Not Interested In "Assisi III"   

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As events in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Yemen have unfolded in recent weeks, it is reasonably clear now that those who have taken to the streets in these Mohammedan countries desire "free elections" as the means of installing at least some level of Mohammedan rule to replace the secular regimes that have governed these countries. There is a particular irony in this if one considers the fact that the administration of former President George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney removed an authoritarian secular Mohammedan, Saddam Hussein, from power in Iraq nearly eight years ago, making possible a path to civil power by Mohammedans who have ties to those wonderful, peace-loving leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iraq. Why shouldn't throngs of people in various Mohammedan nations protest for the right to "free elections" in their own countries to bring to power there the sort of Mohammedans--or variations thereof--who were able to rise to power in Iraq following our own unjust invasion and occupation of that country on March 20, 2003?

The presence of the Muslim Brotherhood, some of whose members were responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat on October 6, 1981, in the ongoing protests that have resulted in the de facto collapse of the dictatorial, authoritarian regime of Sadat's successor, President Hosni Mubarak, has raised great concerns among the State of Israel's reflexive defenders here in the United States of America. This is not without a just foundation.

The Muslim Brotherhood has close ties to the Islamic Republic of Iran and has actively supported Hamas in the Gaza territory and Hezbollah in Lebanon. A new Egyptian government that includes, if not is controlled by, members of the Muslim Brotherhood would certainly be hostile to the interests of the Israelis, something that was assessed by a Talmudist in Washington Looks Clueless on Egypt. From the Israeli point of view, though, the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is worse than "clueless" about Egypt. The Obama-Biden administration is "open" to "working with" the Muslim Brotherhood as the new leadership of Egypt emerges following the end of Mubarak's regime, whether that occurs now or seven months from now after "free" elections as Mubarak announced yesterday, February 1, 2011, if the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood renounce violence and commit themselves to "democracy" (see White House Open to Role for Muslim Brotherhood in New Gov't).

Leaving  aside for the moment the central point that I made in American Pots Lecturing Egyptian Kettles concerning the fact that Egypt is suffering from the after-effect of the Mohammedan invasions of the Seventh Century that pretty much wiped out the Holy Faith a country where substantial numbers of its people were Catholics, it is truly astounding to see the congruity between the false world views possessed by the leaders of a civil state founded in the false, naturalistic, religious indifferentist, semi-Pelagian and anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity and those possessed by the leaders of the counterfeit church of concilairism that is founded in the condemned propositions of Modernism as they have been "updated" by the so-called "new theology." President Barack Hussein Obama believes that the Muslim Brotherhood can be transformed into a vehicle of "peaceful transition" in Egypt to something approaching an American-style pluralistic state while Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes yet another Assisi "World Day of Peace" hootenanny this coming October can help bring "mutual understanding" and "respect" among the "world's religions" so that they can learn to "coexist" with each other and thus produce what he considers to be "peace." Both of these men are mad.

First, Mohammedanism of its very nature is violent.

Second, Mohammedanism of its very nature is a violent rejection of the true Faith.

Third, Mohammedanism has always sought world hegemony. This false religion is evangelical. It means to dominate the world. Its false Sharia laws (and variants thereof) are already being used in the United Kingdom in certain cases in the place of the laws that apply to non-Mohammedans.

Fourth, Mohammedan leaders will use the machinery of "elections" in supposedly "free" or recently "liberated" nations to impose the same sort of "Islamic republic" that was imposed upon Iran following the return of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to that nation thirty-two years ago yesterday, that is, on February 1, 1979, following his fifteen year exile in Najaf, Iraq, and one year in France from 1963 to 1979. Mohammedans desire total control, and they are acquiring great power in Western nations as a result of doing what indigenous Europeans have not been doing for decades now: having lots and lots of children. As has been noted on this site endlessly, the Mohammedans are winning by procreation what they lost in military battles at Lepanto on October 7, 1571, and the Gates of Vienna on September 12, 1683. Does anyone think that they are not going to use "free elections" in overwhelmingly Mohammedan nations to control every aspect of national law and culture?

Well, yes, I guess there are some who believe this, starting with Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (see  Unity and Peace Cannot Be Based in Error and Falsehood, part one,  Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part one and Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part one).

Obama,  for example, has learned nothing from the rank naivete of former President James Earl Carter, Jr., who pushed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi out of Iran to pave the way for Khomeini's return. The naivete of former President Appeaser, I mean, Carter, was shared by the now eighty-six year-old one term president's United Nations Ambassador, Andrew Young, who called Ayatollah Khomeini "some kind of saint." This naievete was chronicled in an essay, dated December 1, 2006, that is to be found on the website of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California:

The tendency toward wishful thinking continued even after the revolution in February 1979. Whereas Tehran increasingly viewed the U.S. through the darkly hued optic of its paranoid phantasms and loudly demonized America as its Enemy No. 1, Washington plugged its ears and looked back through rose-colored glasses. The American Representative to the UN, Andrew Young, described Khomeini as “some kind of saint,” while National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was favorably disposed toward him, since he seemed to Brzezinski to represented an effective barrier against Soviet influence. “We can get along with Khomeini!” was the motto in that summer of 1979. Businesspeople were encouraged to invest in Iran. Members of Congress were subtly discouraged from making critical comments. Critical journalists who refused to follow the line were denigrated. The following episode, as described by Michael Ledeen and William Lewis, is illustrative of the atmosphere:

There was considerable consternation and disgruntlement in the State Department and the cia when three American newspapers published extensive accounts of Khomeini’s writings. The articles showed that Khomeini’s books revealed him as a violently anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Zionist, and anti-Semitic individual, who offered an unattractive alternative to the shah. Yet as late as the first week in February 1979, when Khomeini was returning in triumph to Tehran, Henry Precht [the head of the State Department’s Iran desk] told an audience of some two hundred persons at the State Department “open forum” meeting that the newspaper accounts were severely misleading, and he went so far as to accuse Washington Post editorial columnist Stephen Rosenfeld of wittingly disseminating excerpts from a book that Precht considered at best a collection of notes taken by students, and at worst a forgery. Precht was hardly an isolated case, for the conviction was widespread that Khomeini’s books were either false, exaggerated, or misunderstood.4

Thus, the State Department and the CIA defended their false picture of Khomeini against all intrusion of reality. Remarkably, somewhat later the CIA asked Rosenfeld if he could lend the agency the edition of the book he had cited, since it did not have its own copy. So much for the most omniscient and cunning intelligence agency of the most omniscient and cunning government in the world. (From Khomeini to Ahmadinejad.)

 

Truly, it is astounding to see history repeat itself so soon after the events unfolded in Iran thirty-two years ago now and after several decades of active Mohammedan terrorist acts that have been escalating in the past two decades, resulting in the attacks on the people of the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and elsewhere, including on commuter rail lines in Madrid, Spain (March 11, 2004) and on the London subway system (July 7, 2005). The Obama administration, which shares a kindred spirit of the New World Order with the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, believes in the "flower power" of the 1960s. Indeed, the Obama administration is a hyper-steroidal variant of what a George McGovern administration would have been if the former United States Senator from South Dakota had not lost forty-nine states to then President Richard Milhous Nixon, on Tuesday, November 7, 1972. This is very remarkable to behold even from a purely naturalistic, geopolitical perspective.

It is no less astounding to see Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI clinging tenaciously to the false, apostate "world view" that guided him and the other peritii at the so-called "Second" Vatican Council, which opened on the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on October 11, 1962, and closed on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary on December 8, 1965. Blinded by one falsehood after another, the octogenarian Ratzinger/Benedict believes that a "way" can be found to bring men of different "religions" together to fight "irreligion" in the world, a falsehood that was exploded by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, as he condemned the very false ecumenism that is the backbone of conciliarism and that has been the cornerstone of the "pontificates" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one." And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has defected from the Holy Faith on numerous points of doctrine, starting with his denial of the nature dogmatic truth that was condemned by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (September 8, 1907) and in The Oath Against Modernism (September 1, 1910) and by Pope Pius XII in (August 12, 1950), throughout the course of his nearly sixty years as a priest, aping his predecessor as the head of his manifestly false sect, has gone the original false ecumenists of Pope Pius XI's time one better: he believes that any and every religion can fight "irreligion," not simply those that are said to be Christian, with what he believes is Catholicism, including Mohammedanism and the contemporary Talmudic religion that is termed as Judaism. This is apostasy. It is, however, apostasy that is clung to quite tenaciously despite even the empirical evidence demonstrating its falsity, no matter how such an apostate world view  makes a mockery of the commission that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave to the Eleven on Ascension Thursday:

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28: 18-20.)

 

Neither Barack Hussein Obama or Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI would admit, let alone think for a single moment, that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members are not at all interested in Assisi III, in Egypt and of the collapse or the threatened collapse of other secular regimes in the Mohammedan world is a chastisement upon the West for rejecting the Social Reign of Christ the King and, as well, a chastisement upon the Zionists in Israel for their persistence in warfare against the Divine Redeemer, Whose Holy Name they reject as being what It is: the only "name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4: 12). So very few people, including Obama and Ratzinger/Benedict, of course, understand or accept the fact that the Mohammedans and the Talmudists who occupy lands that were sanctified by the very presence of the Divine Redeemer Himself while He lived on earth, are being used by God to chastise each other so that they might be punished for their infidelities. The West itself is being chastised for its refusal to return to the sweet yoke of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Do not fear! Our Lady has promised us that her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. We must cling steadfastly not to the errors of Modernity or of Modernism but to her own Fatima Message, remembering that three days from now, February 5, 2011, is the First Saturday of the month of February, the month of the Most Holy Trinity.

Pray your Rosaries. Keep making sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Christ the King will reign again:

"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, 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.

See also: A Litany of Saints