Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
May 7, 2011


Liars Lie, Liars Lie Regularly

by Thomas A. Droleskey

This article is by way of reiteration of points that I have made many times on this site.

This new article is made necessary by a number of scathing e-mails that have been sent to me in response to my brief article dealing with the announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed in a commando raid in a million dollar compound in the city of Abbottadad, Pakistan, on Sunday, May 1, 2011.

 "Osama bin Laden" died in 2001 from renal failure."

"Don't believe what the Jewish media says is true."

"Osama bin Laden died in 2004 from heart failure."

"There is no such thing as al-Qaeda. What goes by that name is a front for the Israeli Mossad."

"United States Federal Bureau of Investigation Direction Robert Muller said that there is no evidence linking al-Qaeda to the attacks that took place on September 11, 2011."

"You are a fool for believing the Jews."

"Osama bin Laden was not a terrorist."

"You are an idiot for believing that there was a commando raid."

"You are an idiot."

And those were some of the milder notes that I received.

In light of the e-mails, therefore, permit me to rephrase the first few paragraphs of Children of Terror in a manner that might calm down those who wrote me such nice notes:

So, Caesar Obamus Barackus Ignoramus tells us that Osama bin Laden has been killed by a commando raid conducted by American forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan, thirty-five miles northwest of Islamabad, without the prior knowledge or permission of Pakistani government officials, who have been, it would appear, winking at the al-Qaeda leader's alleged longtime presence in their nation for many years now. The commando raid was certainly appeared to be stunning in its planning and execution, although, not to anyone's surprise, we now discover that Barack Hussein Obama's intelligence adviser, John Brennan, did not speak the truth when saying that Osama bin Laden used one of his wives as a human shield or that he was armed when the commandos entered his compound. Disinformation first. Truth later. It matters not whether we have Republican naturalists or Democratic naturalists in office. Disinformation first. Truth later, if ever.

The alleged killing of the man said to be responsible for masterminding the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole on October 22, 2000, in Aden, Yemen, and of the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998 has, some believe, brought to temporal justice a man who was directly responsible for the deaths of, to use a liberal figure, around 5,000 human beings.

Indirectly, of course, Osama bin Laden is responsible for giving then President George Walker Bush the pretext to launch military action in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, that has resulted in the deaths of 1,465 military personnel of the United States of America and about a thousand others from the nations of the "coalition" and thousands of Afghan civilians. Although some will argue that the "global war on terror" launched by Bush the Lesser on October 7, 2001, was "worth it" because it is now claimed that we got Osama bin Laden, that those arrested in Afghanistan gave officials of the United States Central Intelligence Authority the clues that they needed to hunt him down and bring him to temporal justice, there were other ways in which intelligence agencies could have gathered the necessary information than the loss of lives and the squandering of billions of dollars, much of which has gone into the pockets of the corrupt Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, and his friends, f, that is, Osama bin Laden was alive at all.

Taking nothing away from the sense of relief felt by the families of those who died on September 11, 2001, now that the mastermind of the attacks that took place in this country on that date has been killed, the celebrations that broke out spontaneously late Sunday night, May 1, 2011, and yesterday, May 2, 2011, on the streets of many American cities were misplaced. Yes, they were understandable. There's enough of the jingoistic American left in my bones to have felt an impulse of satisfaction upon hearing the news of Osama bin Laden's alleged death in an apparently stunning raid conducted after the painstaking piecing together of clues over the course of several years. Sure, the celebrations are understandable.


Is that better?

Look, the whole point of  Children of Terror was to point out that the spontaneous celebrations that broke out throughout the United States of America upon hearing the news of Osama bin Laden's reported death (better?) in an American commando raid were misplaced and hypocritical. Even if Osama bin Laden was still alive and still planning terror attacks (if ever ever planned such attacks, that is) and if al-Qaeda and not other nefarious forces were responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks and other such incidents in Madrid, Spain, and London, England, the man was responsible for somewhere around 5,000 deaths. This is just about a thousand people more than are killed every day in this country by means of surgical abortion alone. We are one of the most terroristic nations on the face of this earth as we practice domestic and global terrorism upon the innocent preborn (and as our own legitimate liberties are curbed by confiscatory tax policies and by the near-fascistic regulation of various aspects of our daily lives) and as we invade sovereign nations, killing untold hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings to advance the spread of "democracy" to make the Middle East "safe" for Israel. That was the point of Children of Terror.

Yes, historical truth matters. It is important.

As even al-Qaeda, however, is admitting that someone named Osama bin Laden was killed on Sunday, May 1, 2011, it is perhaps possible, mind you, that this is indeed the case.

Prompted by those wonderful notes that I have received from a few readers, though, I did a bit of research to discover that, yes, there have been reports floating around for the past decade that Osama bin Laden had died in 2001.

Reports of Osama bin Laden's death were reported as early as late-2001:

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."
(FOXNews.com - Report: Bin Laden Already Dead.)


The Taliban would have had a vested interest in reporting that Osama bin Laden had died as it would remove at least some of the justification for the American invasion of Afghanistan and throw off suspicion that the Pakistani government might have been providing him with relatively safe refuge in "plain sight" in Abbottadad. This is, as I see it, a possible explanation for this report from 2001 that did not get a lot of traction in the "mainstream" media, as I recall it at the time.

Alas, there were enough other reports so as to prompt a book to be written about the subject:

In his book, Professor Griffin also endorses this theory. He says Bin Laden was treated for a urinary infection, often linked to kidney disease, at the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001, two months before 9/11. At the same time, he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to Afghanistan.

How could Bin Laden, on the run in snowy mountain caves, have used the machine that many believe was essential to keep him alive? Doctors whom Griffin cites on the subject think it would have been impossible.

He would have needed to stay in one spot with a team of medics, hygienic conditions, and a regular maintenance programme for the dialysis unit itself.

And what of the telling, small news item that broke on December 26, 2001 in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd? It said a prominent official of the Afghan Taliban had announced that Osama Bin Laden had been buried on or about December 13.

'He suffered serious complications and died a natural, quiet death. He was buried in Tora Bora, a funeral attended by 30 Al Qaeda fighters, close members of his family and friends from the Taliban. By the Wahhabi tradition, no mark was left on the grave,' said the report.

The Taliban official, who was not named, said triumphantly that he had seen Bin Laden's face in his shroud. 'He looked pale, but calm, relaxed and confident.'

It was Christmas in Washington DC and London and the report hardly got a mention. Since then, the Bin Laden tapes have emerged with clockwork regularity as billions have been spent and much blood spilt on the hunt for him.

Bin Laden has been the central plank of the West's 'war on terror'. Could it be that, for years, he's just been smoke and mirrors? (Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years.)


It turns out that the source for the book is the same Taliban source as was quoted by Fox News. Could the reports have been correct, making my very plausible thesis that the Taliban had a lot to gain by falsely reporting bin Laden's death merely that, a thesis, that bin Laden has been dead for ten years? Sure.

The facts appear to speak otherwise:

Contrary to a widely held belief that Bin Laden was on dialysis to treat a kidney ailment, Pakistani investigators said last week that his youngest wife told them that he was healthy. “He was neither weak nor frail,” one of the investigators quoted the wife as saying. She told them, they said, that Bin Laden had long recovered from two kidney surgeries a decade or more ago in southern Afghanistan, in part by using homemade medications, including watermelon.  (Bin Laden’s Secret Life in a Diminished, Dark World.)


Someone had to be awfully, awfully busy to make those videos of a fake Osama bin Laden that have been released by American officials. Entire teams of video editors would have had to been hard at work for a long time to manufacture what is presented right now.

Is our government capable of perpetrating a large-scale hoax? You betcha.

Could the war monger named George Walker Bush have sought to keep the memory of a "dead" Osama bin Laden alive to justify the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in the so-called "global war of terror" that was the brainchild is his neoconservative brain trust? Could the 2004 audio tape of Osama bin Laden that surfaced just before the presidential election on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, have been faked?

Could Barack Hussein Obama, needing a boost in the public opinion polls at a time the latest American intervention in a Mohammedan nation, Libya, has gone awry as the predictable stalemate occurred, have ordered a commando raid to seek out a man known by American intelligence agents to have been dead for ten years in a Wag the Dog scenario? What? Obama lie? You go answer that question for yourselves. Could the current president have gone after a "dead" bin Laden to find a pretext to withdraw American troops from a country where they never belonged, Afghanistan?

Yes, these things are possible.

Lies were told by the "patriots" during the American Revolution and as intimidating tactics were used to silence and harass Tories.

Lies were told to foment the War of 1812.

Lies were told to start the Mexican-American War.

Lies were told to start and then to continue to prosecute the War between the States that began one hundred fifty years ago this year.

Lies were told to start and then to prosecute the Spanish-American War in 1898 that resulted in the capture of Spanish colonies and the introduction of Protestantism and Freemasonry into Cuba, Puerto Rico and The Philippines, each of which has suffered tremendously as a result.

Massive, gargantuan lies were told to initiate and then maintain American involvement in World War I even though no vital American national security interests were at stake as the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who nationalized the American railroads and suppressed dissent during that war at a time he was supporting the war of the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico against our fellow Catholics.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt told lies during the Depression. He told lies during campaigns. He told lies before and during World War II.

Disinformation was provided the American people by the administrations of Harry Truman and Dwight David Eisenhower and John Kennedy during the Cold War.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was a world-class liar, a man who tried to exceed the excesses of his mentor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who protected Johnson from indictment on corruption charges in the 1930s, with his War on Poverty and Great Society as he conducted a massive ground war in Southeast Asia that he had promised during the 1964 campaign against United States Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) that he would never do. Lies were told throughout the course of the Vietnam War by Johnson and his associates.

Richard Nixon? See Poster Boys Of Modernity.

Jimmy Carter? There was a limerick that made the rounds during his campaign against then President Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., in 1976 that went something like this: "Jimmy Carter promised to tell us the truth, but everything he lied he grew another tooth."

Ronald Reagan? Well, he just couldn't "remember" all of those details about selling of arms to Iran to release American hostages held by the Hezbollah in Lebanon as the proceeds from those arms sales went to support the Contras in Nicaragua. Mind you, supporting the Contras was the correct thing to do no matter the Congressional resolution against providing aid to them. The truth, though, was not told about the matter, especially concerning the involvement of the Contras with the trafficking in hallucinogenic substances.

George Herbert Walker Bush? What do you expect from a Skull and Bonesman? Lies, that's what. He cooked up a scheme with the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States of America to arrange for testimony to be given by a Kuwaiti woman that she had been assaulted by Iraqi troops following their invasion of that country on August 2, 1990. The woman was the Kuwaiti daughter's ambassador. No such assault had taken place.

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton? You cannot be serious. You are joking, right? See, for example, They Never Take Prisoners and A System Based on Lies Produces Liars.)

George Walker Bush? Just search the Articles page of this website! Here's just a reminder to the peanut gallery, however: I was on record in opposition to the the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and the build-up to the unjust and immoral invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2002 and 2003 in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos. Some of that opposition can be found in the archives of the Daily Catholic website, although much of it was expressed in the pages of The Remnant and on the Seattle Catholic, where my articles were long ago expunged as though they had never existed. Here, however, are just a few articles on this and other websites that dealt with the lies of George Walker Bush and the utter madness of his "global war on terror" waged in the name of "American exceptionalism:"  Longer Than World War IIA Tale of Two Speeches, The Real Enemies Are Within, part 1; The Real Enemies Are Within, part 2, and, among many others, Go Tell Iraq's Catholics--and American Babies--About The "Lesser of Two Evils".

Barack Hussein Obama? Again, please refer to the Articles page of this website, including Refusing to Read the Signs of the Times.

Thus it is stipulated, quite of course, that American presidents and their enablers in the "mainstream" media lie. Granted.

Still and all, it is my judgment--and only that, that, yes, the real Osama bin Laden was killed six days ago in Abbottadad, Pakistan, where he  had been given refuse by the corrupt Mohammedan leaders of Pakistan. And, yes, I do believe that Osama bin Laden played a role in the attacks of the United States of America on September 11, 2001. Permit me, therefore, to include some passages from an an article published eight months ago now that summarize my noninfallible views on this matter better than anything I could write anew:

Readers of this site know that I am wary of details of various conspiracy theories as I attempt to keep the focus in my articles on the ultimate conspirator against the sanctification and salvation of our immortal souls, the devil, who prowls about the world like a roaring lion seeking to devour our souls. To be sure, there are, for example many unanswered questions as to how the crashing of two jetliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, caused those buildings to pancake down to the ground,. It is also curious that officials of the government of the State of Israel informed the Israeli nationals who worked in those buildings to stay away from them that day as an Israeli film crew "just happened" to be filming that part of lower Manhattan from across New York Harbor in New Jersey that morning, I also realize that none of the unanswered questions about the attacks on the territory of the United States of America that took place nearly nine years ago are going to answered until the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living of the Dead. I happen to be of the mind that it is pointless to try to "find out" the "true cause" of events such as who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy or what happened to the former Teamsters' Union President James Riddle Hoffa at the Machus Red Fox Restaurant on the afternoon of July 30, 1975. We have not been created to spend our days trying to unravel mysteries that have nothing at all to do with the sanctification and salvation of our immortal souls.

That having been stipulated, let me stipulate for the purposes of this article that I find it eminently plausible that there were, regardless of the possible involvement or foreknowledge of the American or the Israeli intelligence communities, Mohammedans who plotted to attack the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 2001 as had happened on February 26, 1993, as a means of expressing outrage over continued American support of the policies of the State of Israel.

Ramzi Yousef, one of the chief masterminds behind the February 26, 1993, bombing that killed six people and injured over a thousand others, listed his occupation as "terrorist" on his A-95 immigration card when he entered the United States of America prior to that first bombing, being given permission, after a brief time in detention upon his arrival here in September of 1992, to enter the country legally even though he had listed his "occupation" clearly and honestly for customs and immigration agents to see for themselves. Yousef admitted this in U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before he was sentenced by Federal District Court Judge Kevin Duffy on January 8, 1998:


You keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism.

You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so-called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.

And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so-called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people, and which other than Iraq you have been placing the economic embargo on Cuba and other countries for over 35 years. . . .

The Government in its summations and opening statement said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites. (Excerpts From Statements in Court.)


Ramzi Yousef, of course, is the nephew of a man who is only three years older than he is. His uncle is none other than Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the man who masterminded the September 11, 2001, attacks on twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, New York, and at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. Although many readers of this site might disagree, it is my judgment that, yes, the plan behind these immoral and unjustified attacks on American targets was the work of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization in retaliation for uncritical American support for the policies of the State of Israel, leaving all other considerations of the possible involvement and/or foreknowledge of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, as a means of "involving" the United States of America into a "global war on terror" to make the Middle East safe for "America's only ally," Israel, for the Last Day. Such foreknowledge and/or involvement on the part of Mossad or any other intelligence agency will be impossible to prove or disprove in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

What is known with reasonable certainty, however, is that Osama bin Laden acted through his al-Qaeda organization that he, who fought with the United States-backed and financed Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and occupation of that country from December 27, 1979, to February 15, 1989, formed after the Soviets had withdrawn in utter defeat from Afghanistan to plan the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States of America. He has told us so in his very own words:

O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results.

Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security, contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not attack Sweden for example.

It is known that those who hate freedom do not possess proud souls like those of the 19, may God rest their souls. We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander your's.

I'm surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.

God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed - when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the US sixth fleet.

In those difficult moments many emotions came over me which are hard to describe, but which produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and a strong determination to punish the unjust.

As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.

[Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers _ called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism ...

We had agreed with [the September 11] overall commander, Mohammed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration take notice.

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American forces [Bush] would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This had given us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God ...

Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe. ("God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers")


Do not discount everything in what Osama bin Laden said in 2004 merely because he used the violent means used by the blasphemous false "prophet" himself, Mohammed, to "avenge" the real injustices that have been perpetrated by the foreign and military policies of the government of the United States of America over the course of its existence. Even those who plan the mass murder of innocent civilians can get their facts straight even as they are steeped in the ravages of Original Sin and their own Actual Sins (as is the case with any adherent of the Talmud or, in the case of Osama bin Laden, the Koran). Karl Marx, for example, saw the real injustices being perpetrated by capitalists upon workers in Germany and England in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. The reality of the injustices he saw are not invalidated because his prescription to remedy those injustices were of the devil himself (see Appendix A below for yet another attempt to explain that the excesses of Calvinist capitalism and the socialistic-communistic response to those excesses are but two sides of the same diabolical coin).

Yes, the government of the United States of America has used unjust and immoral tactics to "win" various wars.

It was immoral to firebomb residential neighborhoods of Dresden, Germany, on February 13 and 14, 1945.

It was immoral to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, and on Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9, 1945.

Do not believe the nationalistic swill propagated by American myth-makers that the lives of over half a million Americans would have been lost in hand-to-hand-combat on the islands of Japan to "win" World War II in Asia if those atomic bombs had not been dropped. Japan was willing to surrender conditionally before the dropping of those atomic bombs. The Americans did not accept Japan's offer of a conditional surrender as the dictator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Joseph Stalin, insisted at the Potsdam Conference (July 17, 1945 to August 2, 1945) upon an unconditional surrender of Japan as a condition for the Soviets entering the war in the Pacific so that they could recover claims lost in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Here is the relevant part of the Potsdam Declaration, which was issued on July 26, 1945, that referred to the demand for Japan's "unconditional" surrender:

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction. (Potsdam Declaration.)


The precepts of the Just War Theory demand that there must be an end to hostilities during warfare as soon the wound to justice that necessitated the use of force can be mended in a just manner. Even the prosecution of a just war brings with it the unintentional deaths of innocent civilians and the spread of disease and the destruction of fields and crops and livestock and national infrastructure. The Catholic Church teaches us that hostilities must cease as soon as the terms of a just peace can be realized so as to prevent the further loss of life and property. To yield to the demands of the brutal mass murdered and dictator Joseph Stalin, whose nation's participation the the Pacific theater of World War II was not necessary to secure the defeat of the Japanese Empire, was unjust in and of itself, and the dropping of a a true weapon of mass destruction upon civilian population centers, which just happened to contain the largest concentration of Catholics of anywhere in Japan, was a further injustice. That Osama bin Laden sees this as the injustice that it was does not make his perception invalid.

That having been noted, however, Osama bin Laden's reaction to the injustices of the governments of the United States of America, which have included the funding and indemnification of the brutal, murderous policies of the State of Israel against the Palestinians and the Lebanese and anyone and everyone else who gets in the way of Israeli objectives, is itself unjust and immoral.

In seeking to strike out violently to "avenge" the injustices committed by the government of the United States of America over the course of its history, however, Osama bin Laden has been entirely faithful to the example of death and destruction practiced by the founder of his false religion and that was visited upon thoroughly Catholic areas in North Africa and the Near East and the Iberian Peninsula in the Seventh Century that was halted in southern France at the Battle of Tours (Poitiers) on October 10, 732, by the Catholic forces led by Charles Martel. The same swath of Mohammedan death and destruction was visited upon the Balkans in Europe, where many Christians succumbed to the Mohammedan demand of "convert or die!", and was used in attempts to penetrate the very heart of Christendom during  the Battle of Lepanto, October 7, 1571, and the Battle of the Gates at the Gates of Vienna, on September 13, 1683. Osama bin Laden has been--and continues to be--completely faithful to his false religions precepts of death and destruction that were practiced by its founder and that have been used throughout the course of Mohammedan history to conquer lands and people.

Far from being that "religion of peace" referred to by former President George Walker Bush and by the current caesar, President Barack Hussein Obama, Mohammedanism has spread its falsehoods by death and destruction from the very beginning. It is on the verge, however, of conquering Europe as indigenous Europeans have contracepted and aborted themselves so thoroughly that they will be in the minority of the population of their formerly Catholic nations by the middle of this century barring the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary prior to that time. Osama bin Laden is not an "Islamic aberration." He is a faithful son of the false, blasphemous mass murderer named Mohammed.

As a faithful son of the false religion of Mohammedanism, therefore, Osama bin Laden had many reasons to "hate" the policies of the United States of America as forgiveness is not to be found in the lexicon of a true son of Mohammed. In addition to the reasons stated in his 2004 tape recording that was issued just prior to the American presidential election between the partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion Methodist named George Walker Bush and the completely pro-abortion Catholic named John Frederick Kerry, Osama bin Laden had hated the Americans, once the bankrollers of the Mujahideen with whom he fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for using his own native Saudi Arabia after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, as a staging grounds for Persian Gulf War of January 17, 1991, to February 28, 1991. Osama bin Laden, who seethed with contempt for the libertine secularist named Saddam Hussein, the late dictator of Iraq, wanted to be of service to his homeland in fighting Hussein. All of that changed, however, when King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, agreed to let the Americans set up operations in Saudi Arabia, something that bin Laden believed was sacrilegious to the "sacred" territory of his homeland. His crusade against the United States of America began then and there.

Thus it is, my good and very few readers, that, despite the protestations of the administration of President George Walker Bush, there was no link between the delusional Saddam Hussein and the attacks that took place on American soil on September 11, 2001. There were not, as has been noted on this site and in many of my other writings in the past eight years, no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq as Hussein had used the stockpile of such weapons that had supplied to him in 1985 by the administration of then President Ronald Wilson Reagan for use in Iraq's ongoing war with the Islamic Republic of Iran against the Kurds in northern Iraq shortly after the end of the Persian Gulf War.

For those of you who did not complete the assignment given at the beginning of this brief article, here is a little reminder of the the cozy relationship between President Reagan's special Mideast Envoy, a chap named Donald Rumsfeld, a thirty-third degree Mason, and Saddam Hussein in 1985:


  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.)


The premises for the invasion and occupation of Iraq offered by former President George Walker Bush were false. The real goal of the invasion and occupation was "regime change" to make the Middle East "safe for Israel," a goal that was outlined in 1998 in a letter to President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on Iraq that was signed by some of the very neoconservative war hawks that would serve in the "Bush 43" administration and offer to the American people one falsehood after another as they tried to make a war of aggression appear to be a "necessary" means of "preemptive" self-defense.

There is a little problem with this, you see, according to the Just War Theory: war is never to be undertaken as a first resort. It is to be undertaken only as a regrettable last resort after all means to arrive at peaceful resolution of a conflict have been exhausted. Then again, how could all peaceful means be exhausted when the men who lied about the premises that supposedly justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq wanted to prosecute such a war in the first place? (Two Different Caesars, Same Old Spin.)


The American commando raid in Abbottadad, Pakistan, six years ago that I believe resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden, is certainly suspect in its timing. Bin Laden's "value" as a day-to-planner in the operations of al-Qaeda may have been exaggerated. If he was, however, involved in planning the killing of innocent Americans, as one report states in no uncertain terms, no matter how he had rationalized that killing on the basis of the injustices of American foreign policy, then he deserved to be subject to temporal punishment for those crimes. I am sorry if that offends anyone who believes that he died in 2001 or that he was never involved in planning an terrorist attacks on anyone in his life. Call me stupid. Call me an idiot. Call me a dupe of the media. Call me anything you want. This is simply my assessment of the facts with which anyone can disagree.

This in no way whatsoever detracts from the irony I noted in Children of Terror, that the leaders of false opposites of the United States of America in the Republican and Democratic Parties are responsible for the deaths of far, far more many people than was Osama bin Laden. It is precisely the crimes of American policy-makers that make this country more vulnerable to attacks from without as they subject the innocent preborn--and others--in this country and the world to a bloodbath that is unparalleled in the history of the world. Although these leaders may not ever pay a temporal price for their crimes, they will pay the ultimate price, the loss of their immortal souls for all eternity if they not repent of their crimes and convert to the Catholic Faith before they die.

The killing of Osama bin Laden does not, however, justify in an ex post facto manner the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture upon prisoners held by the government of the United States of America in Guantanamo, Cuba, or elsewhere in "secret prisons" in various parts of the world where employees of "private contractors" conducted the "enhanced interrogations" to extract information out of those being tortured. The ends never justify the means. Never. Ever. under any circumstances.

We live in a time of rank amorality, a time where those who rule believe that the ends do indeed justify the means, that they can lie and kill and torture and maim with utter impunity as long as they have some "higher" purpose, a "pure" motive, if you will. 

Protestants, such as George Walker Bush, within the ranks of temporal rulers do not fear the just judgment of God because they believe that they are "saved."

Secularists, such as Barack Hussein Obama, within the ranks of temporal rulers do not fear the just judgment of God because they really do not believe in God at all, no less the true God of Divine Revelation.

Talmudists care only for subjugating whoever they can to their own falsehoods as they seek to silence about public reference to the Holy Name of the One they hate, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Believing Mohammedans seek world domination, and they are achieving majority status in Europe by means of procreation what they lost at the Battle of Tours on October 10, 732, and in the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571, and in the Battle of the Gates of Vienna on September 13, 1683.

These liars have been let loose in the world as a direct consequence of f the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and the rise of the multifaceted, interrelated forces of Judeo-Masonry. The really big lie of Modernity is that men can organize themselves and their nations without regard to the fact the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, became Incarnate in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, and was born in utter poverty in Bethlehem to die in utter ignominy on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday to redeem the human race. Readers of this site know that I have written hundreds upon hundreds of articles on this one theme alone, and it is that upon which my work is focused as we cannot and must not permit ourselves to be so agitated by particular lies as to lose sight of their proximate root cause, something explained in some depth with respect to the American experience in Not A Mention of Christ the King.

The answer to this madness is the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King as a result of the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message and thus of the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart. It is not to be found in anything offered in the cottage industries created by various Protestant and naturalist merchants of "information" and "truth" (Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Hugh Hewitt, et al.), each of whom has products galore which are nothing more than the modern equivalents of snake-oil salesmen who serve their own roles in agitating the masses and keeping Catholics from considering the events of the world in light of First and Last Things and keeping them by turning off the idiot box, which they should have thrown out of their houses a long time ago, and the radio and praying more and more Rosaries each day.

Father Frederick Faber, writing in The Creator and Creature, which was published in 1856, explained the influence of worldliness upon Catholics even in his own day, a worldliness that causes us to lose sight of the fact that the side shows of the lords of Modernity are simply that, side shows from the devil that distract us from the simple truth that men and their nations must be converted to Catholicism and that individual men must live penitentially in reparation for their sins as they beseech the Mother of God to help them to grow in holiness so that they are ready at all times to die in a State of Sanctifying Grace. These words of Father Faber are worth considering once again if you have read them before. They are worth reading for the first time if you have not done so:

The question of worldliness is a very difficult one, and one which we would gladly have avoided, had it been in our power to do so. But it is in too many ways connected with our subject, to allow of its being passed over in silence. In the first place, a thoughtful objector will naturally say, If the relation between the Creator and the creature is such as has been laid down in the first eight chapters, and furthermore if it is as manifest and undeniable as it is urged to be, how comes it to pass that it is not more universally, or at least more readily, admitted than it is? Almost all the phenomena of the world betray a totally opposite conviction, and reveal to us an almost unanimous belief in men, that they are on a quite different footing with God from that one, which is here proclaimed to be the only true and tenable one. There must be at least some attempt to explain this discrepancy between what we see and what we are taught. The explanation, we reply, is to be found in what Christians call worldliness. It is this which stands in the way of God's honor, this which defrauds Him of the tribute due to Him from His creatures, this which blinds their eyes to His undeniable rights and prerogatives. How God's own world comes to stand between Himself and the rational soul, how friendship with it is enmity with Him--indeed an account of the whole matter must be gone into, in order to show, first, that the influence of the world does account for the non-reception of right views about God, and, secondly, that the world is in no condition to be called as a witness, because of the essential falsehood of its character. This identical falsehood about God is its very life, energy, significance, and condemnation. The right view of God is not unreal, because the world ignores it. On the contrary, it is because it is real that the unreal world ignores it, and the world's ignoring it is, so far forth, an argument in favor of the view.

But not only does this question of worldliness present itself to us in connection with the whole teaching of the first eight chapters; it is implicated in the two objections which have already been considered, namely, the difficulty of salvation and the fewness of the saved. If it is easy to be saved, whence the grave semblance of its difficulty? If the majority of adult Catholics are actually saved, because salvation is easy, why it is necessary to draw so largely on the unknown regions of the death-bed, in order to make up our majority? Why should not salvation be almost universal, if the pardon of sin is so easy, grace so abundant, and all that is wanted is a real earnestness about the interests of our souls? If you acknowledge, as you do, that the look of men's lives, even of the lives of believers, is not as if they were going to be saved, and that they are going to be saved in reality in spite of appearances, what is the explanation of these appearances, when the whole process is so plain and easy? To all this the answer is, that sin is a partial explanation, and the devil is a partial explanation, but that the grand secret lies in worldliness. That is the chief disturbing force, the prime counteracting power. It is this mainly, which keeps down the number of the saved; it is this which makes the matter seem so difficult which is intrinsically so easy; nay, it is this which is a real difficulty, though not such an overwhelming one as to make salvation positively difficult as a whole. Plainly then the phenomenon of worldliness must be considered here, else it will seem as if an evident objection, and truly the weightiest of all objections, had not been taken into account, and thus an air of insecurity will be thrown, not only over the answer to the preceding two objections, but also over the whole argument of the first eight chapters.

This inquiry into worldliness will, in the third place, truthfully and naturally prepare us for the great conclusion of the whole inquiry, namely, the personal love of God is the only legitimate development of our position as creatures, and at the same time the means by which salvation is rendered easy, and the multitude of the saved augmented. For it will be found that the dangers of worldliness are at once so great and so peculiar, that nothing but a personal love of our Creator will rescue us from them, enable us to break with the world, and to enter into the actual possession of the liberty of the sons of God.

O, it is a radiant land--this wide, many-colored mercy of our Creator! But we must be content for a while now to pass out of its kindling sunshine into another land of most ungenial darkness, in the hope that we shall come back heavy laden with booty for God's glory, and knowing how to prize the sunshine more than ever. There is a hell already upon earth; there is something which is excommunicated from God's smile. It is not altogether matter, not yet altogether spirit. It is not man only, nor Satan only, nor is it exactly sin. It is an infection, an inspiration, an atmosphere, a life, a coloring matter, a pageantry, a fashion, a taste, a witchery, an impersonal but a very recognisable system. None of these names suit it, and all of them suit it. Scripture calls it, "The World." God's mercy does not enter into it. All hope of its reconciliation with Him is absolutely and eternally precluded. Repentance is incompatible with its existence. The sovereignty of God has laid the ban of the empire upon it; and a holy horror ought to seize us when we think of it. Meanwhile its power over the human creation is terrific, its presence ubiquitous, its deceitfulness incredible. It can find a home under every heart beneath the poles, and it embraces with impartial affection both happiness and misery. It is wider than the catholic Church, and is masterful, lawless, and intrusive within it. It cannot be damned, because it is not a person, but it will perish in the general conflagration, and so its tyranny be over, and its place know it no more. We are living in it, breathing it, acting under its influences, being cheated by its appearances, and unwarily admitting its principles. Is it it not of the last importance to us that we should know something of this huge evil creature, this monstrous seabird of evil, which flaps its wings from pole to pole, and frightens the nations into obedience by its discordant cries?

But we must not be deceived by this description. The transformations of the spirit of the world are among its most wonderful characteristics. It has its gentle voice, its winning manners, its insinuating address, its aspect of beauty and attraction; and the lighter its foot and the softer its voice, the more dreadful is its approach. It is by the firesides of rich and poor, in happy homes where Jesus is named, in gay hearts which fain would never sin. In the chastest domestic affections it can hide its poison. In the very sunshine of external nature,in the combinations of the beautiful elements--it is somehow even there. The glory of the wind-swept forest and the virgin frost of the Alpine summits have a taint in them of this spirit of the world. It can be dignified as well. It can call to order sin which is not respectable. It can propound wise maxims of public decency, and inspire wholesome regulations of police. It can open the churches, and light the candles on the altar, and entone Te Deums to the Majesty on high. It is often prominently, and almost pedantically, on the side of morality. Then, again, it has passed into the beauty of art, into the splendor of dress, into the magnificence of furniture. Or, again, there it is, with high principles on its lips, discussing the religious vocation of some youth, and praising God and sanctity, while it urges discreet delay, and less self-trust, and more considerate submissiveness to those who love him, and have natural rights to his obedience. It can sit on the benches of senates and hide in the pages of good books. And yet all the while it is the same huge evil creature which was described above. Have we not reason to fear?

Let us try to learn more definitely what the world is, the world in the scripture sense. A definition is too short, a description is too vague. God never created it; how then does it come here? There is no land, outside the creation of God, which could have harbored this monster, who now usurps so much of this beautiful planet, on which Jews was born and died, and from which He and His sinless Mother rose to heaven? It seems to be a spirit of spirit, which has risen up from a disobedient creation, as if the results, and after-consequences of all the sins that ever were, rested in the atmosphere, and loaded it with some imperceptible but highly powerful miasma. It cannot be a person, and yet it seems as if it possessed both a mind and a will, which on the whole are very consistent, so as to disclose what might appear to be a very perfect self-consciousness. It is painless in its operations, and unerring too; and just as the sun bids the lily be white and the rose red, and they obey without an effort, standing side by side with the same aspect and in the same soil, so this spirit of the world brings forth colors and shapes and scents in our different actions, without the process being cognisable to ourselves. The power of mesmerism on the reluctant will is a good type of the power of this spirit of the world upon ourselves. It is like grace, only that it is contradictory.

But it has not always the same power. It the expression may be forgiven, there have been times when the world was less worldly than usual; and this look as as if it were something which the existing generator of men always gave out from themselves, a kind of magnetism of varying strengths and different properties. As Satan is sometimes bound, so it pleases God to bind the world sometimes. Or He thunders, and the atmosphere is cleared for awhile, and the times are healthy, and the Church lifts her head and walks quicker. But, on the whole, its power appears to be increasing with time. In other words, the world is getting more worldly. Civilization develops it immensely, and progress helps it on, and multiplies its capabilities. In the matter of worldliness, a highly civilized time is to a comparatively ruder time what the days of machinery are to those of hand-labor. We are not speaking of sin; that is another idea, and brings in fresh considerations: we are speaking only of worldliness. If the characteristic of modern times go on developing with the extreme velocity and herculean strength which they promise now, we may expect (just what prophecy would lead us to anticipate) that the end of the world and the reign of anti-Christ would be times of the most tyrannical worldliness.

This spirit also has its characteristic of time and place. The worldliness of one century is different from that of another. Now it runs toward ambition in the upper classes and discontent in the lower. Now to money-making, luxury, and lavish expenditure. One while it sets towards grosser sins; another while towards wickedness of a more refined description; and another while it will tolerate nothing but educated sin. It also has periodical epidemics and accessions of madness, thought at what intervals, or whether by the operation of any law, must be left to the philosophy of history to decide. Certain it is, that ages have manias, the source of which it is difficult to trace, but under which whole communities, and sometimes nations, exhibit symptoms of diabolical possession. Indeed, on looking back, it would appear that every age, as if an age were an individual and had an individual life, had been subject to some vertigo of its own, by which it may be almost known in history. Very often, the phenomena, such as those of the French Revolution, seem to open out new depths in human nature, or to betoken the presence of some preternatural spiritual influences. Then, again, ages have panics, as if some attribute of God came near to the world, and cast a deep shadow over its spirit, marking men's hearts quail for fear.

This spirit is further distinguished by the evidences which it presents of a fixed view and a settled purpose. It is capricious, but, for all that, there is nothing about it casual, accidental, fortuitous. It is well instructed for its end, inflexible in its logic, and making directly, no matter through what opposing medium to its ultimate results. Indeed, it is obviously informed with the wisdom and subtlety of Satan. It is his greatest capability of carrying on his war against God. Like a parasite disease, it fixes on the weak places in men, pandering both to mind and flesh, but chiefly to the former. It i one of those three powers to whom such dark pre-eminence is given, the world, the flesh, and the devil; and among these three, it seems to have a kind of precedence given to it, by the way in which our Lord speaks of its in the Gospel, though the line of its diplomacy has been to have itself less thought of and less dreaded than the other two; and, unhappily for the interests of God and the welfare of souls, it has succeeded. It is, then, pre-eminent among the enemies of God. Hence the place which it occupied in Holy Scripture. It is the world which hated Christ, the world which cannot receive the Spirit, the world that loves its own, the world that rejoices because Christ has gone away, the world which He overcame, the world for which He would not pray, the world that by wisdom knew not God, the world whose spirit Christians were not to receive, the world that was not worthy of the saints, the world whose friendship is enmity with God, the world that passeth away with its lusts, the world which they who are born of God overcome, or, as the Apocalypse calls its, the world that goes wandering after the beast. Well then might St. James come to his energetic conclusion, Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God. It is remarkable also that St. John, the chosen friend of the Incarnate Word, and the Evangelist of His Divinity, should be the one of the inspired writers who speaks most often and most emphatically about the world, as if the spirit of Jesus found something especially revolting to it in the spirit of the world.

It is this world which we have to fight against throughout the whole of our Christian course. Our salvation depends upon our unforgiving enmity against it. It is not so much that it is a sin, as that it is the capability of all sins, the air sin breathes, the light by which it sees to do its work, the hotbed which propagates and forces it, the instinct which guides it, the power which animates it. For a Christian to look at, it is dishearteningly complete. It is a sort of catholic church of the powers of the darkness. It is laws of its own, and tastes the principles of its own, literature of its own, a missionary spirit, a compact system, and it is a consistent whole. It is a counterfeit of the Church of God, and in the most implacable antagonism to it. The doctrines of the faith, the practices and devotions of pious persons, the system of the interior life, the mystical and contemplative world of the Saints, with all these it is at deadly war. And so it must be. The view which the Church takes of the world is distinct and clear, and far from flattering to its pride. It considers the friendship of the world as enmity with God. It puts all the world's affairs under its feet, either as of no consequence, or at least of very secondary importance. It has great faults to find with the effeminacy of the literary character, with the churlishness of the mercantile character, with the servility of the political character, and even with the inordinateness of the domestic character. It provokes the world by looking in progress doubtingly, and with what appears a very inadequate interest, and there is a quiet faith in its contempt for the world extremely irritating to this latter power.

The world on the contrary thinks that it is going to last for ever. It is almost assumes that there are no other interests but its own, or that if there are, they are either of no consequence, or troublesome and in the way. It thinks that there is nothing like itself anywhere, that religion was made for its convenience, merely to satisfy a want, and must not forget itself, or if it claims more, must be put down as a rebel, or chased away as a grumbling beggar; and finally it is of opinion, that of all contemptible things spirituality is the most contemptible, cowardly, and little. Thus the Church and the world are incompatible, and must remain so to the end.

We cannot have a better instance of the uncongeniality of the world with the spirit of the Gospel, than their difference in the estimate of prosperity. All those mysterious woes which our Lord denounced against wealth, have their explanation in the dangers of worldliness. It is the peculiar aptitude of wealth and pomp, and power, to harbor the unholy spirit of the world, to combine with it, and transform themselves into it, which called forth the thrilling malediction of our Lord. Prosperity may be a blessing from God, but it may easily become the triumph of the world. And for the most part the absence of chastisement is anything but a token of God's love. When prosperity is a blessing, it is generally a condescension to our weakness. Those are fearful words, Thou has already received thy reward; yet how many prosperous men there are, the rest of whose lives will keep reminding us of them; the tendency of prosperity in itself is to wean the heart from God, and fix it on creatures. It gives us a most unsupernatural habit of esteeming others according to their success. As it increases, so anxiety to keep it increases also, and makes men restless, selfish, and irreligious; and at length it superinduces a kind of effeminacy of character, which unfits them for the higher and more heroic virtues of the Christian character. This is but a sample of the different way which the Church and the world reason.

Now it is this world which, far more than the devil, fare more than the flesh, yet in union with both, makes the difficulty we find in obeying God's commandments, or following His counsels. It is this which makes earth such a place of struggle and of exile. Proud, exclusive, anxious, hurried, fond of comforts, coveting popularity, with an offensive orientation of prudence, it is this worldliness which hardens the hearts of men, stops their ears, blinds their eyes, vitiates their taste, and ties their hands, so far as the things of God are concerned. Let it be true that salvation is easy, and that by far the greater number of Catholics are saved, it is still unhappily true that that the relations of the Creator and the creature, as put forward in this treatise, are not so universally or so practically acknowledged as they ought to be. Why is this? Sin is a partial answer. The devil is another partial answer. But I believe worldliness has got to answer for a great deal of sin, and for a great deal of devil, besides a whole deluge of iniquity of its own, which is perpetually debasing good works, assisting the devil in his assaults, and working with execrable assiduity against the sacraments and grace. The world is for ever lowering the heavenly life of the Church. If there ever was an age in which this was true, it is the present. One of the most frightening features of our condition is, that we are so little frightened of the world. The world itself has brought this about. Even spiritual books are chiefly occupied with the devil and the flesh; and certain of the capital sins, such as envy and sloth, no loner hold the prominent places which they held of the systems of the elder ascetics; and yet they are just those vices which contain most of the ungodly spirit of the world. The very essence of worldliness seems to consist in its making us forget that we are creatures; and the more this view is reflected upon, the more correct will it appear.

When our Blessed Lord describes the days before the Flood, and again those which shall precede the end of the world, He portrays them rather as times of worldliness than of open sin. Men were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage; and He says no more. Now none of these things are wrong in themselves. We can eat and rink, as the apostle teaches us, to the glory of God, and marriage was a divine institution at the time of the Flood, and is not a Christian Sacrament. In the same way when He describes the life of the only person whom the gospel narratives follows into the bode of the lost, He sums it up as the being clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasting sumptuously every day. here again there is nothing directly sinful in the actions which He names. It surely cannot be a mortal sin to have fine linen, nor will a man lose a state of grace because he feasts sumptuously every day, provided that no other sins follow in the train of this soft life. The malice of it all is in its worldliness, in the fact that this was all or nearly all the lives of those before the flood, of those before the days of anti-Christ, and of the unhappy Dives. Life began and ended in worldliness. There was nothing for God. It was comprised in the pleasures of the world, it rested in them, it was satisfied by then. Its characteristic was sins of omission. Worldliness might also be defined to be a state of habitual sins of omission. The devil urges men on to great positive breaches of the divine commandments. The passions of the flesh impel sinners to give way to their passions by such dreadful sins, as catch the eyes of men and startle them by their iniquity. Worldliness only leads to these things occasionally and by accident. It neither scandalizes others, not frightens the sinner himself. This is the very feature of it, which, rightly considered, ought to be so terrifying. The reaction of a great sin, or the same which follows it, are often the pioneers of grace. They give self-love such a serious shock, that under the influence of it men return to God. Worldliness hides from the soul its real malice, and thus keeps at arm's length from it some of the most persuasive motives to repentance. Thus the Pharisees are depicted in the Gospel as being eminently worldly. It is worldliness, not immorality, which is put before us. There is even much of moral decency, much of respectable observance, much religious profession; and yet when our Blessed Saviour was among them, they were further from grace than the publicans and sinners. They had implicit hatred of God in their hearts already, which became explicit as soon as they saw Him. The Magdalen, the Samaritan, the woman taken in adultery--it was these who gathered round Jesus, attracted by His sweetness, and touched by the graces which went out from Him. The Pharisees only grew more cold, more haughty, more self-opinionated, until they ended by the greatest of all sins, the crucifixion of our Lord. For worldliness, when its selfish necessities drive it at last into open sin, for the most part sins more awfully and more impenitently than even the unbridled passions of our nature. So again there was the young man who had great possessions, and who loved Jesus when he saw Him, and wished to follow Him. He was a religious man, and with humble scrupulosity observed the commandments of God; but when our Lord told him to sell and give the price to the poor and to follow Him, he turned away sorrowful, and was found unequal to such a blessed vocation. Now his refusing to sell his property was surely not a mortal sin. It does not appear that our Lord considered him to have sinned by his refusal. It was the operation of worldliness. We do not know what the young man's future was; but a sad cloud of misgivings must hang over the memory of him whom Jesus invited to follow Him, and who turned away. Is he looking now in heaven upon that Face, form whose mild beauty he so sadly turned away on earth?

Thus the outward aspect of worldliness is not sin. Its character is negative. It abounds in omissions. Yet throughout the Gospels our Saviour seems purposely to point to it rather than to open sin. When the young man turned away, His remark was, How hard it is for those who have riches to enter into the kingdom of heaven. But the very fact of our Lord's thus branding worldliness with His especial reprobation is enough to show that it is in reality deeply sinful, hatefully sinful. It is a life without God in the world. It is a a continual ignoring of God, a continual quiet contempt of His rights, an insolent abatement in the service which He claims from His creatures. Self is set up instead of God. The canons of human respect are more looked up to than the Divine Commandments. God is very little adverted to. He is passed over. The very thought of Him soon ceases to make the worldly man uncomfortable. Indeed all his chief objections to religion, if he thought much about the matter, would be found a repose on his apprehension of it as restless and uncomfortable. But all this surely must represent an immensity of interior mortal sin. Can a man habitually forget God, and be in a state of habitual grace? Can he habitually prefer purple garments and sumptuous fare to the service of his Creator, and be free of mortal sin? Can be make up a life for himself even of the world's sinless enjoyments, such as eating, drinking, and marrying, and will not the mere omission of God from it be enough to constitute him in a state of deadly sin? At that rate a moral atheist is more acceptable to God than a poor sinner honestly but freely fighting with some habit of vice, to which his nature and his past offenses set so strongly, that he can hardly lift himself up. At that rate the Pharisees in the Gospel would be the patterns for our imitation, rather than the publicans and sinners; or at least they would be as safe. Or shall we say that faith is enough to save us without charity? If a man only believes rightly, let him eat and rink and be gaily clothed, and let him care for nothing else, and at least that exclusive love of creatures, that omission of the Creator, provided only it issues in no other outward acts than his fine dinners and his expensive clothes, shall never keep his soul from heaven. His purple and his sumptuous feasting shall be his beatific vision here, and then his outward morality shall by God's mercy hand him on to his second beatific Vision, the Vision of the beauty of God, and the eternal ravishment of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity! Can this be true?

Yet on the other hand, we may not make into sins what God had not made sins. How is this? O it is the awful world of inward sin which is the horror of all this worldliness! It is possession, worse far than diabolical possession, because at once more hideous and more complete. It is the interior irreligiousness, the cold pride, the hardened heart, the depraved sense, the real unbelief, the more implicit hatred of God, which makes the soul of the worldly man an actual, moral, and intellectually hell on earth, hidden by an outward show of faultless proprieties, which only make it more revolting to the Eye that penetrates the insulting disguise. The secret sins moreover of the worldly are a very sea of iniquity. Their name is legion; they cannot be counted. Almost every thought is sin, because of the inordinate worship of self that is in it. Almost every step is sin, because it is treading underfoot some ordinance of God. It is a life without prayer, a life without desire of heaven, a life without fear of hell, a life without love of God, a life without any supernatural habits at all. Is not hell the most natural transition from such a life as this? heaven is not a sensual paradise. God is the joy, and he beauty, and the contentment there; all is for God, all from God, all to God, all in God, all around God as the beautiful central fire about which His happy creatures cluster in amazement and delight. Whereas in worldliness God is the discomfort of the whole thing, an intrusion, an unseasonable thought, an unharmonious presence like a disagreeable uninvited guest, irritating and fatiguing us by the simple demand His presence makes on sufferance and our courtesy. O surely such a man has sin in his veins instead of blood!

Worldliness then is a life of secret sins. It is such an irresistible tendency to sin, such a successful encouragement of it, such a genial climate, such a collection of favourable circumstances, such an amazing capability of sin, that it breeds actual sins, regularly formed and with all the theological requirements, by millions and millions. It we read what the catechism of the Council of Trent says of sins of thought, we shall see how marvellously prolific sins can be, and what a pre-eminently devastating power sins of thought in particular exercise within the soul. In numberless cases open and crying sins must come at last. Still we must remember that on the whole there are two characteristics which always distinguish sins of worldliness from sins of the passions, or sins of direct diabolical temptation. The respectability which worldliness affects leads it rather to satisfy itself in secret sins. Indeed its worship of self, its predilection for an easy life, would hinder its embarking in sins which take trouble, time, and forethought, or which run risks of disagreeable consequences, and therefore would keep it confined within a sphere of secret sins. And in the next place its love of comfort makes it so habitually disinclined to listen to the reproaches of conscience, or the teasing solicitations of grace, that it passes into the state of a seared conscience, a dreaded moral sense, with a speed which is unknown even to cruelty or sensuality. (Father Frederick Faber, The Creator and Creature, written 1856 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 314-328.)


This is a description of our world today, is it not? These passages should be required reading of all of our traditional clergy, especially those who do not believe that it is "pastorally prudent" to speak in these terms, that they would "turn people off" if they did so, refusing them the "pleasures" of watching television or going to the "latest" motion picture or dressing in ways that offend Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother. Anyone who believes that "our people today" are not "ready" to accept--and could never "handle"--being challenged with the truths contained in these passages from Father Faber ought to surrender to the Novus Ordo establishment immediately as the entire ethos of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is designed to be an accommodation with the prevailing spirit of the world in order for Catholics to "relax," "have fun" and "enjoy themselves." This is the path to Hell, not the path to the glories of Heaven, which are open to those who work hard to get there, especially by eschewing worldliness in of its fancy allurements.

Indeed, Catholics are more and more susceptible to participating in the world because the world has been deprived of the Sanctifying and Actual Graces that people need to resist it. The barren sacramental rites of a false church, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, have Catholics and non-Catholics alike exposed to a veritable tornado from the devil that uproots from them all notion of eternal verities, no less an abiding commitment to the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church, the one and only true Church, for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. The chaos and lies and the killing that abound in our world today are in large measure the result of the loss of grace that has occurred because of the promulgation and institutionalization of the false rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King, a doctrine of the Catholic Church that inspired countless kings and prices and queens and princesses and emperors of the Catholic Middle Ages to govern according to the Mind of the Divine Redeemer as they kept uppermost in their own minds the fact that they would be judged by their Eternal High Priest and King by how well and just and diligent they were in pursuing the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, seeking to foster those conditions in their temporal realms wherein citizens could better sanctify and thus save their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

The world in which we live today is one where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reign as King and where His Most Blessed Mother is not honored as its Immaculate Queen is one where most every man will live and think and act and speak naturalistically, not supernaturally according to the Mind of the Divine Redeemer as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church. The Faith must be shunted aside in favor or the pursuit of wealth or popularity or career success or in favor of this or than naturalistic"system" of economic, social and political "order" to which which must be rendered an assent of faith and a due submission of will at all times.

It cannot and it must not be this way with us, ladies and gentlemen. We must be deceived by the farce of the "battle" between the naturalists as the out-and-out-statists tell lies to protect their own power against its being diminished by the "conservative" statists while both combatants believe in the lies of Modernity.

We must grow in love more and more with God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church. We will come to hate our sins the more. We will seek to do voluntary penances for our sins and those of the whole world. We will be more attentive to the needs of the members of the Church Suffering in Purgatory. We will have more apostolic zeal for the salvation of souls, seeking to distribute Green Scapulars to those whom God's Holy Providence places in our paths each day. We will live for the Faith, not for the passing things of this world.

We must look beyond the naturalism of the moment as we trust completely in the mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, rendering unto that Heart of Hearts all of our prayers and penances and mortifications and sufferings and humiliations through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart out of which It was formed, the Immaculate Heart of Mary itself. Our trust must be in the Eucharistic piety and total Marian consecration as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our freely chosen states in life permit. We must resolve, once and for all, not to be anxious about anything in the world as we trust totally in the mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and and the intercessory power of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The very saint whose martyrdom in 1079 we commemorate today, Saint Stanislaus, stood up to the immorality of his own brother, Boleslaus, who governed in a wicked manner. We must stand up to evil in our own lives, rooting it out from our souls in cooperation with the graces sent to us by Our Lord through Our Lady's loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces, and fear never to call it by its proper name in the world or in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has made its reconciliation with its false, anti-Incarnational and religiously indifferentist premises.

May the offerings we make to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially in this month of May, help to transform a world of lies into a world where He, the Way, the Truth and the Life, is recognized as the One and only Redeemer of men, that His truths have been entrusted for all eternity to the authority of the Catholic Church, which will forever champion His Social Reign over men and nations.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, 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 Stanislaus, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2011, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.