Friday, 4 January 2013
Over on Father Z
is an important discussion on hate groups...and use my blog search bar and put in persecution, for the stages of...
Victories and Losses-Gramsci and the West
Antonio Gramsci was a professional revolutionary. I have written more posts on him, perhaps, than any other person on this blog. The reason is that we must understand where the West stands in the culture wars.
We have lost. Whether this loss leads to other types of wars, I cannot say for sure, but only speculate.
When the United States lost the ideal of a confederation of independent states in charge of their own destiny, in a free union made to create a nation under God and a peaceful environment for its citizens, war was inevitable Sadly, since the killing of Able by Cain, war seems to be an option when people are divided by vision and passion.
Are there any men to fight this war? I have written on the Men of the West before and have the tags below.
Three things which Gramsci desired have occurred. One, the slow war of undermining Catholic, Christian culture has occurred. This was not accomplished by war, but by the taking over of key elements of society, which I have discussed on this blog.
People, especially Americans, are in denial. The State in the West was an organization created to protect the culture. Gramsci clearly saw that this ideal was breaking down as religion and the moral collapse of nations was undermining unity. I could never understand why both Lenin and Gramsci wanted leaders to control the very proletariat they were idolizing as the new intellectuals, the new society.
This is why and the first of the three things desired which have occurred. The elite was religious and connected to the Church. Most universities were still teaching Scholastic principles and the Catholic world view of the need for Christ and salvation. In other words, the elite were supporting orthodoxy. This does not mean these people were perfect. Far from it.
It means that most of the States were doing what these human civil societies were meant to do-protect the religion and protect the people.
Number one in the three-fold list is that the State is now the predator, not the protector. The bulging State powers over all the Western world, now look very like the tyrannies of the Far East. Predators exist for themselves. The States have become narcissistic and the leaders are narcissistic. The American president and the French president are keen examples of this.
Number two in the success of the Gramscian vision is that a revolutionary mind-set has replaced stablity and conservation.
No one is talking about this. Revolution is assumed to be a good thing and the grass-roots revolutionary principles of Marxism as seen by Alinksy and Chomsky are in the main stream of American and European politics. Look at the language, look at the pushing of the dialectic. Pull apart the language of Hollande and Obama. It is clearly always that of the constant need for the opposition of peoples.
This view is totally opposite the Catholic, Christian view of unity of all peoples. Truth does not create false barriers or false classes. In other words, "class-based politics" is normal. But, this is new and such political movements are false. Who needs to be identified with a class? Who needs the dialectic? Only those who want power create such false divisions.
Thirdly, the socialists are now Marxists and really have been from day one, but were hiding under different names. That socialism is Marxist makes the definitions more clear, but also shows the victory of Gramscian politicians In the 1970s and in Chicago in the late 1960s, these Marxists were writing about Gramscian ideals in the leftist press. Those who were not interested ignored these messages, which were bugle calls from the far left. What happened is that the far-left took over grass-roots politics in many large urban areas, particularly Chicago, but did not use the language of Marxism, as the Cold War was raging and the press was nervous about such vocabulary. What was hidden is now taken for granted and those of us who have ears to hear can follow the arguments. As Hitler knew, when one has control of the media and the use of propaganda, one has won a huge front in the war. So, too, we as Christians have lost this aspect of seeing the use of language for what it really is-gross manipulation of thinking.
Why were Catholics and Christians asleep while the culture-war was being won by the Marxists in Europe and America?
A few reasons: Marxism had invaded the Church in the form of Liberation Theology and grass roots politics in the new Social Teaching of the Church, misused and misnamed. See my tags on this from earlier articles. When a diocese can give Saul Alinksy a peace prize, one realizes the depth of the deceit. There were few voices calling for moderation or pointing to the dangers to the Church. These people were pilloried as reactionaries or old-fogies. Pat Buchanan is and was one ignored over the years. Many Catholics are socialists first and Catholics second-a dangerous position for religious freedom to thrive.
Secondly, those in power did not mind the Marxist take over of education, language, even religious institutions, as it served their purposes in creating, down the road, the new world order completely devoid of influence from religion. Freemasons, steeped in separation of Church and State, holding the heresies of indifferentism, and progressivism, and finally hating the Catholic Church as the bastion of truth against their society, allowed this take over by the far-left. The far-left and the anarchists are mere tools in the hands of those who hold the power of money and position. When push comes to shove, all these groups will undermine the same enemy, the Catholic Church, for their own purposes, as evil merely destroys and does not build. However, someone will end up holding the mace and wearing the crown.
If you do not believe this, look at the cvs of those who are in power in the European Union. The idea of hegemony and the belief that people create their own history by ideology is so sublimated that most people do not realize the dangers.
Thirdly, political fatigue in the West has allowed those who want to fill in the power vacuum to do so. This is a result of revolutionary ideals. When Gramsci writes that he wants all people to become intellectuals, he is pretending that somehow the proletariat want to think. Why he missed this point is beyond me, but it is the only reason he fell into the typical revolutionary's idea that leadership must be somewhat tyrannical and decide what is best for all. This is the schizophrenia of the West. Revolutions without leaders do not end happily. Look at what happened in Egypt, which I predicted in January of 2011. When those who want a democratic government fight in the streets without the leaders set up to take over, those who are organized will use the situation for their own seizure of power. I tried to explain this to people a long time ago. Power vacuums will be filled by someone and political fatigue among those who truly want freedoms will result in just another tyranny taking over from the old.
Egypt is much worse off than it was under Mubarak. I have tried to teach my students in the past that revolution without genius and organization leads to the take-over by those who have been waiting in the wings, planning and using a situation when it arises.
When people become politically fatigued and expect leaders to come forward in their camp, without supporting the education and promotion of such leaders, disaster follows.
Gramsci's ideal of the proletariat creating leadership has always puzzled me. He himself was a cultured, educated man. He honestly thought, according to my reading, that education would create a smart, politically acute proletariat which was not ideological but rational and creative. The problem with this idea is that both the rational ability of men and the creative instincts come not from the material, but from the soul, the very element of mankind denied by Gramsci. His revolutionaries were doomed to an endless repetition of revolution and renewal without the ability to truly creative a new society. We create what is in our souls, in our own image and likeness.
I have written here before that the constant use of revolution is the mark of Satan. As in Dante's hell, where everyone is never at peace physically, but many in constant motion or in a fixed state of pain, so too, the revolutionary must be making motion constantly, as conservatism is destroyed by his very ideology. The fixed state of pain is gross materialism--the definition of man as merely material, merely physical, so that the goal of all his efforts is the here and now.
How sad, how predicable and how victorious in our sad societies and cultures of the West is this reality.
But, the Catholic Church has a name for the original revolutionary and has a name for endless strife. The first is Satan and the second is sin.
Too bad the brilliant Gramsci ignored the interior life. Without the purity of heart and mind necessary to understand his own spirit and the Holy Spirit, he missed the point of life. But, sadly, his message is waxing as more and more people are either dead intellectually, politically fatigued, or so steeped in sin themselves that they cannot reason out the fact that we have lost the culture wars.
For Sarah, five; Love and do what you will-Augustine
Do you wish to be great? Then begin by being. Do you desire to construct a vast and lofty fabric? Think first about the foundations of humility. The higher your structure is to be, the deeper must be its foundation. St. Augustine
The Internet is off and on and the music in McDonald's is heavy metal. Can people really still like this type of noise? Oh, well. Here we go....
And, I want to write about art for my friend Sarah.
The connection between the spiritual and the material is our gift from God. Satan hated this, of course, being so smart and so spiritual.
However, as Sarah knows, artists work with their hands and get down and dirty, be it with paint, clay, marble, costumes, lines, sets, lightening, words, words, words.
The material can become idolatrous so easily. So, how does an artist avoid the materialistic mind-set?
There is only one way and that is NOT pursuing self. The self is healed in a great Person. The Person of Christ heals us through Love. If we allow ourselves to be immersed in love, we shall be healed.
Most artists and, indeed, more people, think it is the other way around. They think they need to be healed first in order to enjoy love.
No, real love is healing.
Not false, idolatrous love, the love of looking at self and looking at the other as a demi-god.
Not false love based on things, status, money, names, titles.
Not false love based on sexual attraction or activity.
Real love is tough. Real love is truth. Real love is a Person.
We get bogged down, Sarah, looking for the means to be healed when all the time He is waiting with outstretched arms to hold us in His Holy Embrace.
Artists, perhaps, more than others, need Christ the Lover, as we are so sensitive and vulnerable.
Ask St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Read his Song of Songs commentaries.
We seek, we run after the Bridegroom and He waits for us. Sometimes, we are stupid and say "No". I have done this. I have said no in the past not understanding that His love opens to door to more love and all loves.
To belong to Christ is not an eggshell existence. It is living in the stars, where daily, new life begins.
Teach your peers to love, selflessly, and they will know God.
Art made be the medium, but the Truth is a Person.
Happy New Year, dear Bard.
Difference between poverty and penury; and fools for Christ
Saint Basil or Vasily (known also as Vasily Blazhenny, Basil Fool for Christ, Basil the Blessed, Wonderworker of Moscow, or Blessed Basil of Moscow, Fool for Christ) is a Russian Orthodox saint of known as ‘yurodivy’ or ‘holy fool for Christ’. He was formally canonised around 1580.
He was born to serfs in December of 1468 or 1469 in Yelokhovo, near Moscow (now in Moscow). It’s believed, he was born on the portico of the local church where his mother prayed for easy birth. He is thought to have died in 1552 or 1557.
St Basil's Cathedral in Moscow is named after the saint. Originally an apprentice shoemaker in Moscow, he adopted an eccentric lifestyle of shoplifting and giving to the poor to shame the miserly and help those in need. He is thought to have had the gift of clairvoyance. Once a man came to the shoemaker asking for good boots that would last him for years. Basil laughed and said the man did not need the boots as he would die tomorrow, and it happened just as Basil said.
He lived on the Red square itself when it was serving as Moscow’s prime market place. Once St. Basil threw about breads of a baker, and the man had to confess he added lime to flour. In 1547 St. Basil came to a cathedral in the center of Moscow and started praying in tears. Next day the Great Fire of Moscow happened, and it started in the church where the saint prayed.
He went naked and weighed himself down with chains. He rebuked Ivan the Terrible for not paying attention in church, and especially for his violent behaviour towards the innocent.
When he died on August 2, 1552 or 1557, St. Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow, served his funeral with many clergy. Ivan the Terrible himself acted as pallbearer and carried his coffin to the cemetery. He is buried in St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow, which was commissioned by Ivan IV to commemorate the capture of the Khanate of Kazan. The cathedral is also known as “The Cathedral of Intercession of the Virgin on the Moa”. In 1588 Tsar Fedor Ivanovich had a chapel added on the eastern side above the grave of Basil Fool for Christ.
Many Catholics who are middle-class and wealthy have never encountered a poor person. Socialism has destroyed charity in Europe as well, and only those who are holy can see the reality of the poor. But, there is another class of poor; those in penury.
Penury is described as "a state of extreme poverty or destitution; "their indigence appalled him"; "a general state of need exists among the homeless" indigence, pauperism, pauperization, need impoverishment, poorness, poverty - the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions mendicancy, mendicity, beggary - the state of being a beggar or mendicant; "they were reduced mendicancy"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/penury
The nuns I stayed with are greatly in need as are many orders. Oddly, orders do not help each other-that is, the rich orders do not necessarily help the poor ones. Some do.
But, the real poor are those without families or a network of people to want to help them. There is too much judgement about the poor and those in penury. Those who are alone are invisible.
Catholics are not good about helping in England. There are three people I know who have open hearts for the poor. One is in London, one in Kent and one in Walsingham. They are spiritual people, seeing with the eyes of Christ. The Irish have fallen into the greed of the Celtic Tiger era and few want to face the real poor. They want socialism and even Marxism. The days of charity have passed.
Judgement abounds, especially with regard to those who are mentally ill and have no safety nets.
This is true in every country where I have lived. Malta is better than most and there are shelters in large cities run by businessmen, not the Church.
The Church has become so middle class in most places that those who are poor are not seen. People think poverty is like the measles. If they get too close, they shall catch it.
Christ was very clear on the poor, being always with us and always needing. That is our job. I live on very little. Still, when I can, I get a sandwich and orange juice for the man who sits outside Sainsbury's and begs. Why not? He is always grateful. He is hungry, cold and wet. I am not going to judge him. That is not my job. He needs to be fed. That is my job.
He is Christ. But, Christ is increasingly invisible, not seen, by those who think all must be deserved.
The undeserving poor is a Victorian invention; even the term is Victorian.
The undeserving includes me, you, all of us, who have been saved by the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, who have been given sanctifying grace in the sacraments. Do not judge..help. You may be surprised someday.
Many years ago,a nun who helped me come back to the Faith, said to be like the foxes in their holes was not to be like Christ. Christ's words are not understood as reality. People think these words are poetry. Poverty is not poetic. It is hard and demeaning. It is a way to perfection. It makes one humble as one is constantly insulted. This is a great joy. Why, I do not understand, but it is. One can identify with God Himself, Who left the throne of the universe to walk in a miserable dusty, dry country for our sake. Do you understand that Christ allowed Himself to be dirty, to smell bad, to have dirty, unwashed hair, to wear very old clothes, to look like an indigent person? He did this for three years. But, He calls some to live like this by choice, and some not by choice.
Those who cannot understand Vasily, do not understand me. I am not a miracle worker. I do not wear chains. But, I choose the hard way. And have for many years. Why is it that the Russians recognized Vasily? Why is it that those in power listened to him? Innocence, purity of heart, clarity of vision, not being held back by vested interested. Vasily was truly free. This is what I desire. To be free in order for God to love me totally, with nothing in the way, no impediments to His Love entering my small heart.
Freedom has a great price.
Matthew 8:19
19 καὶ προσελθὼν εἷς γραμματεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, διδάσκαλε, ἀκολουθήσω σοι ὅπου ἐὰν ἀπέρχῃ. 20 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, αἱ ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς ἔχουσιν καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσεις, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ. 21 ἕτερος δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν εἶπεν αὐτῷ, κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου. 22 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτῷ, ἀκολούθει μοι, καὶ ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς θάψαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς.
19 Et accedens unus scriba, ait illi : Magister, sequar te, quocumque ieris. 20 Et dicit ei Jesus : Vulpes foveas habent, et volucres cæli nidos; Filius autem hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet. 21 Alius autem de discipulis ejus ait illi : Domine, permitte me primum ire, et sepelire patrem meum. 22 Jesus autem ait illi : Sequere me, et dimitte mortuos sepelire mortuos suos.
19 And a certain scribe came and said to him: Master, I will follow you wherever you shall go. 20 And Jesus said to him: The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests; but the Son of man has not where to lay his head. 21 And another of his disciples said to him: Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 22 But Jesus said to him: Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.
The invisible.....
I am disgusted with this administration for many reasons--here is one more....
FBI knew al-Awlaki had bought air tickets for 9/11 hijackers -- still was invited to Pentagon and preached on Capitol Hill from Spencer............
Here is evidence that the infiltration long predates the Obama Administration.
Here is al-Awlaki addressing "moderate" Muslims including Nihad Awad of Hamas-linked CAIR on Capitol Hill in 2002. The rest is below. "Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Indicate FBI Knew Assassinated U.S. Born Terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi Purchased Airline Tickets for 9/11 Hijackers," fromJudicial Watch, January 3 (thanks to Jeff):
WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - Jan 3, 2013) - Judicial Watch announced today that it has received documents from the U.S. State Department indicating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was aware on September 27, 2001, that Anwar al-Aulaqi, the U.S. born terrorist assassinated by a U.S. drone in Yemen on September 30, 2011, had purchased airplane tickets for three of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers, including mastermind Mohammed Atta. Subsequent to the FBI's discovery, al-Aulaqi was detained and released by authorities at least twice and had been invited to dine at the Pentagon.According to a September 27, 2001, FBI transcription, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and Federal Bureau of Investigations (No. 1:12-cv-00893)), al-Aulaqi purchased airline tickets for the following 9/11 hijackers:
- Mohammed Atta, America West Airlines, 08/13/2001, for a flight from Washington, DC, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida.
- S. Suqami, Southwest Airlines, 07/10/2001, for a flight from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, to Orlando, Florida.
- Al-Sheri, National Airlines, 08/01/2001, for a flight from San Francisco, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida.
The documents also include material showing that al-Aulaqi was uncooperative with FBI agents investigating the 9/11 attacks and was seemingly a central focus of the FBI investigation and monitoring related to 9/11.But records previously uncovered by Judicial Watch, subsequent to the September 27, 2001, FBI transcription, show that al-Aulaqi was arrested and released by authorities. Two documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include "Privacy Act Release Forms" issued by the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen, and signed by al-Aulaqi. One was dated November 14, 2006, and the other July 2, 2007, indicating that al-Aulaqi had been arrested by authorities. The documents do not indicate how long al-Aulaqi was detained or why he was released.In addition to the arrests noted by the documents in 2006 and 2007, al-Aulaqi was detained and questioned at New York's JFK airport on October 10, 2002, under a warrant for passport fraud, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. However, the FBI ordered al-Aulaqi's release, even though the arrest warrant was still active at the time of his detention as reported by Fox News Channel's Catherine Herridge. Once released al-Aulaqi then took a flight to Washington, DC, and eventually returned to Yemen.On February 5, 2002, four months after the FBI discovered his connection to the 9/11 terrorists, al-Aulaqi was invited to dine at the Pentagon on February 5, 2002, "as part of the military's outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks," reports Herridge.
Ah, the liberal media--a tautology; excellent article from excellent LifeSiteNews
Catholic Church and Castro in cahoots to ‘eradicate’ homosexuals? MSNBC pundit’s incoherent rant
ROME, January 3, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Readers may be surprised to hear that Jesus Christ was the first socialist; every word of every article in the Vatican newspaper is “virtually dictated” personally by Pope Benedict; every country in Europe – indeed in the whole world – is socialist; the Catholic Church “thrives” under socialist regimes; and Fidel Castro’s mass murdering regime is on a moral par with the Catholic Church because they both allegedly want to “eradicate” homosexuals.
All of these assertions have come from the mouth of MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who recorded a strange and confused 3.5 minute tirade against Pope Benedict XVI’s Christmas address, in which the pope warned that abortion and the advance of the homosexualist political and social agenda is a threat to the stability of human societies.
O’Donnell included several astonishing whoppers, including the assertion that a vow of celibacy automatically renders those who make it “tragically ignorant about marriage.” This despite the indisputable fact that the Pope, as well as nearly all clergy, are themselves the product of marriage, are surrounded like everyone else by married people and minister to married people, in addition to presumably being in possession of the normal human rational capacity that would allow them understand common cultural concepts.
Mr. O’Donnell appears not to have noticed that the Catholic Church, whose clergy have been celibate for centuries, has been administering the sacrament of marriage, counselling married people and generally been intimately involved in the institution of marriage since the founding of Christian civilization.
Another jaw-dropper was the astonishing news that Jesus Christ “was the original socialist” because he fed the poor and admonished the moneychangers in the Temple. Because apparently in Mr. O’Donnell’s odd universe, no one other than socialists have ever done any of these things.
Demonstrating his deep penetration of Vatican affairs, O’Donnell goes on to say that “everything in the Vatican newspaper [L’Osservatore Romano] is virtually dictated by the pope”. To which assertion many long-time Catholic observers of the Vatican scene will doubtless respond – after they pick themselves up off the floor – “Oh, would that it were so!”
But it is when O’Donnell equates the Catholic Church’s teaching on the meaning of human sexuality with the mass murders undertaken by Fidel Castro’s regime after his takeover of Cuba, that the Wonderland Whirl really begins. So dizzyingly bizarre are the comparisons and insinuations that it becomes difficult to sort out just what point Mr. O’Donnell is trying to make.
“The most hard-core socialist practitioner of all time was also viciously anti-gay,” says O’Donnell. Castro, “who started life as a Roman Catholic,” rounded up homosexuals “and sent them to re-education camps.”
“In Fidel Castro’s socialist utopia, gay sex was a criminal act,” O’Donnell continues. “Castro believed he could actually rid his country of all homosexuality, and he did everything in his power to achieve that.” Therefore, O’Donnell said, socialism “has not been a special friend to gay people”.
At the same time, O’Donnell claims, the Catholic Church “has thrived in socialist countries around the world,” although it “this week seems to want to pretend it is suddenly threatened by socialism”. These socialist countries, he says, include Italy. “Yes, Italy is a socialist country, as is every country in Europe, as is every country in the world, to varying degrees,” he adds.
He declined, however, to mention the countless thousands of Catholic inmates who perished in the Gulag system, prisons and torture chambers of the countries of the Soviet Union. He seems also never to have heard of any of the writings of any of the popes, largely before the 1960s, warning the world of the threat of socialistic Communism.
Untangled, O’Donnell’s message seems to be that the Catholic Church is socialist, because it follows Jesus Christ, the “first socialist,” and it is therefore exactly like Castro in its desire to persecute, torture and murder homosexuals – presumably with the approval of its socialist Founder.
Fortunately, Pope Benedict, who has been known to read a book or two now and then, was rather more coherent in his message for Christmas. However little Mr. O’Donnell may be aware of it, there is very little dispute in academia or among the more serious-minded public commentators that the “gender theory” driving the far-left, homosexualist political agenda is an offshoot of radical academic feminism, that is itself the child of Marxist theory. So much can be discovered by simply Googling the search terms “Engels, monogamous, family.”
It is hardly credible to dispute the connection of the “LGBTQ” agenda with the left, particularly in Europe where it forms a cornerstone of all the socialist, leftist and green parties’ platforms. Benedict is among the many who have personally experienced the effects of socialistic theories put into practice in various totalitarian regimes in recent European history, and is well placed to issue warnings against its re-growth under new names.
In the Christmas address that Mr. O’Donnell was at such pains to ridicule, Benedict warned that the attack on the family “goes much deeper” than was previously believed. It is a product, the pope said, ultimately of a foundational error about what it means to be human. It is a refusal to accept the very notion that there is such a thing as human nature, connected to their “bodily identity,” which we all share.
“While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question,” Pope Benedict said. Gender theory’s adherents, and the many more people they have seduced, “deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves”.
In the gender ideology, “sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society.”
The theory denies the immutable, dual nature of humanity, that “being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature.” But, “this duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about,” Pope Benedict said.
“If there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation,” he said.
“The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be.”
L’Osservatore Romano followed up the pope’s address with the observation that the new theory of a mutable, essentially self-determined human nature, is part and parcel of the socialist attempt to entirely re-write the nature of human beings and human societies. Lucetta Scaraffia, an eminent Italian historian who has also presumably read a few books, wrote that gender theory and its political causes are in fact the ultimate expression of Marx and Engels’ initial call for the abolition of the two-parent, biologically-based family.
She warned that the societies will “pay a high price” for the attempt to found a society on these premises, “as has already happened in the past when we have tried to achieve a complete economic and social equality.”
Pope Benedict warned, perhaps most ominously of all, that the final results of the implementation of this theory is the total objectification of human beings, particularly children. “From being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain.”
|
How many times have I said this, but Matt is way more famous than I am....good one
MATT DRUDGE
There will be over 3,500 killed in USA today from abortion. No flags lowered, no presidents crying. No media hyperventilating. Normal day.
Idea from Tina--on kings and things.........
I cannot, and most likely, not see Les Miserables, however, I read the book a long time ago as a youth.
I would rather recommend The Scarlet Pimpernel, which I have written about on this blog.
To be Catholic is to be wary of some types of republican movements, especially the Godless French Revolution, which was greed in action.
As to monarchies, some were good and some were bad. No civil system is perfect, as we all only have one King, who is Christ the King and one queen, who is Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth.
Now, if a King is a saint, fine, but even the prophets of the Old Testament warned Israel of Kings.
Samuel had words from God to say about kings, and we cannot deny the truths here. Although I abhor the French Revolution and do not want to see it glamorized, I cannot state that God wants monarchies. God wants nations to adore Him and to serve Him.
If I had to choose, I suppose I would chose a monarchy over the mob rule of democracy. I am a great fan and have taught de Tocqueville. Here are to quotations on which to chew.
1 Samuel:8:9-18:
Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10: And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11: And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12: And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13: And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14: And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15: And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16: And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17: He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18: And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Demoncracy in America--Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences—Part II
Tyranny Of The Majority
How the principle of the sovereignty of the people is to be understood—Impossibility of conceiving a mixed government—The sovereign power must centre somewhere—Precautions to be taken to control its action—These precautions have not been taken in the United States—Consequences.
I hold it to be an impious and an execrable [execrable: extremely bad or unpleasant] maxim that, politically speaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases, and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I then, in contradiction with myself?
A general law—which bears the name of Justice—has been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are consequently confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be considered in the light of a jury which is empowered to represent society at large, and to apply the great and general law of justice. Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power than the society in which the laws it applies originate?
When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right which the majority has of commanding, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. It has been asserted that a people can never entirely outstep the boundaries of justice and of reason in those affairs which are more peculiarly its own, and that consequently, full power may fearlessly be given to the majority by which it is represented. But this language is that of a slave. A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being whose opinions, and most frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another being, which is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength. *c And for these reasons I can never willingly invest any number of my fellow-creatures with that unlimited authority which I should refuse to any one of them.
c
[ No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly wrong another people; but parties may be looked upon as lesser nations within a greater one, and they are aliens to each other: if, therefore, it be admitted that a nation can act tyrannically towards another nation, it cannot be denied that a party may do the same towards another party.]
I do not think that it is possible to combine several principles in the same government, so as at the same time to maintain freedom, and really to oppose them to one another. The form of government which is usually termed mixed has always appeared to me to be a mere chimera. Accurately speaking there is no such thing as a mixed government (with the meaning usually given to that word), because in all communities some one principle of action may be discovered which preponderates over the others. England in the last century, which has been more especially cited as an example of this form of Government, was in point of fact an essentially aristocratic State, although it comprised very powerful elements of democracy; for the laws and customs of the country were such that the aristocracy could not but preponderate in the end, and subject the direction of public affairs to its own will. The error arose from too much attention being paid to the actual struggle which was going on between the nobles and the people, without considering the probable issue of the contest, which was in reality the important point. When a community really has a mixed government, that is to say, when it is equally divided between two adverse principles, it must either pass through a revolution or fall into complete dissolution.
I am therefore of opinion that some one social power must always be made to predominate over the others; but I think that liberty is endangered when this power is checked by no obstacles which may retard its course, and force it to moderate its own vehemence.
Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing; human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion, and God alone can be omnipotent, because His wisdom and His justice are always equal to His power. But no power upon earth is so worthy of honor for itself, or of reverential obedience to the rights which it represents, that I would consent to admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey onward to a land of more hopeful institutions.
In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their overpowering strength; and I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the very inadequate securities which exist against tyranny.
When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority, and implicitly obeys its injunctions; if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority, and remains a passive tool in its hands; the public troops consist of the majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases; and in certain States even the judges are elected by the majority. However iniquitous or absurd the evil of which you complain may be, you must submit to it as well as you can.
To be Catholic is to be wary of some types of republican movements, especially the Godless French Revolution, which was greed in action.
As to monarchies, some were good and some were bad. No civil system is perfect, as we all only have one King, who is Christ the King and one queen, who is Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth.
Now, if a King is a saint, fine, but even the prophets of the Old Testament warned Israel of Kings.
Samuel had words from God to say about kings, and we cannot deny the truths here. Although I abhor the French Revolution and do not want to see it glamorized, I cannot state that God wants monarchies. God wants nations to adore Him and to serve Him.
If I had to choose, I suppose I would chose a monarchy over the mob rule of democracy. I am a great fan and have taught de Tocqueville. Here are to quotations on which to chew.
1 Samuel:8:9-18:
Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10: And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11: And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12: And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13: And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14: And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15: And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16: And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17: He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18: And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Demoncracy in America--Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences—Part II
Tyranny Of The Majority
How the principle of the sovereignty of the people is to be understood—Impossibility of conceiving a mixed government—The sovereign power must centre somewhere—Precautions to be taken to control its action—These precautions have not been taken in the United States—Consequences.
I hold it to be an impious and an execrable [execrable: extremely bad or unpleasant] maxim that, politically speaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases, and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I then, in contradiction with myself?
A general law—which bears the name of Justice—has been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are consequently confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be considered in the light of a jury which is empowered to represent society at large, and to apply the great and general law of justice. Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power than the society in which the laws it applies originate?
When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right which the majority has of commanding, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. It has been asserted that a people can never entirely outstep the boundaries of justice and of reason in those affairs which are more peculiarly its own, and that consequently, full power may fearlessly be given to the majority by which it is represented. But this language is that of a slave. A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being whose opinions, and most frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another being, which is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength. *c And for these reasons I can never willingly invest any number of my fellow-creatures with that unlimited authority which I should refuse to any one of them.
c
[ No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly wrong another people; but parties may be looked upon as lesser nations within a greater one, and they are aliens to each other: if, therefore, it be admitted that a nation can act tyrannically towards another nation, it cannot be denied that a party may do the same towards another party.]
I do not think that it is possible to combine several principles in the same government, so as at the same time to maintain freedom, and really to oppose them to one another. The form of government which is usually termed mixed has always appeared to me to be a mere chimera. Accurately speaking there is no such thing as a mixed government (with the meaning usually given to that word), because in all communities some one principle of action may be discovered which preponderates over the others. England in the last century, which has been more especially cited as an example of this form of Government, was in point of fact an essentially aristocratic State, although it comprised very powerful elements of democracy; for the laws and customs of the country were such that the aristocracy could not but preponderate in the end, and subject the direction of public affairs to its own will. The error arose from too much attention being paid to the actual struggle which was going on between the nobles and the people, without considering the probable issue of the contest, which was in reality the important point. When a community really has a mixed government, that is to say, when it is equally divided between two adverse principles, it must either pass through a revolution or fall into complete dissolution.
I am therefore of opinion that some one social power must always be made to predominate over the others; but I think that liberty is endangered when this power is checked by no obstacles which may retard its course, and force it to moderate its own vehemence.
Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing; human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion, and God alone can be omnipotent, because His wisdom and His justice are always equal to His power. But no power upon earth is so worthy of honor for itself, or of reverential obedience to the rights which it represents, that I would consent to admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey onward to a land of more hopeful institutions.
In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their overpowering strength; and I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the very inadequate securities which exist against tyranny.
When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority, and implicitly obeys its injunctions; if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority, and remains a passive tool in its hands; the public troops consist of the majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases; and in certain States even the judges are elected by the majority. However iniquitous or absurd the evil of which you complain may be, you must submit to it as well as you can.