Governor Daniels. Go tell that to Christ the King, Who will be the Supreme Judge of each of our souls at the moment of our deaths, He Who condescended to be conceived as a helpless embryo in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation. A "truce" on the social issues? Don't you realize, Governor Daniels, that most of the social ills that Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus and his fellow statists want to resolve by means of the use of confiscatory taxes and the forcible redistribution of wealth and the issuance of greater and greater regulations to govern various sectors of the economy, including the heath care industry, are the result of the systematic, planned breakdown on the stability of the family that has been wrought by the forces of Judeo-Masonry?

Divorce, contraception, surgical abortion, the attacks on the innocence and purity of children by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and, among other evils, the public promotion of the agenda of those steeped in the very sins that caused the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha have torn apart families, undermined the role of parents as the principal educators of their children, have caused children to be shunted from from one step-parent to another step-parent and from day care programs to pre-school programs to after-school programs and, in all too many instances, into jail itself after leading childhoods without love and lives without any direction that is meant to be given them by the true God of Divine Revelation through the Catholic Church. Our economy itself is suffering as a result of the over fifty million human beings whose lives have been snuffed out by surgical abortions, to say nothing of the hundreds of millions more who have been killed by chemical abortifacients. Our jobs would not have to be outsourced to Red China and Malaysia and The Philippines and Mexico by the very multinational corporations that have funded Planned Parenthood to the hilt, thus killing off their own future customers in the United States of America and killing off a wellspring of a job market for generations to come.

A "truce" on the social issues, Governor Daniels? A "truce"? What craven political cowardice. A "truce"?

Perhaps the likes of Mitch Daniels and the "good ole boy" from Yazoo City, Mississippi, Haley Barbour, ought to understand once and for all that a nation that countenances the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means will never be blessed by God with long term economic prosperity and will never be free of threats to its national security from other nations, especially Red China, and Mohammedan terrorist groups. Why should other nations and groups of terrorists have regard for our safety when we don't provide safety to the most defenseless of all human beings, the innocent preborn, under cover of the civil law? What shallowness. "Winning" at the cost of defending moral truth is not "winning" at all. It is to lose one's immortal soul for all eternity in Hell.

Who says so? Permit me to return once again to Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

 

Do you still want your "truce," Governor Daniels?

Do you still want to be so dismissive of the killing of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs, Governor Barbour?

It is impossible to produce temporal peace and security when things that are repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity are protected under cover of the civil law and promoted in every aspect of what passes for popular culture:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

 

As well as Mr. Shane Vander Halt sees the problems with the Republican establishment, however, he fails to recognize that there is a reason for the Republican establishment's careerist behavior: the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church and the subsequent rise of the anti-Incarnational forces of naturalism that can be termed collectively as Judeo-Masonry. The late Father Denis Fahey explained the immediate social effects of the Protestant Revolution in his The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)

 

Mr. Vander Hart's reliance on the "sovereignty" of people argument for combating the Republican establishment is misplaced as Christ the King, Who governs us through His Catholic Church, is the sovereign of men and their nations, not the "people." And it is not some general sense of "religion" as desired by the mocker of Our Lord's Sacred Divinity, John Adams (see appendix below), that can correct the moral flaws of a nation. It is only Catholicism. Nothing else, something that the conciliar revolutionaries themselves reject, believing that it is "good enough" for Catholics to have a "say" in the public market place of ideas. This blithe acceptance of the false presuppositions of Modernity is what has produced a governing class which rules for itself, something that Pope Pius XI pointed out in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

To these evils we must add the contests between political parties, many of which struggles do not originate in a real difference of opinion concerning the public good or in a laudable and disinterested search for what would best promote the common welfare, but in the desire for power and for the protection of some private interest which inevitably result in injury to the citizens as a whole. From this course there often arise robberies of what belongs rightly to the people, and even conspiracies against and attacks on the supreme authority of the state, as well as on its representatives. These political struggles also beget threats of popular action and, at times, eventuate in open rebellion and other disorders which are all the more deplorable and harmful since they come from a public to whom it has been given, in our modern democratic states, to participate in very large measure in public life and in the affairs of government. Now, these different forms of government are not of themselves contrary to the principles of the Catholic Faith, which can easily be reconciled with any reasonable and just system of government. Such governments, however, are the most exposed to the danger of being overthrown by one faction or another. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

 

Ultimately, of course, as I have noted many times in the past on this site, there can be no "peace" within nations or in the world when men persist in warfare with God by means of persisting in unrepentant sins, worse yet when men are indifferent to those sins, preferring to champion the cause of a material well-being that will elude their grasp as long as their nation's laws promote crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance

More to the point,of course, is the simple truth that there can be no peace in or among nations in a world where God is offended so regularly and with such impunity by putative "popes" and putative "bishops" and as these spiritual robber barons are defended, either by acts of omission or commission, in their blasphemous offenses against God by those seeking to claim,  as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does with regularity, that false religions, including those that deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, can "contribute" to the cause of temporal well-being within nations and to peace among them.

Crimes against God are worse in the hierarchy of evils than crimes against men, which is why this poor sinner, who has much for which to make reparation before he dies, will never cease attempting to defend the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity as It is attacked by the lords of conciliarism and by the lords of Modernity who scoff at any mention of supernatural truths, no less that they must be subordinate at all times and in all things to Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us through His Catholic Church.

This is the month of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. Men, whether acting individually or collectively, deceive themselves if they think that they can make the world a "better" place absent a profound devotion to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. Our Lady told us in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-three years ago that we must pray the Rosary to console the good God and to make reparation for our sins as we pray for the conversion of poor sinners and for the faithful fulfillment of her Fatima Message. This is a work of the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer, Who is giving us every chance to repent and convert. Why do men still persist in their obstinate refusal to take Our Lady's Fatima Message seriously and to organize Rosary processions and rallies to counter the naturalism of the day and to serve as valiant champions of Christ the King?

We must not be distracted by the side shows of naturalism or conciliarism. We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

What are we waiting for?

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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.

Saint Bruno, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

The Hatred of John Adams for Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. ( President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787-1788)

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away {with} all this artificial scaffolding…" (11 April, 1823, John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Lester J. Cappon, II, 594).

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821)

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, quoted in 200 Years of Disbelief, by James Hauck)

Appendix B

Pope Leo XIII on the Sort of Religious Indifferentism Exhibited by the likes of John Adams

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.)