Her Immaculate Heart Prevailed

The Soviet Union Was Dissolved on December 8th, 1991
The Feast of the Immaculate Conception

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  On this day, 20 years ago, the Soviet Union was dissolved.  Just as she foretold to the three Fatima children, in the end, her Immaculate Heart would prevail.  On the 8th of December in 1991, leaders from across the USSR came together and signed a treaty officially ending the 69 year-long regime.  The ceremonial end of the USSR came with the resignation of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, and the lowering of the red Soviet flag from the Kremlin on December 25th, 1991.  I believe this was just the first of her victories.  I also believe we will likely see the completion of her victories very VERY soon!

U.S. Bishops Snookered By Obamacare

President Obama Signed the Healthcare Bill on March 23, 2010

(EWTN News) — President Barack Obama has not kept his promises about conscience protections for abortion opponents, and those who trusted him to exclude abortion from the health-care bill seem to “have been played,” Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami said.

“His administration is running roughshod over conscience-protection provisions’ long part of the law that find their justification in the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, a foundational human right,” the archbishop wrote in a Dec. 2 essay in the Miami Herald.

“It is one thing for an administration to support and promote an agenda; it is quite another to force those who disagree with it to violate their moral and religious principles.”

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: You were warned your excellency. You and your brother bishops were all warned. We Catholic bloggers told you this day would come. We yelled it from the top of our lungs. YOU CANNOT TRUST PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS!!! YOU CANNOT TRUST BARACK OBAMA!!! YOU CANNOT TRUST THE LIKES OF NANCY PELOSI!!! (My God! Is she still in the Church? Have you not excommunicated her yet!?! What does this woman have to do to be excommunicated???) WE WARNED YOU. YOU DID NOT LISTEN. WHERE IT NOT FOR YOUR SUPPORT, OBAMACARE WOULD HAVE NEVER PASSED. BUT YOU DID SUPPORT IT, AND YOU TRUSTED THOSE WHOM YOU KNEW WERE NOT TRUSTWORTHY. NOW WE MUST ALL PAY THE PRICE!!!

The first to pay will be Catholic healthcare workers. Doctors, nurses and technicians will become the first martyrs of your naivety. Next it will be you! I do hope your excellencies will lead us now by example in martyrdom. I do hope you would not permit your sheep to be fined and jailed before you. I do hope you have not left us, the laity, to fight for the faith in your place. You led us into this situation, and since you cannot now lead us out of it, we do hope you will at least lead us into martyrdom.

In HIS Majesty's Service,

The Catholic Knight

(PS - I work in healthcare. I am prepared to be martyred for this. If I'm lucky, I may only lose my job. If necessary however, I am prepared to face fines and a prison sentence for following my conscience. It's just too bad my kids will have to go into poverty should it come down to that. Maybe you could help them out when the time comes?)

England Riots Explained...

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I'm afraid Liberal Secularism has managed to gum up yet another Catholic Christian principle. You see, according to Catholicism, immigration is a good thing and a natural right. However, within that context, nation-states have a right to discern how much immigration they can handle, and create necessary regulations to safeguard their sovereignty and culture. This includes allowing time for a large number of immigrants to assimilate before admitting more large numbers. It includes mandating that a certain language be learned and mastered, and that basic knowledge be attained about the culture of the host country. It includes requiring immigrants to swear allegiance to the host country, and forfeit citizenship in a previous country. It includes regulations that prevent enclaving, forcing assimilation into the host country. In other words, nation-states have a right to protect themselves from being overrun and taken over by massive waves of immigration. They should allow immigration generously, but at the same time regulate it in such a way that immigrants fully assimilate and become virtually indistinguishable from native citizens. A good example of this is American immigration policy around the turn of the last century 1900s. Around this time some of my ancestors immigrated from Europe. They were required to learn English and swear allegiance to the USA and forfeit their previous citizenship in Europe. Lastly, if they failed to assimilate properly, they could be deported back to their country of origin, before citizenship was attained. This is the Catholic ideal of a generous immigration policy.

Now in contrast, Europe has abandoned it's Catholic roots and embraced Liberal Protestantism mixed together with Secular Humanism. So instead of common sense immigration policies, European nation-states have adopted ridiculous immigration free-for-all policies, combined with preferential treatment for ethnic minorities based on a politically correct ideology. Most of the immigrants that enter European counties these days are Muslims. They are not required to assimilate. Hence we now have a demographic crisis in Europe where based on the relative birthrates, Muslims threaten to outnumber Christians in Europe within about 50 to 60 years. They will reach a dominate minority status much sooner, probably within 20 years. Only a radical change in immigration policy, coupled with a rapid return to European Christendom, can save Europe from becoming an Islamic caliphate before the middle of the century. The frequent minority riots in France and England are symptomatic of this problem. Of course, from a historical perspective, Marxists have always sought to exploit the plight of minorities to effect Socialist/Communist takeovers. We can expect this to happen in Europe very soon, in what can only be described as a Marxist-Muslim Revolution.

Catholic prophecy forecasts this as well. There are four European nations that are central to these prophecies: England, France, Germany and Italy. Three of these nations (England, France and Italy) are forecast to fall into complete anarchy. The Vatican in Rome will be overrun and the pope will be forced to flee to Germany. Germany will be the battleground state, according the the prophecies. Great battles will ensue there. The nature of these battles are not specified. We do not know if they will be strategic or riotous. What we do know is that in the course of these battles the pope will be assassinated, a new pope will be elected in exile and a man of the French royal family will be coronated as the king of the new Holy Roman Empire. From this European Christendom will be restored. The Marxists will be put down and Muslims will either convert or leave the continent. Islam itself will begin to implode as a worldwide religion, loosing adherents to Christianity over the course of just a few decades.

This however, is a chain of events we have yet to see. Right now, all we are seeing is the beginning of trouble in France and England. Like France, England will likely put down these riots but they will soon return, with much greater intensity, until eventually they overcome the governments of these nations. Italy will also fall into turmoil at around the same time this happens.

As for the United States of America, all we know from Catholic prophecy is a great big question mark. The only prophecies that give us a clue are those from "Our Lady of America" wherein Americans are urged to repent of their sexual immorality and return to purity in heart and body, or else face certain misery. That "misery" is not defined, but it is clear from these prophecies that God "wants" America to survive and "desires" our repentance to make this happen. The approved apparition site of "Our Lady of Good Help" in Champion Wisconsin, outside of Green Bay, also has a message for Americans. In the mists of complete disaster, we can only be saved by turning to Our Lady and seeking refuge under her mantle. The one and only command Our Lady of Good Help gave was to pray for the conversion of the sinners in this land and teach them the Catholic faith.

As for England, there has been a resurgence of devotion to "Our Lady of Walsingham" and we know from Catholic prophecy that all of these things concerning the coming Chastisement of God will begin to occur when the power of England weakens. This began politically around the time of World War II, and religiously immediately after that. The Church of England is no longer a moral force on the island, and the Anglican Communion is crumbling worldwide. With the emergence of widespread riots, we are beginning to see civil authority erode in England as well. All of this is a sign of the beginning of the end for our present era. However, Catholic prophecy also tells us that England will emerge from the coming anarchy as a totally Catholic nation, stronger than ever before. This will happen at around the same time France emerges from anarchy. There is an active campaign to plant the seeds of revival within the British Isles going on right now. It's called the Walsingham Project, and you can participate by CLICKING HERE.

We are certainly at the beginning of some very remarkable times. 'The Catholic Knight' sets no dates or time tables, but I do think it's reasonable to assume these things will likely take place within the next 30 years. That's just private speculation on my part, but I do think it's well grounded.

A Mountain of Skulls

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  Radio talk show host Michael Savage said it best.  I wish I had said it first.  Class warfare, which calls for "economic fairness" and the redistribution of wealth, always ends up the same way, in a mountain of skulls.  This is the legacy of Marxism in all it's forms (Communism, Socialism, Fascism and Liberal Progressivism).  The fundamental failure of America's education systems is to distinguish that these economic theories are all variants of the same economic premise invented by Karl Marx.  Call it what you like.  Call is Socialism if you fancy.  That's what the Soviets did.  As far as the Soviets were concerned, there never was such a thing as communism in their country.  The "evil empire" they created was officially called the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or "USSR."  The word "communist" never entered their vocabulary, except as an abstract ideal they were working toward, but did not currently exist under their Socialist state.  Or you can call it Fascism of you like.  Benito Mussolini, who I suspect knew a thing or two about it, defined fascism simply as the joint ownership of industry by both the state and private corporations.  You can call it Liberalism or Progressivism if that makes you feel better.  Because when you dig down into the rhetoric used by liberal college professors, Democratic Party hacks and the mainstream media elites, it all sounds strikingly familiar.  It is the same dirty water, drawn from the same polluted well, simply packaged in a different kind of bucket.  It's class warfare and wealth redistribution, which equals Marxism, which inevitably results in the same thing -- a mountain of skulls.

The highest officially documented death tolls under Marxist regimes occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of innocent civilians (non-combatants) killed by these three regimes alone number about 70 million.  This does not include smaller Marxist regimes such as North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. These also have their records of mass murder.  (Speaking of Cuba, I have a personal stake here as my own family was driven out of Cuba by Gerardo Machado in 1929, after my great-grandfather, a major sugar cane producer, was shot in the back by one of Machado's henchmen.  Yes, The Catholic Knight is all too familiar with the evils of Marxism on a personal family level.)  This is something that every Roman Catholic MUST UNDERSTAND.  Marxist rhetoric such as class warfare, economic "justice" and wealth redistribution ALWAYS results in DEATH - always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS!!!  The only thing that varies is how much death and how often.

Our Lady of Fatima warned us of this.  This was the core of her message.  By turning to the government for the solution to man's problems, instead of Christ and his Church, the end result would be the ruin of the souls, the tyranny of the state and ultimately a mountain of skulls.

Marxism is about wealth redistribution, and it starts with class warfare.  It is the forbidden fruit of the modern world.  One bite of it and your faith begins to die.  That's not to say that Capitalism is the answer.  I'm not defending Capitalism, because we all know that terrible injustices have been committed (and still continue) under Capitalism.  Regular readers of this blog know The Catholic Knight is a Distributist, which means I believe in the free market -- a truly free market -- free of monopolies both public and private.  Capitalism is about unregulated market forces, and this in turn results in monopolies, which in turn result in the tyranny of the corporate class.  Notice I didn't say "tyranny of the rich."  That's because the rich are not to blame.  There is nothing wrong or immoral about being rich.  In fact, the world needs rich people, and so does the Church, because it is through the rich that wealth is naturally distributed, both in the form of wages and charity.  When money is in the hands of people -- even rich people -- one of two things tends to happen to it.  Either the rich person decides to get richer, which in turn requires him to invest some of his money in employees and contractors (i.e. wages and contracts), or else he decides to give some away in the form of charity.  Oftentimes however, elements of both scenarios happen simultaneously.  Sorry, that's just how the real world works, in spite of what you've been told.  The Church in turn encourages both charity and capital development, allowing the rich the opportunity to acquire more wealth if they are so inclined, while at the same time giving them the opportunity to help others both in the form of creating jobs and charitable contributions to the poor.  It's not a perfect system, because people aren't perfect, but it does work pretty well, and it has worked for nearly two-thousand years.

The problem comes when two extreme forms of thought enter the scene.  The first extreme is Capitalism, which is actually a perversion of the free market, not a product of it.  Under Capitalism, free market businessmen are permitted to form corporations.  A corporation is a legal entity that exists solely on paper and is afforded many of the "rights" given to a human being.  It allows businessmen to "work" for the corporation, in the same way an employee might work for an employer.  Remember, however, the corporation does not really exist.  It is simply a legal entity created on paper with no real existence outside of the law.  Those working for the corporation may now do whatever they wish, claiming they are doing it in the name of the corporation as an employee, and that it is really the corporation that directs their actions.  This arrangement opens the door to all sorts of immorality and unethical business practices.  The corporation can acquire an ungodly amount of wealth, beyond what any single human being can possibly need, desire or consume.  It can legally marry (mergers) and produce children (subsidiaries), having all the legal rights of a human being, though it is not human and cannot be prosecuted for it's illegal activities.  Furthermore, there is one thing the corporation can do that no human being can do, and that is live forever!  Yes, the corporation is immortal.  It lives on from one generation to the next, and yet it has no soul.  It is a legal "person" created by the state, at the request of businessmen, for the purpose of engaging in activities that they themselves would never do as private individual entrepreneurs.  In addition to this, these corporations regularly engage in the practice of lobbying for tax breaks and political favors.  Some have called this Corporatism, but regardless of what you call it, it is the hallmark of Capitalism.  G.K. Chesterton once said: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."  By this he meant that Capitalism does not produce a free market, even though it chants "free market" as it's mantra.  What Capitalists really mean by "free market" is a market free for big corporations to trample the rights of small business and labor.  A real free market is not Capitalism, but rather a market where men are not permitted to form artificial persons (monopolistic corporations) in law designed to gain control of the government and trample the rights of their fellow man.  Rather, a truly free market is a market where everybody has an equal opportunity to make a business or trade for himself.   It's a market where one can pick from hundreds of different shoe manufacturers not just a couple dozen.  It's a market where one can choose to shop at dozens of general store outlets, not just a one or two (at the most) super-centers. It's a market where any man (or woman) can take his life savings, buy a storefront, and with good business practices, have a pretty good shot at making a living.  It's a market where any man (or woman) can use the same life savings, buy a few acres of land and start growing a crop to sell at the local general stores, once again making a fair living in the process.  A truly free market is a market where everyone is free to enter the market, use it, and make a living at doing it.  That is the free market.  The philosophy behind it is called "Distributism" and it's biggest promoter is the Roman Catholic Church.  It is the system that Western civilization was built on, before it was taken over and ruined by the godless ideologies of Capitalism and Marxism.

Socialism in turn is the knee jerk reaction to Capitalism, just as Karl Marx predicted and advocated.  Both are godless systems.  The biggest promoters of Capitalism in history were atheists, and the same can be said of Marxism in all it's forms (Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Liberalism or Progressivism).  Capitalism, in the name of the "free market" robs the people of a truly free market, and then the people react with class warfare.  This is the bait people -- pay attention.  Politicians and elitist advocates of Marxism begin a campaign of class warfare, blaming the "rich" and the supposed "free market" (as understood by Capitalism) for their problems.  The call to "fairness" and "justice" is bantered to rally the people into a political revolution, designed to rob the monopolies and corporations of their property, and transfer it into the hands of the state, either partially (as in Fascism) or totally (as in Socialism), with the promise that this will result in greater wealth for the common man.  Sadly, from a purely historical perspective, we know it is all LIES.  It NEVER happens this way.  Instead, what really happens is this.  Once the civil authorities are given the power to seize private property and redistribute wealth, they go through the country taking every one's private property, capturing (and usually killing) anyone who they think might be a threat to the program, and then doling out a meager stipend to the common man, which is usually just barely enough to live on, if even that.  Once the state owns everything, either totally or partially, it becomes the ultimate monopoly, unable to be challenged by any small entrepreneur under penalty of law.  The Utopian promise of the communist state, where everybody owns everything in common, an no government is needed anymore, fails to materialize.  Instead of sharing the wealth, the misery is spread equally, except among those in charge of spreading the misery, who in turn become the beneficiary of government favors.  Communism, as envisioned by Marx, never materializes because people are involved, and people are inherently corrupt by our fallen sinful nature.

This fallen sinful nature causes human beings to do horrible and unspeakable things to their fellow man.  In a Capitalist system where corporations are given power to do all sorts of unethical things in the name of their bogus "free market" mantra, the oppression of the masses will soon follow.  In a Marxist system where the state is given the power to seize all private property, either partially or totally, the result is again the oppression of the masses.  The difference between them is this.  When corporations kill people (and yes, they do occasionally kill people), they must do so quietly and in stealth.  They can never let the number of deaths get too high, for fear they may get found out.  Instead they prefer to use Capitalist-driven governments to kill people for them, to do their bidding, in the name of some abstract ideal, such as "defending freedom" or "establishing democracy."  However, when Socialist states kill people, they are much less discrete.  They rummage through the population, selecting anyone who might possibly present a threat to their Socialist system, and kill them without regard as enemies of the state.  Sorry, this is just the historical fact, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe it couldn't happen here in the United States.  It's already happened as close as Cuba.  Europe has already seen it happen more than once. Only the United States and Canada have been spared -- so far.  However, the rhetoric exists here too, and we are only just a few steps away, at any given moment, from watching the cycle repeat itself on American soil.

Roman Catholics WAKE UP!  When we look at Marxists such as Michael Moore, and Capitalists such as Sean Hannity, debating each other on FoxNews, we have to understand that neither of these "Catholics" represent the authentic economic teaching of the Catholic Church.  Michael Moore perverts it, and Sean Hannity has no idea what it is.  Both of these men are pied pipers leading the children of the Catholic Church into destruction.  Don't fall for it!  Look to the teachings of Rome for the answers.  The popes have written extensively on this topic.  The economic teaching of the Catholic Church is centered around the freedom to buy, use and sell property, coupled with the mandate for charitable giving TO THE CHURCH and not to the state.  Only the Church, and privately run charitable organizations, are competent to handle and redistribute the wealth of the people in the form of food, clothing, shelter and medical care.  The state is completely and totally incompetent in this area, as evidenced by history.  That's not to say the state doesn't have a role in society.  The Church teaches quite the opposite.  The state has a positive mandate to provide law and order, basic infrastructure, and defend God-given human rights.  It may even have a role in coordination of private and religious charity to maximize it's impact in areas where it is needed the most.  It does not, however, have a mandate to become our nanny, and replace the role of the Church and private charity.  I have written extensively on this subject HERE in my article entitled "Social Justice vs. Socialism," and if you want to learn more about Distributism you can start with a free online periodical called The Distributist Review.  I have also provided great links to Distributist books in the margins of this article.

World War III on the Horizon

Disclaimer: The Catholic Knight does not endorse the ministry of Pat Robertson or CBN.
This video is provided for the story contained therein.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It would appear that World War III is on the horizon, and the principle players will be Iran in Israel, not the United States and Russia as has been the conventional wisdom for the last half century. While the two superpowers will likely play a supportive role, Russia with Iran and the United States with Israel, so it would seem this will be a war of surrogates and the people of the Middle East will be made to suffer.

What we have here are two extremist ideologies set to clash in the not-too-distant future. The first ideology is Zionism and it is the primary cause of this conflict. In the early 20th century, European and American powers grew friendly to the idea of "recreating" the Biblical Holy Land inhabited by Jews. The unChristian notion of Anti-Semitism (what Pope Pius XI referred to as the "superstition of race") was growing throughout the West during that time, and so support for "resettlement" of Jews in Palestine seemed like a logical solution to many. For the most part Jews and Arabs got along well initially. However in 1948, with the establishment of "Israel" as a sovereign Jewish state, the Muslim Arab world erupted with rage. Multiple Arab-Israeli wars followed, with countless acts of terrorism thereafter. The State of Israel is in a perpetual state of national defense both internally and externally, with no possibility of peace in sight.   Israel, and thus the Zionist agenda, is supported both politically and religiously by the United States.

Politically, the United States sees Israel as an "ally" in the Middle East. It's very presence prevents Arabs from uniting the region into an Islamic superstate, and keeps the old British district lines alive and well.  The Israeli peace accords with Jordan and Egypt help to drive a deeper wedge into Islamic unity. This allows the United States to exploit oil reserves in the Arabian peninsula and Europe to exploit similar reserves in Northern Africa (primarily Libya). The Arab dictators and monarchs in North Africa and the Middle East serve as oil puppets for the West, while the real threat of Islamic unity is kept contained to the north in Iran and Syria.  When the southern Arab dictators and monarchs fail to comply with European and American interests, their regimes are toppled either with CIA sponsored uprisings or Western invasions. Such was the case with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi has likewise been slated by the CIA for regime change. It is likely we will see other governments toppled in the region as well. All of this is designed by the CIA, and European intelligence agencies, to gain more control over the region via the creation of more Western-style democracies.

The nation of Israel is also supported primarily by the United States in a religious sense and this is through Zionism. Now Zionism is the idea that the Biblical nation of Israel should be "recreated" in the Holy Land (i.e. "Zion"). Zionism was originally a political idea, promoted by certain liberal Jewish rabbis and Protestant Freemasons in the United States and Europe during the last century. Gradually it came to be embraced by American Evangelical Christians. The largest Zionist supporters now exist in the United States, among Evangelical and Conservative Protestant churches. Zionism has two religious components which are considered extremist by traditional Christian and Jewish theologians. The Jewish idea of Zionism is the rebuilding of "Zion" (the State of Israel) with Jewish supremacy over the region, and the reconstruction of the Temple Mount, which will usher in the return of the promised Jewish Messiah who will lead the Jewish people into peace and safety among the nations, and lead the world into worship of the God of Abraham and obedience to the Seven Nohide Laws. Of course this also involves the re-establishment of the animal sacrifices in the rebuilt Jewish Temple and the re-institution of Torah Civil Law. From an Evangelical Christian perspective on Zionism, the support of these goals is only superficial, in that it is believed that once the Jews in Israel are successful in this endeavor, it will usher in the prophesied events of the apocalypse and the supernatural return of Jesus Christ. As I said, both views are considered extremist and heretical in traditional Christian and Jewish theology. However, these extremist heretical views are very popular and they are doing their part to drive events in the Middle East. Every time the nation of Israel builds a new illegal Jewish settlement on Palestinian territory (i.e. "theft"), and American Evangelicals blindly support it, we can see both Jewish and Evangelical Zionism on display.

Saddam Hussein welcomes Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq in 1983.

Shortly after the establishment of the Nation of Israel in 1948 the Arab Muslim world reacted viscerally with an extremist interpretation of the Koran not used in a thousand years. This barbaric interpretation, which has been dubbed by the West as "Islamist" is best represented in the radical views of the mullahs who run the Islamic Republic of Iran. Shortly after their coming to power in 1979, the United States sought to contain the Iranian radicals by propping up a Secular Iraqi thug named Saddam Hussein. He did America's bidding for a decade by making war against Iran, while the United States supplied him with the weapons he needed to do it.  Later, Hussein discovered the United States was also supplying weapons to Iran (the "Iran-Contra Scandal"), in an attempt to keep the two powers contained in perpetual warfare.  So Hussein changed his mind, made peace with Iran, and immediately turned around to attack America's interest in the oil puppet state of Kuwait.  In response, President George H. Bush ("papa-Bush") ordered the invasion of Iraq and the liberation of Kuwait in what has come to be called the Gulf War.  A decade later, his son President George W. Bush ordered the job complete with total regime change in what is now called the Iraq War.  These events had the effect of galvanizing Islamist powers in their resolve to overturn Western influence in the region, and have caused many oil puppet regimes to question their relationship with the United States and Europe.  In 2006-2007 the oil puppet states went along with all the members of OPEC and decided to reduce the production of oil.  Gasoline prices surged around the world, and the United States economy, artificially inflated by the government-created real estate bubble, found itself in a very vulnerable position.  American homeowners, overstretched by rising mortgage payments and high gasoline prices, began defaulting on their home loans,  This caused the housing real estate bubble to collapse in 2008 during the middle of a U.S. presidential election.  Of course, this enraged the Bush administration, and so according to diplomatic cables released on Wikileaks, G.W. Bush ordered the CIA to begin work on toppling the regimes of the Arab powers responsible for this.  The CIA, along with European intelligence agencies, infiltrated Arab universities and education centers to provoke and encourage riots and demonstrations calling for regime change.  Again, according to Wikileaks, the Obama administration continued the plan started by G.W. Bush, and was aware the riot-revolutions would begin in January of 2011.  Barack Obama did nothing to stop it, and indeed expressed his support for it at every turn.   His latest action, using American forces to bomb Libya, began when Gaddafi attacked the rioting demonstraters instead of resigning like Mubarack did in Egypt.  This demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama and G.W. Bush are on the same page in this.  The objective here is for the the Muslim people of the Arab world to overturn their regimes (which have displeased the United States and Europe) and install new regimes that will hopefully be more friendly to American and European interests.  The United States government, and European powers, believe they can control the chain of events now unfolding to produce a desirable result.  There is only one problem with this plan.  The ideology that fueled the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979 has been unleashed throughout the Middle East and many of the people the CIA have been working with are now turning to extremist organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda) instead.  The supreme rebel leader in Libya has just admitted that he fought alongside the Taliban during the American incursion into Afghanistan and that most of his rebel fighters are connected to Al-Qaeda.  These are the people we are helping with the NATO bombing of Libya!?!  What we have here is a tremendous miscalculation on the part of American and European intelligence which has resulted in us helping our sworn enemies overthrow the dictators and monarch we originally propped up in the Arab world.  As bad as these tyrants are, at least they owed a debt to the West for their power.  Now that we're trying to topple them from within, they owe us nothing.  The end result is, the Islamist genie is now out of the lamp and our CIA sponsored revolution is being hijacked by Islamic radicals.

As President Barack Obama attempts to explain to the American public tonight why he decided to use American military forces to help radical Islamists overthrow a cruel dictator, let us keep in mind that he is only continuing a strategy employed by both Republican and Democrat administrations over the last two decades.  It is a strategy of intervention that has backfired on us at every turn.  This sort of thing might work well in Latin America or even Southeast Asia, but it doesn't work well in the Arab world.  The problem with the Arab world is that a radical ideology has been unleashed that infects the minds and hearts of millions of Arabs.  It's an ideology over a thousand years old, resurrected to deal with the emergence of Zionism, and it is a cruel and barbaric mindset that is SURE TO SUCCEED so long as the West remains hostile to it's own Christian heritage.  The last time this radical ideology was employed by the Arab world it manifested in centuries of jihad against the Christians that once owned the region.  These jihads carried on into Europe where the were met by a force of retaliation they never encountered before - CRUSADES!  The crusaders defeated the jihadists at their own game, and pushed them back as far as the Holy Land, even occupying Palestine for some time, before finally retreating back to Europe.  The Islamic threat was effectively contained for a time - about 1,000 years.  The bloody and barbaric jihadism would not be known again until the 20th century, when the West abandoned it's Christian heritage and Zionists became entrenched in the Middle East.

So what is likely to come now?  It would appear the Islamist zealots running Iran have seen the end game on the horizon.  They are interpreting the CIA sponsored uprisings in the oil puppet states as a "sign" that their time has come.  Their prophesied "12th Imam" or "Al-Mahdi" is seen as making his appearance sometime in the near future.  While mainly a Shiite belief at this time, it would appear the Iranian government is using current events to convince Sunni Muslims of it as well.  I suspect they will have marginal success.  Regardless of that, the unification of the Muslim world is coming, in some form or another, and that will result in greater hostility toward Israel and the United States.  It certainly doesn't bode well for Europe either.

Our own Catholic prophecies tell us of a future time when Muslims and Marxists will take to the streets in Europe together, overthrowing European governments much in the same way Arab governments are being overthrown today.  Perhaps this is a little of "what comes around goes around."  We did it to them, and soon they will do it to us.  (Maybe they'll do it in America and Canada too.)  Those of us who study Catholic prophecy also know how this will end up.  The Secular republics of Europe will fall (perhaps the North American republics too), and it will be up to the pope to save the day.  One pope will fall, and another will rise in his place, crowning a great Christian monarch who will launch another great crusade against the jihadists one last time.  Things will go differently this time.  Somehow in a way we cannot fully understand in this day and age, the fall of Islam in Europe will result in the fall of Islam in the Arab world too, opening the door to Christian missionary work.

There is a significant difference between the religious prophecies of Catholicism verses those of Evangelicalism, Judaism and Islam.  Catholic prophecies require us to do nothing but wait.  The only action required of us is prayer and personal holiness.  The Evangelical interpretation of Biblical prophecies, coupled with a whole lot of Zionist TRADITIONS, require Evangelicals to give unwavering and blind support to the Nation State of Israel.   This support can be moral support, financial support or political support, but it must be support of some kind.  Because, according to many Evangelical Zionist traditions, if you don't support the Secular Nation-State of Israel, God may curse you.  The Jewish interpretation of prophecy, as understood by most Jews under the influence of Zionism, requires them also to commit unwavering support for the Nation-State of Israel, and the rebuilding of "Zion" which includes Jewish supremacy over the region and the rebuilding of the Temple for animal sacrifice.  This is necessary for the Messiah to come, according to their beliefs.  The Islamist prophecies are certainly the most extreme, requiring them to believe in militant jihad and the killing of infidels to bring about the apocalypse needed to spur the coming of their Al-Mahdi or 12th Imam.  No matter how you look at it, no matter who's prophecies prevail, war is inevitable.

Tonight the President of the United States gave his reasons for the bombing of Libya.  My regular readers probably already know that I don't care what they are and I don't think anything he says really matters.  He's a puppet himself, who is told what to do by his handlers, just as our last president was told what to do by his handlers.  There are bigger powers working behind the scenes here.  We know some of their names, others remain in the shadows.  The United States no longer controls it's own destiny.  It hasn't for some time.  Our federal government is nothing more than a tool, and it is being used to enhance the power of those who are already powerful. 

I suspect what we are seeing unfold now is the slow decline of the United States and Europe.  I believe the CIA sponsored rioting-coups are going to backfire.  I believe the Arab world will unite under some form of Islamist caliphate because of it.  I believe the State of Israel will inevitably go to war as a result.  I believe the United States will be left in an economic quagmire with rising gasoline prices, mortgage defaults, inflation and another market crash.  America's days of intervention in the Arab world are numbered.  The same goes for Europe.  Israel's fate is up for grabs, and the Muslim world is setting itself up for its final destruction.  The Islamists are likely going to get what they want for a time, but in the end it will destroy them and their entire religion.  Yes, this is how I see things unfolding, and all we can do is pray the rosary for the conversion of Russia.  There really is no other option left for a faithful Catholic.  Here's some good news in all of this.  As of 2012, the Russian Federation will begin teaching religion classes in all of it's public schools.  This is not the "conversion" we've been praying for, but it is a positive step in the right direction.  Somehow Russia is the linchpin in all of this.  So let's keep praying the rosary.

BREAKING! Financial Coup Underway In The United States

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  This is a breaking alert.  A financial coup is currently underway in the United States, and according to sources, the trap is set to be sprung in May of this year (2011).  The key players are labor unions, orchestrating a mortgage strike designed to bring the U.S. stock market to it's knees.  Attorney General Eric Holder has just been notified of the situation and members of congress are now calling for an investigation of financial terrorism...

March 23, 2011
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

Recent media reports suggest that the former director of the Service Employees International Union’s (“SEIU”) banking and finance campaign has threatened to seriously endanger the welfare of the United States.  In a forum at Pace University earlier this month, Stephen Lerner, the former SEIU official, revealed a “secret plan” to “cause a new financial crisis . . . destroy J.P. Morgan . . . and weaken Wall Street’s grip on power” by using “civil disobedience” to create “the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The escalation of Mr. Lerner’s threats would clearly constitute domestic terrorism and pose substantial harm to the American people and the economy.  I am therefore requesting that you investigate Mr. Lerner’s terrorist plans and notify me how the Department of Justice plans to respond to these threats.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and may at “any time” investigate “any matter” as set forth in House Rule X. An attachment to this letter provides additional information about responding to the Committee’s request.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact [redacted].  Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Jason Chaffetz
cc:  The Honorable Darrell Issa, Chairman
cc:  The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Minority Member

SOURCE

Conservative radio talk shows are now pointing out a deep connection between involved union bosses and the Obama administration.  The situation is still developing.







The Catholic Knight warned about this in December of 2010. (see post here) The objective here is to make YOU (regular people) the instruments of their takeover. You see, they destroy the financial systems that we all rely upon, creating economic disaster, resulting in an outcry from YOU (regular people) to the government to "do something!" The government (headed by Barack Obama) is glad to help of course and institutes all sorts of Marxist solutions via executive order under the auspices of a "national emergency." The powers to enact such executive orders, were given by executive order, to the president by the president, way back in May of 2007. (see the story here) Yes, President George W. Bush effectively gave Barack Obama the power to execute the plan Marxists have been dreaming of for decades. Now we just sit back and wait for the trap to be sprung. Currently the target date is May of 2011. Maybe that date will change now that this story is being broken, maybe not, but one thing is very interesting. The mainstream media is not touching this story.

CHASTISEMENT NOW

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: We are living in a very historic time. We have been warned, and many people believe we are already in the Chastisement of God prophetically foretold by Catholic saints and mystics in previous centuries. If indeed we are already in this Chastisement, it likely began in 1938 with the beginning of World War II and could last until 2038. The children of Fatima warned us that Our Lady foretold if the people did not repent, a greater war than World War I would follow, under the reign of Pope Pius XI, after a strange light in the night sky over Europe. On January 25th 1938, during the reign of Pope Pius XI, a solar storm produced an Aurora Borealis that was seen all over Europe and North America -- as far south as California in the United States. These lights were seen by Hitler himself and he took it as a "sign" to begin his war plans. On February 4th 1938, less than two weeks after the aurora was seen by the world, Hitler promoted himself to military chief in Germany. A month later he marched his army into Austria. This was one of the early aggressions that started World War II. At that point the Fatima prophecies cease to be conditional.

Did the Chastisement of God, foretold by our Catholic saints and mystics, begin in 1938? Is this the 75 to 100 year war of Satan against Christ's Church foretold by Pope Leo XIII in 1884, exactly 33 years before the Fatima apparitions? If indeed 1938 was the starting point, than the end point would be anywhere between 2013 and 2038. It is the last portion of this Chastisement (particularly the last four and a half years) which is prophesied to be the most bloody and the most terrifying. If the prophecies are accurate, this period will conclude with a cleansing of the Church, the fall of a good pope, the rise of a great pope in his place, and the coronation of a great Christian monarch in Europe that will mark the end of multiculturalism and secular republics. France is prophesied to produce this monarch.

As we look at the world around us it appears that many of the events that seemed so impossible in generations past are now becoming more of a plausibility. The three secrets of Fatima underscored a theme of apostasy for Europe.  That has already occurred, as Europeans turned away from Christianity in record numbers after World War II.  The whole continent is now "post-Christian."  As a result, Europe is now falling to Islam in a cultural sense.  Europe had already been plagued by Marxists for the last century. A Muslim-Marxist nexus seems inevitable now. The riotous events and civil wars now unfolding in the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East mark the beginning of a new popular Islamic era that is sure to become increasingly unfriendly to the Western world. The multiculturalism in France, and other European nations, combined with the lack of Christian faith that swept the continent since World War II, is spawning a new wave of conservative nationalism, forcing European leaders in France, Germany and Britain to admit that multiculturalism is a complete failure. While we must say that recognition of the problem is a step in the right direction, we must also acknowledge that it's too little too late, and the events unfolding have reached the irreversible state. All of Europe will soon be plunged into civil war, likely to occur anytime within the next two decades, and the outcome will change the course of world history.

As for North America, particularly the United States, Canada and Mexico, there is only one defense. The only thing standing between us an a fate similar to Europe is a healthy and robust Christianity. Our governments need to stop attacking the values of our Christian faith, and our people need to turn back to Christianity in large numbers. This is the U.S. Catholic Church's grand opportunity to seize the moment and reclaim the majority of America's secular population for Rome. Sadly we don't see much effort in this regard coming from the general Roman Rite. Hopefully, with the grace of God, the emerging Anglican ordinariates in North America will do their part to pick up the slack.  If they don't, or if the general Roman Rite doesn't awaken from it's long slumber, the United States and Canada may soon be facing a similar fate as Europe.

Worldwide Paradigm Shift Underway

Riots in Egypt marked the turning point in the current paradigm shift.

(WND) - Islamists, in particular the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood, seem poised to take power throughout the Middle East as a result of riots that have already toppled one Arab regime and are threatening others, in what some are calling only the latest wave of an Islamic "tsunami" sweeping the globe.

In Egypt, members of President Hosni Mubarak's family reportedly have fled the country as a flood of violent, fatal street protests threatens the stability of this most populous Arab nation, a longtime U.S. ally and the only Muslim nation with a long-lasting peace agreement with Israel.

The White House has been championing the protests, calling for a transition to democratic rule in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood formed the main opposition to Mubarak....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I cannot begin to describe in words the absolute fundamental transformation that is underway in world politics. The mainstream news media is only now just beginning to comprehend the magnitude of a small fraction of it. Nothing this profound has happened since the fall of the Soviet Union. Not even the terrorist events of 9-11 compare to what is happening now. This is nothing short of a worldwide paradigm shift, and it's only just begun.

The riot-revolution in Egypt is just the beginning. Tunisia has already fallen. Yemen and Jordan are next. Turkey has changed it's political course to a more anti-Israel and anti-Western stand, so as to appease the swelling outrage in the hope of preventing riots. Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf States are becoming increasingly isolated. Even their regimes will likely become vulnerable in the months and years ahead.  Blame is steadily being painted on the United States and Israel, and sadly, it is not entirely unwarranted.

Allow me to elaborate on exactly what is going on. To understand it all, we need to back up a bit.  Let's go back to 1979.  Islamic radicals orchestrated a riotous revolution expelling the American backed Shaw of Iran, and replaced his monarchy with an Islamic theocratic republic.  Ever since then, Iran has become a thorn in the side of the whole Western world, and especially the United States and Israel, orchestrating and funding Islamic terrorism by working with Syria to take over the only Christian nation in the Middle East - Lebanon.  From Lebanon, Iran through Syria has created the terrorist organization Hezbollah.  The sworn goal of Hezbollah is to drive the State of Israel into the sea.  Furthermore, Iran has recently pursued nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them via intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICMs).  In response to the 1979 terrorist kidnapping of American embassy workers in Iran, the United States backed a rogue dictator in Iraq named Saddam Hussein.  Washington DC orchestrated the transfer of weapons - even chemical weapons - to Hussein for use in his war against Iran.  While at the same time Washington (during the Reagan administration) attempted to play both sides of the Iraq-Iran War by delivering arms to Iran as well.  It was only after Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people that the United States stopped all military relations with him.  It was at that time Hussein decided the real enemy was the Untied States and the Gulf Arab states.  So he signed a peace treaty with Iran and turned his guns south toward Kuwait instead.  In August of 1990 Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait - a U.S. ally and oil producer for American markets.  Kuwait fell quickly and Saudi Arabia realized it was next on Hussein's black list.  So the United States responded with the Gulf War, which ended in February of 1991 with the defeat of Saddam Hussein, the containment of Iraq, the liberation of Kuwait, and the presence of a permanent U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia.

Now let's fast forward ten years to the turn of the century. On September 11, 2001, the United States was brutally attacked by Islamic terrorists. The devastation in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania rightfully enraged the American people. Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian national, and American-educated radical Sunni Muslim of the Wahhabi sect, orchestrated and funded the terrorist attacks through his international terrorist organization called Al Qaeda. The attacks on the United States were celebrated in many places throughout the Middle East, and other Islamic nations, because of what many Muslims perceive as the American backing of Israel and Arab dictators.  Osama Bin Laden himself cited American backing of Israel, along with the presence of an American military base in his homeland of Saudi Arabia.  As a radical Islamic puritan, Bin Laden saw such American presence as profaning holy ground so close to Mecca.  In response, the United States, headed by President George W. Bush, formulated a "War on Terrorism" under which the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, attempting to set up democracies.  In both cases democracies were organized, but they were Islamic democracies that continued to enforce various elements of Shariah Law, and are extremely vulnerable to the kind of political pressure that can push them into becoming Islamic theocratic republics like Iran.  In this new "War on Terror," as it came to be called, the United States continued to back dictators in multiple Islamic nations including Egypt and Pakistan due to their assistance in combating Islamic terrorism.  Simultaneously, the United States embarked on continued deficit spending to back the "War on Terror" and increased social programs, as well as bolstering economic growth by inflating a government backed credit bubble.

Now let's fast-forward ten years to today.  The government backed credit bubble popped in September of 2008, as a result the United States bailed out the banks and lenders with trillions of dollars of deficit spending.  The U.S. Federal Reserve floated this debt by monetizing it with trillions of dollars of printed funny money.  This injection of liquidity into the international markets caused inflation in the international markets, driving up the cost of food, energy, textiles and increasing poverty throughout all nations that use the dollar as their international trading currency.  These conditions hit the Middle Eastern nations hard, especially those that worked closely with the United States, causing food riots that escalated into full-blown political revolutions - Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and and now Jordan.  There doesn't appear to be any end in sight.  On the surface, the riots and demonstrations are understandable.  These people have been victimized by governments that have failed them and left them hungry and in poverty.  The problem with these revolutions is that radical Islamic groups have stood ready for years, poised to rush in and direct such movements toward the creation of more radical Islamic theocracies.  The momentum seems unstoppable now, and there is nothing the United States (or any Western power) can do to influence it.  The more the United States tries, the more frustrated civilians turn toward radical organizations such as the "Muslim Brotherhood" in response.  Again, who can blame them?  The United States backed many of these dictators that brought this ruin upon them in the first place.  Why on earth would they trust us?

To make matters worse, Washington has been attempting to play both sides again, by backing the rioters as well as the dictators they are rioting against.  Your guess is as good as mine as to why we would do this, but apparently we did, especially in Egypt.  Maybe this was to gain political capital with the opposition groups should such a revolution ever happen successfully.  However, as it's playing out, whatever political capital we hoped to gain is being spent fast and the whole thing seems to be backfiring on us as it did with our backing of Saddam Hussein in Iraq during the 1980s.

Now the entire Middle East is erupting in revolution, and as soon as one domino falls the next will follow.  What happened in Iran back in 1979 is now happening all over the Middle East in 2011 and it seems we are powerless to do anything about it.

From a Catholic perspective all of this was predicted centuries ago by our mystics and seers.  In the years ahead more political strength will shift away from the United States and Europe toward radical Islamic powers.  Together with Marxist radicals in Europe, they will eventually attempt the same kind of riotous revolutions there.  What follows is what many Catholic mystics have called "The Chastisement" which will result in another paradigm shift that will bring about the last great era in Christian history before the rise of Antichrist and the Second Advent.

Libertarian Economics Is Anti-Christian

G.K. Chesterton

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The great Anglo-Catholic convert to Rome, G. K. Chesterton, said the following about economics and politics. "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

Karl Marx

With that in mind I would like to turn our attention to economics. There are basically two schools of economics at work in the modern world. The first comes to us from Karl Marx in the form of Socialism, and we are all too familiar with the rabid Christophobia associated with that. How many millions of Christians died under the oppression of forced Socialist (i.e. Communist and Fascist) regimes during the 20th century? I suppose only God knows. Socialism is a total failure economically.  It has raped the taxpayers of every country it's influenced.  While it simultaneously drained their national treasuries to nothing, leaving them only with debt.  In America we see these very same ideas embraced by progressive universities, the entertainment industry and the Democratic Party.  During the 20th century, socialist policies enacted in the United States eventually brought the world's last remaining superpower to it's knees economically.  The progressive Democrat government put in place in 2008 has only exacerbated the problem.  As of 2010, over 56% of the U.S. federal budget was spent on "entitlement" programs, which are essentially socialist ponzi schemes, while the government ran a federal deficit of $1.17 trillion to pay for them.  The U.S. now faces a debt crisis that threatens to undermine it's very sovereignty.  So as the world ever so slowly begins to understand the failures of Marx, it gradually turns to another guru of economic despair - Ludwig Von Mises.

Ludwig Von Mises

Ludwig Von Mises was the founder of the Austro-Libertarian school of economics. The Von Mises school of thought advocates minimal to zero government intervention in economics with maximum free trade on a global level. In America, it's an idea that is frequently promoted on conservative talk radio, and there are many advocates within the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party is practically based on it. Many see it as the exact opposite of Socialism, and therefore the cure to what ails us in this post-Socialist environment. Sadly, there are problems, and this is not the "fix" many are hoping for.  Austro-Libertarian policies are what gave us NAFTA and GATT.  These are free trade deals that allow American corporations to outsource their workforce, making products in other countries for a fraction of the cost, then selling them back to Americans with no tariffs to lower their profit.  It puts Americans out of work, and rewards companies for hiring virtual "slave labor" overseas.

The only Christian voice that has truly tackled the issue of economics in the modern world is that of the Catholic Church. From the social encyclicals of the popes, we see that what the Church advocates is something akin to what G. K. Chesterton called "Distributism." In today's terminology, it might better be described as "Micro-Capitalism." Perhaps the term "Distributed-Capitalism" may be another way of putting it. By this is meant the free market. But the market is not truly "free" if it is dominated by a handful of men who have cornered it with monopolies. In this sense, the government truly does have a role in economics in the form of protecting the free market from those few powerful businesses that would seek to crush the free market trade of smaller businesses. For the most widely distributed ownership of property, via legitimate free market trade at a local level, is the most sure safeguard against widespread poverty and dependency. It is also the most consistent producer of charity for the poor among individuals. The problem with Austro-Libertarian economics is that a locally controlled market is lost to international free traders and cutthroat competition coming from the "big box" retail outlets.

Christopher A. Ferrara

Thomas E. Woods

To make matters worse however, the founder of this school of thought was just as Anti-Catholic and Christophobic as the father of Socialism - Karl Marx himself. Mises, like so many of his followers today, failed to understand the nuance of Catholic Social Doctrine, describing it as authoritarian in nature, and even going so far as to accuse the Catholic Church of embracing Socialism for it's own self interest.  While it is fair to say that both Catholic and Protestant individuals have in the past abused Church social teaching for Socialist ends, it is not true to say that the Church itself in any way supports Socialism.  In fact, the Holy See has a reputation of excommunicating Socialists masquerading as theologians, and has actually condemned all forms of collectivism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  This is a "straw-man" logical fallacy, used by Mises to justify his own philosophy and malign Catholic Social Doctrine.  The following are excerpts from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. They were compiled as a reference for a heated exchange between Christopher A. Ferrara, author and President of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, and respected historian Dr. Thomas E. Woods, both practicing Catholics.  Dr. Woods, a scholar and author, has sided with the Von Mises perspective on economics and has written some articles in defense of it.  While Mr. Ferrara has faithfully held to the traditional Catholic perspective of the popes. In this open written exchange, Ferrara takes Woods to task on his departure from the traditional Catholic understanding of social teaching and calls upon him to reconsider his views. Drawing from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute's website as a source, Ferrara demonstrates the blatantly anti-Catholic and Christophobic position of Mises and his Austro-Libertarian school of economics.

The source of this text (and accompanying open letter) can be found HERE.

LUDWIG VON MISES

VERSUS

CHRIST, THE GOSPEL AND THE CHURCH

From Chapter 29 of Socialism

http://mises.org/books/socialism/part4_ch29.aspx

1. Jesus’ preaching of a Kingdom to come destroys all social ties:

The expectation of God’s own reorganization when the time came and the exclusive transfer of all action and thought to the future Kingdom of God, made Jesus’s teaching utterly negative. He rejects everything that exists without offering anything to replace it. He arrives at dissolving all existing social ties….

2. Jesus is like the Bolshevists:

…His zeal in destroying social ties knows no limits. The motive force behind the purity and power of this complete negation is ecstatic inspiration and enthusiastic hope of a new world. Hence his passionate attack upon everything that exists. Everything may be destroyed because God in His omnipotence will rebuild the future order. No need to scrutinize whether anything can be carried over from the old to the new order, because this new order will arise without human aid. It demands therefore from its adherents no system of ethics, no particular conduct in any positive direction. Faith and faith alone, hope, expectation—that is all he needs. He need contribute nothing to the reconstruction of the future, this God Himself has provided for. The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad. But they have in mind ideas, indefinite and contradictory though they may be, of the future social order. They demand not only that their followers shall destroy all that is, but also that they pursue a definite line of conduct leading towards the future Kingdom of which they have dreamt. Jesus teaching in this respect, on the other hand, is merely negation.

3. Jesus despises the rich, inciting the world to violence against them and their property, and His teaching has borne “evil seed”:

One thing of course is clear, and no skilful interpretation can obscure it. Jesus’ words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor. The only reason why Jesus does not declare war against the rich and preach revenge on them is that God has said: “Revenge is mine.”

In God’s Kingdom the poor shall be rich, but the rich shall be made to suffer. Later revisers have tried to soften the words of Christ against the rich, of which the most complete and powerful version is found in the Gospel of Luke, but there is quite enough left to support those who incite the world to hatred of the rich, revenge, murder and arson. Up to the time of modern Socialism no movement against private poverty which has arisen in the Christian world has failed to seek authority in Jesus, the Apostles, and the Christian Fathers, not to mention those who, like Tolstoy, made the Gospel resentment against the rich the very heart and soul of their teaching.

This is a case in which the Redeemer’s words bore evil seed. More harm has been done, and more blood shed, on account of them than by the persecution of heretics and the burning of witches. They have always rendered the Church defenseless against all movements which aim at destroying human society….

4. The Church, not Enlightenment liberalism, cleared the way for Socialism:

…. It would be foolish to maintain that Enlightenment, by undermining the religious feeling of the masses, had cleared the way for Socialism. On the contrary, it is the resistance which the Church has offered to the spread of liberal ideas which has prepared the soil for the destructive resentment of modern socialist thought. Not only has the Church done nothing to extinguish the fire, it has even blown upon the embers….

5. Christian doctrine is destructive of society, prohibits concern for sustenance and work, preaches hatred of the family, and even endorses castration:

…. So it is that Christian doctrine, once separated from the context in which Christ preached it—expectation of the imminent Kingdom of God—can be extremely destructive. Never and nowhere can a system of social ethics embracing social co-operation be built up on a doctrine which prohibits any concern for sustenance, and work, while it expresses fierce resentment against the rich, preaches hatred of the family, and advocates voluntary castration.

6. The Gospel played no part in the building of Western civilization:

The cultural achievements of the Church in its centuries of development are the work of the Church, not of Christianity. It is an open question how much of this work is due to the civilization inherited from the Roman state and how much to the idea of Christian love completely transformed under the influence of the Stoics and other ancient philosophers. The social ethics of Jesus have no part in this cultural development. The Church's achievement in this case was to render them harmless, but always only for a limited period of time….

7. Because it opposes liberalism, the Church is an enemy of society:

The fate of Civilization is involved. For it is not as if the resistance of the Church to liberal ideas was harmless. The Church is such a tremendous power that its enmity to the forces which bring society into existence would be enough to break our whole culture into fragments. In the last decades we have witnessed with horror its terrible transformation into an enemy of society. For the Church, Catholic as well as Protestant, is not the least of the factors responsible for the prevalence of destructive ideals in the world today…

8. Liberalism is superior to Christianity and has restored humanity by overthrowing the Church, which is why the Church hates it:

Historically it is easy to understand the dislike which the Church has shown for economic liberty and political Liberalism in any form. Liberalism is the flower of that rational enlightenment which dealt a deathblow to the regime of the old Church and from which modern historical criticism has sprung. It was Liberalism that undermined the power of the classes that had for centuries been closely bound up with the Church. It transformed the world more than Christianity had ever done. It restored humanity to the world and to life. It awakened forces which shook the foundations of the inert traditionalism on which Church and creed rested. The new outlook caused the Church great uneasiness, and it has not yet adjusted itself to even the externals of the modern epoch.

9. Christianity has become a religion of hate, seeking to destroy the “wonderful new world” of liberalism:

True, the priests in Catholic countries sprinkle holy water on newly laid railways and dynamos of new power stations, but the professed Christian still shudders inwardly at the workings of a civilization which his faith cannot grasp. The Church strongly resented modernity and the modern spirit. What wonder, then, that it allied itself with those whom resentment had driven to wish for the break-up of this wonderful new world, and feverishly explored its well-stocked arsenal for the means to denounce the earthly struggle for work and wealth. The religion which called itself the religion of love became a religion of hatred in a world that seemed ripe for happiness. Any would-be destroyers of the modern social order could count on finding a champion in Christianity.

10. Because they follow the Gospel and have not been “inoculated” with liberal philosophy, priests and monks are the enemies of society:

Priests and monks who practiced true Christian charity, ministered and taught in hospitals and prisons and knew all there was to know about suffering and sinning humanity—these were the first to be ensnared by the new gospel of social destruction. Only a firm grasp of liberal philosophy could have inoculated them against the infectious resentment which raged among their protégés and was justified by the Gospels. As it was, they became dangerous enemies of society. From the work of charity sprang hatred of society.

11. The Church and the Papacy seek to enslave men by depriving them of reason and the spiritual freedom of capitalism:

The Church knows that it cannot win unless it can seal the fount from which its opponent continues to draw inspiration. As long as rationalism and the spiritual freedom of the individual are maintained in economic life, the Church will never succeed in fettering thought and shepherding the intellect in the desired direction. To do this it would first have to obtain supremacy over all human activity. Therefore it cannot rest content to live as a free Church in a free state [the very slogan of Cavour, the great Masonic enemy of the Church and Blessed Pius IX - CAF]; it must seek to dominate that state. The Papacy of Rome and the Protestant national churches both fight for such dominion as would enable them to order all things temporal according to their ideals. The Church can tolerate no other spiritual power. Every independent spiritual power is a menace to it, a menace which increases in strength as the rationalization of life progresses.

12. Christianity needs socialism in order to maintain theocracy against the threat of “independent production”:

Now independent production does not tolerate any spiritual over-lordship. In our day, dominion over the mind can only be obtained through the control of production. All Churches have long been dimly aware of this, but it was first made clear to them when the socialist idea, rising from an independent source, made itself felt as a powerful and rapidly growing force. It then dawned upon the Churches that theocracy is only possible in a socialist community.

13. The Church must “transform” itself by embracing capitalism rather than papal teaching, such as that of Pius XI:

If the Roman Church is to find any way out of the crisis into which nationalism has brought it, then it must be thoroughly transformed. It may be that this transformation and reformation will lead to its unconditional acceptance of the indispensability of private ownership in the means of production. At present it is still far from this, as witness the recent encyclical Quadragesimo anno.

The Next French Revolution

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  Ever since their first Revolution (AD 1789–1799), the French have had a history of uprising and civil unrest.  This has become particularly acute during the latter half of the 20th century until now.  Because of the frequency of French civil uprisings, the rest of the world has come to yawn at the latest.  These things tend to affect French leaders more than anyone else, and aside from a little disruption of tourism, French civil unrest is largely an internal matter.  Rarely do people get seriously hurt, and foreigners usually stay clear of the trouble spots.

For the most part the uprisings are peaceful.  Demonstrations might in some places resemble the docile TEA Parties in the United States.  It's a small percentage of rioters that are the real problem for the French.  These are the "rent-a-riot" anarchists who always seem to show up at European demonstrations of this type.  Usually paid by some nameless Marxist benefactor, these college drop-outs show up at demonstrations uninvited and then proceed to "do their thing."  Out come the baseball bats, bricks and Molotov cocktails.  Sporting hooded sweaters and ski masks, these urban terrorists then go right to work, turning what was once a peaceful demonstration into a chaotic riot.  Yes, we've seen these punks in America too, usually "doing their thing" across the street from the U.N. building or some convention center hosting the latest G8 summit.  For the most part however, their primary source of "income" from nameless benefactors is centered in Europe, and Europe seems to be where they get most of their "business."  France is their most reliable customer.

Who are these people?  Well, we don't know a whole lot about them, but what we do know is telling.  One, they're usually college age drop-outs.  Two, they're overwhelmingly Marxist when it comes to economics.  Three, they have anarchist tendencies on everything else.  Four, they believe the ends justify the means.  Five, they're paid for their "services."

They tend to do well in Europe, which is overwhelmingly Socialist on economic matters.  In France, their most reliable customer, they show up whenever the government attempts to reduce "entitlement" benefits, or renegotiate a trade deal that helps big business.  What makes them so successful in France is the willingness of the French people to tolerate them.  I dare say if these punks showed up to one of America's TEA Parties, it wouldn't be the police they would have to worry about.  By in large, mainstream Americans don't tolerate civil unrest, and I pity the poor fools who might try to start some at a TEA Party.  The police would only be needed to save them from the angry mothers beating them with their protest signs because they endangered their children who were nearby.  Perhaps that's why we haven't seen their likes at any of America's TEA Parties.  Perhaps they know the police would be the only thing to save them from the wrath of angry mothers.  Of course, the message of the TEA Parties is a little different than what these "rent-a-riot" punks are aiming for anyway.  They want more Socialism, while the TEA Parties want less.  So it may be safe to say that's playing a big role as well.

That's the difference you see.  The TEA Parties are comprised of mainstream Americans, and while mainstream Americans will protest in large numbers, they generally don't tolerate rioters and anarchists.  In France, it's a little different.  I once spoke with a lovely French exchange student about this back in my college days.  We were discussing the nature of our respective governments.  Her perspective was enlightening.  She observed that the United States government walks all over the American people, and allows big-business to control them.  She said that in America, people were afraid of the government, but in France the government fears the people.  I asked why, and she said it was because the French government knows if it doesn't give the people what they want, the people will riot.  She then proceeded to explain why rioting is good for a country and how many positive things come from it.  I asked if she ever rioted, to which she laughed and said "No, but we have courageous people who do that, and we support them with our numbers."  The conversation continued but that was the major highlight.  Perhaps it's a mistake to project her attitude onto the majority of the French population, but I suspect it's not.  I suspect this is how a lot of French people feel, certainly not all of them, but a fairly high number.  So when "rent-a-riot" punks show up at a gathering, the real protesters back off and let the punks "do their thing" while the real protesters stand at a distance and cheer.  That's my suspicion anyway, based on the limited but enlightening information I've been given.

There is a common thread in all of this.  That thread is Marxist-Socialism.  What incites these demonstrations is usually cuts in the "entitlement" programs of the European Socialist states.  European Socialists have effectively created the ultimate "spoiled child" in their own population.  Like the little "monster" who doesn't get what he wants, after his parents have pandered to his every whim for so long, the tantrum starts.  For a brief (or not so brief) moment in time, the child becomes a potential threat to himself and everyone else nearby.  It's usually quite a spectacle, sort of like French civil disobedience.

There is a more serious problem boiling underneath the surface.  Marxist Socialism doesn't work.  Everywhere it's been tried, it has failed miserably, leaving nations bankrupt in the process.  Of course Socialists remain blindly convinced that Socialism is not to blame, but rather they continually assume the right people just haven't tried it yet.  As the late President Ronald Reagan once observed: “It's not that liberals don't know anything; it's that so much of what they know is wrong.”  They have assumed that making people dependent on the government does not fundamentally change their maturity level.  The problem is it does, and to be quite frank about it, who can blame them?  They've been lied to.  They were told the government could meet all their basic necessities, and they were forced to submit to the idea through excessive taxation and regulation,  Then after they were raped of all their potential wealth, and the truth was finally known, it became obvious the government couldn't keep it's promises, and so it began to cut back.  The people realized they had been lied to and so they felt cheated.  They simply reacted the way any spoiled child would at perceived injustice.  We Americans are not so different than the French, it's just that the federal government hasn't cut deep enough into the entitlement programs yet.  Just wait until they start cutting Social Security and then see what happens!

Weaning people off of Socialism is a difficult task, and as we've seen, it's one rife with civil unrest.  Let this be a lesson to the leaders of future generations.  Think twice before making grandiose government promises to "care for the people's basic needs."  The government was not designed for this, and when you discover that it can't make good on these promises, don't be surprised if the people take you down because of it.  What's boiling underneath the surface is a coming riot so big that governments will be unable to stop it.  In France this will likely result in civil war, and other European nations should be put on notice for this as well.  The future of North America is more uncertain.  While it is possible this continent could degenerate into anarchy, it is far more likely that cooler heads will eventually prevail.  Americans and Canadians have a tendency of working toward political compromise and renegotiation.  By in large, the pioneer spirit of a hundred years ago still has some breath in North America, and there are still enough people willing to start anew with the promise of independence and self sufficiency.  That spirit no longer exists in Europe and has been gone for centuries.  Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the wean from Socialism will go differently for Europe than for North America.  While North Americans may put up a stink initially, the promise of freedom and self sufficiency will likely entice enough people to embrace the changes over the long run.  In Europe however, the needed changes will not go over so well.  Europeans have grown accustomed to being pampered by the state, and they're hasn't been a rugged pioneering spirit in Europe since the end of the middle ages.  More tantrums are coming, and one of these days, it's going to get out of hand.