April 23, 2005: Judge Roy Bean rides again.

 

They would really do themselves a big favor to forego these ridiculous attempts to give appearances of justice to their kangaroo court. And just go ahead and execute people, old-time Mexican-Revolutionary PRI or Stalin-era firing-squad style. For one thing it would be much more “macho”: and thus fit far better the highly-contrived Bush-era “wild west” motif. This Moussaoui after three and a half years of vigorous denial has at last been brought to “sign something”. The good God and His heavenly court alone know what the man had to endure to bring him to that point. But this is the hinge, the pivot, for the government’s contentions regarding 9/11. Seeming with redundant finality—at least to the patriotically-convincible—to get Bush and his confederates off a very stout hook. A set of connections which in fact, comprehensively considered, implicates they themselves more compellingly than anyone else in the bizarre, apocalyptic tragedy. Men now “at the end of the day” being able to “move on from here” and “put all this behind us”. With even Hillary, and the many who hide behind her skirts, no doubt destined to nod their vigorous assent. Bush being able to get on with the bells, whistles and cheer-leaders of the corporate/globalist, Skull and Crossbones, nation-destroying hard-sell. Having created all the required villains and victims—again, to some people—toward its final apotheosis.

All that Gonzales and his entourage, with their hate-twisted faces and dark, secretive manners actually did was to pose the Sanhedrin’s age-old question “have we any need of further witnesses?” Having achieved the Gospel antagonists’ coup of supposedly getting the words “right out of his own mouth”: if this time from a mere mortal rather than from a God. Only beards to stroke, and phylacteries to righteously fondle, were lacking. Some form of the scourging at the pillar having perhaps too been duly contrived during the night before. By that motley group that was called out to take a bow together with the Attorney General, whom all still instinctively prefer to call “judge”. The Roy Bean motif—the rolling of all three branches into one—that which really defines the “independent judiciary”, or “independent executive” of our times—the killer of innocent’s and of the hastily and “patriotically” indicted—this being after all a much more convincing moniker than that of the “government’s chief law enforcement officer”. For we citizens still have some respect left in us—in spite of a growing citizen abuse on the part of some—for the police officer. Or the ordinary soldier. The announcement of a confession actually indicating to all that the proverbial alleged “signed statement” obviates any need of an actual trial: that which is the ultimate dread of all such compromised men. Since it is before the bar—despite intimidated jurors and bought witnesses—that the likes of Thomas Cromwell interrogating the mild and saintly Thomas More—or the High Priest questioning Our Lord—always manage to impeach themselves beyond reprieve.

Anti-climactically and in the next breath we are informed that “this trial is not over yet”. After which there is a noticeable amount of shifting from one foot to the other. This idea of the security-shrouded and “ongoing” being allowed to kill many birds with one stone: this gets more and more difficult and embarrassing to maintain as time goes on. Begging the question too of a continued refusal of the government to allow the accused to speak to certain persons. Those namely whom he had for three and a half years claimed could clear him of all guilt. (With this “confession” perhaps being only a desperate ploy to ward off the sodomizers. What would you do in such a case?) While the “it isn’t over yet” statement also allows these paragons of American justice and right to clumsily minimize the fact that the only thing not yet “over” is the sentencing.

When it (that is, the news conference) was all over, Gonzales led the way unceremoniously out of the room, leading grotesquely with his nose, as if the first thing he wanted out of the limelight was a face which had lost all pretense of honor or integrity. In all this he displayed all the majesty of the proverbial (but in real life rare) Mexican pick-pocket. Known as such in the neighborhood, darting between dark shadows, his face an expressionless mask.

Some new poll can always be invented—whether full of downright lies or phrased so misleadingly as to fool the deadbeats to whom it is too-typically administered—perhaps artificially-trebled in number to “round out” the curve—to convince some (“those who count”) that everyone is convinced by such a kangaroo court. That which the whole “War on Terror” represents. But when they bring out a crew like Gonzales and company to take a bow after such efforts, all the hard work by the pollsters and PR firms comes very quickly to naught.

 

April 23, 2005: The Pope, the Tiara, and “Jesus is Lord”

 

The reason that “no can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Ghost” has nothing to do with a broad license claimed by Charismatics and Pentecostals to hold forth in what they claim is “inspired tongues”. Let alone, after saying the required three-word formulary, to rolling hysterically on the floor. For what the word lord meant to all the Roman world of the time of the Apostles was the ultimate lay authority in any jurisdiction. So that when the term is applied to a very God Incarnate, the meaning is unmistakable that Jesus is not only Lord of the spiritual universe but also Lord over all civil governments. Here substantially being the acknowledgment—standard in all ages before Vatican II—declared by the Apostle to be impossible to anyone not motivated by the Spirit of God. For within this acknowledgement—of dual lay/divine lordship—is contained in the most potent conceivable microcosm the whole magnificent Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. As the Hypostatic Union of God and man affects not only individual souls but nations, peoples, societies: bringing them under the Divine Government, the Divine Spouse of the Mystical Body of Christ. So that the Devil couldn’t possibly make such an acknowledgment: since it would be to effectively undermine, to disavow, his own earthly kingdom. That which primarily depends upon keeping societies, laws, customs in thrall. Those very instrumental things—together with souls themselves—which Christ came to set free.

Here, then, is the radically-disturbing symbolism of the selling-off of the Papal Tiara by John Paul II. And the replacement of the old papal coronation with a comparatively-anemic papal “installation”. Because Christ—and His vicar—don’t come to anyone with hat—let alone Tiara—in hand. For although they don’t lead armies—the only historical exception having been one or two Renaissance Medici-protégé popes—yet they possess a moral ascendancy much more effective in every respect than that. Hardly having traditionally been men of oily, hyper-conciliatory words or deeds. For as much noted on these pages moral authority is of the very pith, the very origination of the rule of law. The fountainhead of authority in all its various grades. So that when a pope lays claim to that kind of allegiance—as vicar of Christ on earth—it is the most formidable claim possible this side of Heaven. Capable of removing lesser figures from far-lesser thrones: by that very moral and spiritual force which makes for law of any sort, anywhere.

Until we get a real pope who has all this straight once again, Rome will be ceaselessly challenged by every power-hungry crack-pot or cartel-of-the-perverse. And what is worse by far, Christians will continue to give a certain ascendant glory to Caesar rather than to God: that which is at the very pith of the worst kind of totalitarian tyranny.

 

April 22, 2005: The Christian surrender of the public domain.

 

Having surrendered the externals of our lives—schools, jobs, politics—into the hands of others, we Christians naturally-enough live in surroundings increasingly foreign, indeed hostile, to our beliefs. That to which would be joined the growing perception of a “progress”-oriented inferiority—of Catholicism vis-à-vis practical life both private and public—that whole mammoth abdication organized and codified at Vatican II. Our “Way” having been measured against the outer darkness and been found “irrelevant”: out of step with the racy world outside Christ’s sanctifying, majestic, pacific influence. Prompting the reflection that the universal airing of the recent papal funeral and subsequent election were less honorific than trivializing: together too with the virtual invasion of Vatican City by the U.S. Government that our highly-visible delegation might in a certain sense be said to have comprised.

Hence this wholesale political, occupational, material transformation away from what we spiritually/instinctively hold dear, this subordinate grading of Catholicism along side the myriad false religions of the modern pagan pantheon: in practical terms permitting any influence whatever upon public institutions except that of Christianity. The refusal of which supine self-leveling was the principal reason early Christians were thrown to wild beasts. Quite the reverse, Christ the King must be recognized as He toward whose official recognition all earthly institutions ultimately tend. And not in the opposite direction, away from His salutary presence and grace, His society-uplifting and -solidifying embrace.

 

April 22, 2005: Parting the Red Sea.

 

The Democrats and Republicans have done us a great service in giving us a complete zero in terms of wise, moral and practical choices: whether of candidates or policies. In manufacturing for us a political desert which serves only elite and godless private interests on the right and left. For what they have done is to part for us a political Red Sea: amply doing God’s work for Him, as in the days of Moses. Making us “a path through the waves” of callous indifference, of perverted alliances, of black-hearted anti-life back-room deals. So that we need only step off with confidence, behind the banner of the two Hearts of Jesus and Mary: avoiding on both the right and the left the towering, threatening, angry—but for all that quite harmless—Republican and Democratic watery walls. And their effervescent media surf and spray. Resolutely “looking neither to right or left”, walking in the footsteps, “the Way”, of those who—as witnessed in two thousand years of traditional Catholic social, economic and political teaching—know nothing of doubletalk, treason or mendacity. Who will not lead us into some sort of carefully-contrived trap.

Where are we to find that path, that stepping-off point into a dry foot-path through a tumultuous political sea-bed? Read on.

 

April 20, 2005: New Church: the burden of proof placed upon the good.

 

All governments from the very beginning have had to struggle against the power of world finance, even as they almost consistently put themselves under its power to varying degrees. But the desire of “the money men” to dominate the Catholic Church would be no easy matter to bring to realization: people who somehow believe instinctively that they are meant to control all mankind. Among which first of many attempts—brokered by financiers of Venice and Genoa and their associates in enclaves further east—was a careful fomenting of Schism in the vast reaches of Byzantium, in order to divide and rule. Then for the same purpose came a providing of front-money to 12th-century caesaro-papist German emperors and illuminist heretics of every stripe. But the most successful of all inroads before our own time would come with the gaining of dominance of the Medici family of financiers over the papacy itself. Indeed with two Medicis being destined to sit on the papal throne: during a time when various Vatican scandals would greatly contribute to the precipitation of the Protestant Revolt. And although later in the sixteenth century Rome would surmount such inroads, producing great popes like Pius V, Sixtus V and others, and launching under them such magnificent ventures as the Jesuit Order and the Carmelite Reform, the geo-bankers have never ceased fulminating new schemes for the vanquishing of Rome. That Catholic moral authority whose authentic divine mandate and authoritative teachings must ever be a detested goad to their own insatiable hunger for universal totalitarian control of all life and thought.

A final stroke of genius among attempts at consolidation of such control was achieved by financiers and their Masonic and other modern collaborators with the idea of infiltrating seminaries: a documented effort no doubt among other things facilitated through offers of generous financial aid to ever-funds-strapped bursars. Acts of largesse which required only that certain otherwise-unacceptable candidate be admitted to training, and ultimately to Holy Orders. So that in this way the character of the princes of the Church could ultimately be determined: through the introduction of a radical-humanism, a weak priestly formation within schools previously erected under the rigorous and inspired standards of St. Charles Borromeo and others around the time of the council of Trent. The “new way” steadily gaining prominence in the Church’s approach to her own internal disciplines: with results steadily becoming apparent. Since only a few such seminarian-invaders, a mere “drop” if you will, could without fail pollute the entire “barrel”, in a Church which sets much stock by fraternal example, and which holds in rightful fear the mortal perils of bad company. In this bizarre new setting, then, the idea of “correction” finding novel and startlingly applications, with growing numbers of little twisted clerical acorns-in-training of course eventually becoming towering ecclesiastical oaks. This while “troublesome” souls of the likes of the indomitable Hildebrand, or bishops like Grossteste, were ultimately to be excluded, tacitly yet in a way systematically, by such willy-nilly but invincible means. Indeed a weeding-out process destined at length to monopolize pre-acceptance interviews of youthful candidates to seminaries both major and minor, with “up to date” criteria at last ranging from the healthy animal standards of Freud to the business-like skills of the corporate world. Insurmountable difficulties with greater and greater ease being found to bar the entry of the pious, spiritually-discerning and morally strong. A campaign at which some claim these inscrutable aspiring overlords were successful beyond their own wildest anticipations. Their final coup fatal having been the laying of the spiritual-formative foundations for the Second Vatican Council, and the blunting of clerical virility which it would virtually cast in concrete. That Council which in many ways represented the vain, ultra-humanistic, indeed among some effeminate kind of a Church that the financiers felt they could easily control.

From such a perspective it isn’t difficult to understand our present plight of forty years and running. Nor the statement of perhaps the last really strong Pontiff, St. Pius X, as he mused over what lay ahead at the beginning of the last and steepest leg of the downward ecclesiastical plunge: which he implicitly, with a saint’s spiritual intuition, understood. Namely that it would be the laity that would save the Church. Much after the manner in which the no-nonsense Judas Machabeus, his brothers and their followers saved the Temple in the second century B.C. When the Jewish priesthood had at long last been hopelessly compromised by the forces of the regional homosexual and infant-sacrificial paganism. Those heathens with whom the Jews had already been playing footsy on and off (mostly on) for a millennium, and against which they had so often been warned by Almighty God. A transformation uncannily like that taking place in the clerical ranks of Catholicism in recent times.

This idea of the laity rescuing the Church from internal and external enemies isn’t any more unlikely today than it was in the time of the Machabees. For Christ promises that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church: a guarantee not specifically applied to the clergy or hierarchy as such. So that conceivably the priesthood could be more or less completely overcome on a temporary basis—except for the maintenance of the succession and the Sacraments—and the Church still survive according to her divine guarantees and mandates. So that the question remains: are there laymen ready to take upon themselves such an extraordinary task? Undoubtedly there are many besides ourselves who reading the material on this site, and meditating on the truths of their Faith, will be roused by the grace of God to do what is needed. Namely to fight in every way and if necessary to the last man to insure the survival and ascendancy of that practical Catholicism which is fundamental to the survival of the Western Christian way of life. This latter of which is of the very essence of the layman’s specific duty to uphold: at all costs and in whatever way necessary.

But according to the character of the astute infiltrator, the task of Vatican II was not to do anything blunt or spectacular: but rather to complicate everything beyond reprieve. Since doubt and bewilderment in mind prepare for hesitancy in policy and deed. While dire degrees of complexity would notably come about through the addition of perfectly novel and foreign obligations: of a sort which our Christian profession of Faith doesn’t by any means require. Prohibitively heavy burdens when added to those authentic ones already incumbent upon the Catholic soul. These latter true and in-their-own-right rigorous obligations whose shouldering not only make us good Catholics but also model citizens and human beings as well. A heaping-up of the load—with all kinds of extraneous anvils and millstones—paradoxically brought about through the very “liberating” and “updating” mandate of Vatican II. That which is much of the reason our church-pews have been emptying dramatically here for years: this despite recent much-aired and suspiciously-large claims of “increased membership worldwide”. (I’ve seen some few of these new “members”, and I am not impressed at all). For by way of that synod’s tremendous emphasis on “religious liberty”—as “freeing” as that might sound—we are expected to expend a major part of our moral energy in onerous levels of introspective brow-beating—at least if we were ever part of the old and traditional Way “passed down”. Especially toward guaranteeing that we Catholics enjoy no undue advantage of any kind: whether political or in the practice of our Faith. This novel understanding of liberty being a prepossession far and away more oppressive than the old simple and direct moral injunctions. A sifting self-assessment whereby we are reputedly qualified to share space with deists, animists, atheists and the World Church of Humanism.

It’s easy to see that it isn’t our legitimate liberty at all that is involved here: but rather perpetually someone else’s questionable one. Alleged historical infractions against which Paul VI and John Paul II consigned themselves to a highly-photogenic breast-beating penitence, being personifications of a newly-coined image of “the pilgrim Church doing the ancient penance”. In grim self-flagellations for putative unfair advantages historically enjoyed by Catholics over others. Some of these putative “edges” held to have been taken by force of arms, others by a preponderance of fraternal charity, or of political power.

But really, do you think that Jews—those whom we spend the bulk of our time worrying-over and apologizing-to for past “unfair” advantages—do you think they really torment themselves every time they are the beneficiaries of a radically-un-level playing field? Don’t hold your breath in anticipation. Or do Scotch/Irish Calvinists regularly beat their breasts, say, over the disenfranchising of all of Catholic Ireland over a period of centuries? Rather do they hold noisy parades, down main Catholic-neighborhood thoroughfares, in the commemoration of butchers like Cromwell.

Yet all this hardly scrapes the surface in addressing a much deeper issue at stake here: namely the idea that anyone has the right to take it upon themselves to make apologies at the expense of the Church, the Spotless Bride of Christ. Certainly there have been Catholics, including some Churchmen, who have made mistakes or done wrong in the past: indeed first on the list would be the very “aggiornamento” popes cited above. But those were all individual human failings. While this business of essentially apologizing for two thousand years of Church life—even if in the now-customary vague and equivocal terms—this is simply not something that any mortal—even an anti-pope—can legitimately take upon himself.

But there is more, for the fact the whole anti-papal and conciliar project foreswore the exercise of practical advantages among Catholics—as having been some sort of insupportable historical shame—this has the secondary and highly-unpublicized effect of forcing each individual church-member to become in a way the “master of his own destiny”. Being in large measure left with those species of scant mercies and personal-emotion-based comforts that mark the radical Protestant-Evangelical notion of an oddly-stark “personal relationship with Christ”. For although there might be a welcome place at the Church-hall for the up-and-coming and gaily-gregarious, one is always left bearing the burden of proof of the right to live the ever-unique, openly Catholic life: that which was steadily retreated from after the announcement of the libertarian, the “polite”, indeed in many uncanny ways the financier-friendly Catholicism of Vatican II. So that one is thereafter saddled with an onerous extra burden of effort in the securing of ones salvation. Since apart from the Sacraments themselves—which although ex opere operando don’t after all do their mysterious work in an automat-like fashion—most practical cooperative advantages have by an odd sense of duty and with consummate “conscientiousness” been foresworn. Even the lovely mutually-enabling “household of the Faith” definition of truly-biblical Catholic Christianity—that reciprocally-sustaining, extended-domestic-church world—one seen within a larger cosmos yet fondly regarded, from the papal dove’s perch and in Chesterton’s words, as “dear, small and round”. A Church of whose spirit and imagery the Epistles are so full being in many ways abandoned for the stark “lonesome valley” ethos of “the reverend Mr. Black” of the old folk song. The valley of darkness—“you have to walk it by yourself”—grinning communion-time handshakes notwithstanding. That incurably-“individualistic” version of Catholicism which, after vestibule echoes have died away, goes with capitalism like a hand in a glove. Everything else being grimly criticized as either delusional and pietistic, if it smacks at all of tradition, or “socialistic” or even “bleeding heart liberal”, if it “loves the brethren” beyond the tidy limits of the American middle-class dream.

Plainly, the new grim individuality, as another rising pinnacle of paradox, would give no real scope at all for the radical personal uniqueness of the truly holy: that special province of Catholicism in which “there are many mansions”: indeed as many as there are souls. For the world of correct Catholicism would be one in which the inner spiritual ceiling would be the same for everyone, hyped-up charismatic illusions aside. For one thing because to think otherwise would be to aspire to outdo others: to raise shameful bastions of pride. Indeed, to reinstitute in ones own person the very ethos of past Catholic-advantageous times. Similarly too more recently, and maybe most disturbingly of all—as the true “Way passed down” fades in the memories of Catholics of all stations—do rare genuine aspirations to holiness, and the true uniqueness to which it gives rise, lead to agitated charges of heterodoxy, or even rivalries of contrived and misguided fervent display. Again, reproducing one of the central earmarks of heresy: that the group—strictly on its own sociological merits, if of course claiming all the authenticity of the early Church at Jerusalem or Rome—is somehow empowered to pass judgment on the individual. This gradual leaching away, as it were, of the standard of the supernatural, over the course of the past few decades, being the most infallible evidence of the fatal transformation being described.

In this New Church the many Catholic “good shepherds” of the past—the old “radically outdated” St. John Vianneys and others of our own memories—are replaced by spiritually simplistic functionaries who have little idea of “the depth of the wisdom and the knowledge of God….nor of His “unsearchable ways”. Nor of the manly pathos of the Catholic inner past. Clerics too often either mostly jocular or bombastic/patriotic, performing ceremonial and quasi-doctrinal duties. Thus “the cultic priest”, now with young and supposedly out-of-danger altar girls as Sacramental attendants: angelic-looking youths indeed, who however too often disappoint these appearances by unabashedly surveying the congregation for new boyfriend prospects. All comprising a new and laboriously carefree approach after the Marxian-essential “sense of no return” rosary-tearing, scapular-stomping hippie-priests of the immediately post-conciliar years. And the invasion of moral disease and loss of faith which they brought in their wake. All the noted foreswearing-of-advantages allowing little of the building of a genuine, indigenous, indispensable Catholic multi-dimensional super-structure: essentially spiritual all the while it necessarily and by nature solidifies itself with time in social, political and economic forms. “Building up the Body”. Such a “humility at the expense of Christ” rather contenting itself with making us all into good, harmless, a-moral un-connected hamburger-flippers or ethically-conscience-less multinational-corporate nobodies.

Indeed, there are the Sede Vacantist groups, who understand the present state of the Church quite correctly and precisely in broad juridical terms. But I’m afraid even such Catholics who understand much of what went wrong at Vatican II have typically gone down a mistaken road, in its own way nearly as bad. For Traditionalist groups of all kinds seem to have fallen prey to this idea that we believers must as it were go underground, surrender the field, indeed even morally blend with the field like “well-behaved” little field mice. Much like those Pentecostals who believe in “The Rapture”, that we must simply wait for the end to come, for Christ to come back. A view which has little place for missionary work, and which sees the whole issue in the most practically bleak and despairing—if incongruously smiling and jocular—of terms. These sentiments being entirely contrary to the Mind of the Church throughout the ages, as well as to the always-positive thrust of accepted Catholic private revelation. So that even in the broad main swath of this alternate movement we must recognize the tell-tale cockle, the ample sowing of which “an enemy” has done.

Part and parcel of this apocalyptic attrition—the more disturbing because it is never alluded to—and whose mention would echo as if in an empty neo-gothic church—has of course been a tremendous decrease in practical clerical prescriptions toward a moral life: that slackening of pastoral zeal which dates precisely from the opening years of the Second Vatican Council. And which of course has much to do with the gradual disappearance of validly-“confected” Sacraments. Except to varying degrees among the same Sede Vacantists and many other Traditionalists, who have kept both valid rites and the Apostolic Succession. Perhaps most pointedly to be noticed is the disappearance of basically all mention of modesty from confessional, conference or pulpit in the New Church: whether of dress, behavior, gesture, “carriage” or “comportment”. Modesty being one of those costly observances which is given no quarter at all by capitalism. That real modesty which isn’t at all a stiff externalism, a ritual ablution, as it is so often regarded by its many enemies: but rather a careful, charitable covering of ourselves, a refraining from outward displays that are sources of temptation, usually both to ourselves and to others. Implying above all reverence and respect. But according to strange if ill-admitted notions of religious liberty that came out of Vatican II, and of a new kind of “humility” to go with it, since the provocatively-contrived in dress and manner is now the common run of behavior, for pastors to give any support to lay efforts to be modest would at the very least be to give Catholicism, you guessed it: undue advantage. Over a neighbor who presumably desires to see us exposed to all the same moral dangers and provocations which he/she experiences day in and day out. So that the whole notion of “sure means of salvation” is in a sense and for all practical purposes definitely out. (Again, since Sacraments don’t work like automats, and there has to be a laborious level of cooperation-with-grace in our habits of life). Hence, if again in the wordless non-admittance in which error always splendidly resides, to call on the doughty Father Jim for moral/tactical support, as in the “old days”, may easily be regarded as a sniveling timidity in our main task as soldiers in a brave new secular world. Some of these “neighbors”—in halcyon post-Vatican-II years, when liberals of all persuasions were helping Catholics dismantle a once-vast Catholic moral/practical edifice—some of these—no doubt Jews—having even gone so far as to describe things like Catholic modesty as a “withholding of goods from a universal sexual free market”.

This then is the “brave new world” of a hopelessly-complicated, compromised “Catholicism”: rendered thus by trying to “serve two masters”. A Catholicism which loves to give rousing sermons and speeches, even about traditional topics of various kinds, but which shrinks from resolutely standing by the Catholic layman in his daily betrayals, crosses and thankless moral toils. A layman whom however the cleric in a functional sense largely exists only to serve, in all he must face if he would save his soul. Or those of his family. When he goes out the double doors after Holy Mass. Or more recently a Church which although it now supports with some degree of enthusiasm a sort of generic Christian morality yet does so under the “encouraging” but assessing eye of finance and other world secular forces. Like that state educational aid which dares to determine what is taught in a Catholic school. There being no question here of a heroic struggle as between St. Thomas More and Henry VIII; or between a Leo and a certain Byzantine Emperor. A Church that today allows the laity to essentially embrace without reprehension or sanction the world’s vulgar fashions and music, while they are generously allowed the claim to being pure and pious “inside”. This according to the new Charismatic idea of Faith: identical in all major respects to the old capitalism-friendly faith-without-works Reformer formula. Since it is these overpowering elements, these outsider/overlords, surrendered-to in practical terms and by bits over centuries, who set the standard, or at least give everything their nod. Of course to the absolute repudiation of that sole principal reason for the Church’s very existence: the Greater Glory of God. Not that of Rothschild or the diabolical Skull and Crossbones. The observance of which divine glorification is never such an easy, unanimous matter: rather one in which one often feels a profound sort of solitude, full of consolations though it may sometimes be. The New Church being ever-timid about offending anyone, in some putative notional or devotional over-step. Let alone administering some state-diplomatic rap-on-the-wrist, or some excommunication or interdict. Is this the Church of He Who drove the money-changers out of the Temple? It might indeed be a Catholicism which draws plentiful converts in Africa by thus “behaving itself”, and tolerating a host of bizarre and primitive wrongs, and keeps membership in an Eastern Europe which has yet begun, like others, to question Catholic teachings.

To paraphrase from memory the words of a prophesy by the early-nineteenth-century stigmatist Ann Catherine Emmerich, about these very times: the “strange new Church, built in defiance of all architectural principles, would at length prove itself utterly unable to stand”. And another which describes the Church’s enemies as standing around in mocking laughter, surveying the noted structure, exclaiming: “Do build it up as high as you can: we will only pull it down again”.

 

April 15, 2005: Pedophile Sex offenders and the court/media/educator alliance.

 

All the while academics and media-experts wonder aloud about our mounting, decades-long explosion of sexual crimes here in the USA, Michael Jackson, his sister and many others of their kind display their explicit sexual provocations before millions at rock-concerts or on TV screens. While Michael goes on to flaunt his impunity in front of the court. Even as school administrations continue to hire local and visiting “experts” to harangue classrooms full of youthful and receptive minds toward a mass “coming out” of sodomy-oriented and other bizarre sexual and other relational obsessions. Such an array of celebrities and elites having a way of blunting the discretion of otherwise sensible parents: with all of academia seeming as well to urge these elders away from the tried and true. Yet despite all these gravely-questionable policies affecting human behavior, both youthful and adult—and abstracting from the arguments of the very same prestigious crowd that none of the noted bawdy circus applies to issues of public safety—through all this the court/criminal-justice apparatus continues its decades-long narrow focus on the lone American male as a kind of sole culprit in the ongoing American sexual pathology. As if there were no connection whatever between the depredations now being committed in states like Florida and this wholesale institutional and media encouragement toward sexual misbehavior in all its many forms. This even as criminal pedophilia at the level of the wealthy is encouraged through certain avant-garde publications, and through such perverted, powerful, little-discussed fringe-elite organizations as the world “Man-Boy Society”. With vague but disturbing earmarks of the same sort of abuses being evident in a sizeable number of other institutions, organizations and movements.

Of course the psychiatric establishment—the front-loading end of a vast industry that includes drugs and much more at its final terminal—always refers to the most serious of behavioral ills as incurable in nature: among professionals who crave a six digit income after having stayed in school past 30 years of age; major promoters that they are in turn for a pharmaceutical industry which is one of three or four major trading items on Wall Street. Even as claims of the incurability of moral diseases are entirely at odds with the teachings of Scripture. With the numbers of putative hopeless cases being widened whenever possible as well and for much-the-same profit-related reasons: for instance classing those adult males who have had any hint of sexual contact with any one of what has become a vast sea of very willing, consenting teenage girls as being pedophiles, and requiring them to register as such. Thus being brought under basically the same legal and social reprobations as those committing the most heinous of sexual perversities and even hate-crimes against little children. The dam for the whole deluge of immorality of today having been long ago been burst by decisions of the very same judges, educators and public media who have such stern things to say about the lone male who isn’t part of some species of glibly-exonerated or ignored institutionalized sexual corruption or exploitation.

These contradictory permissive/draconian policies also grease the skids for a major-employer, lucrative-for-some criminal justice system—yet another industry with an insatiable need for “intake” much like that of psychiatry and medicine in general. While its ineptitude at ferreting out true and towering fiends and other criminals corresponds to medicine’s typical notorious inability accurately to either diagnose or prescribe. In the case of the vast law-and-order establishment the failure to prevent further terrible crimes actually being rewarded—much like the idiotic, sadistic bungling of Bush’s War on Terror—with a multiplication of doughty, well-thought-of positions. With manhunts being mounted, and more and more remorseless measures contemplated—giving us all the usual appearances of all-American super-macho vigilance—in the ever-preferred scatter-gun approach. A contest indeed having been inaugurated on our TV screens to see who can come out with the most hoary American Gothic punitive prescription for many people with weaknesses whether truly heinous or rather ordinary in nature.

Quite conceivable is a bit of information I once learned from someone in law enforcement, indulging a moment of complete candor. A revelation which if true—and I have no reason whatever to believe it is not—represents a sort of pudding-on-the-cake of epic levels of official hypocrisy. A woman who told me that it is within American law enforcement itself—that which is becoming more notorious by the day for its righteous levels of brutality against the public—that within this very inner sanctum the most extensive and benighted pedophile ring in existence thrives in the most complete secrecy. A conspiracy with vast connections, and which this functionary speculated could easily be responsible for much of the long-time seeming insolubility of so many unsolved childhood abductions. Having herself seen several in law enforcement who were under suspicion for pedophile activities, or who had even been terminated for same, being quickly hired by other departments in jurisdictions where they were not known, if commonly-enough within the same state. In a “looking out for one another” professional ethic which may bear fruits of the most egregious and reprehensible kind.

It is significant that all these horrible crimes—and the fanatical zeal of some to see as many people as possible punished—that these are taking place in the same state where Terri Schiavo was done to death—that state which is the very spearhead of an incalculably-powerful, newly-broadened anti-life movement. Earnest political opponents of which—as in the case of Tom DeLay—are being systematically destroyed politically by a nationwide death-lobby syndicate of which Florida has become the lead element. Murder being perpetrated against an entire society not by a lone male but rather by the above-noted alliance of the courts, the media, corporate NGOs and ever-vociferous educators. In the midst of which mass crime it is my belief that the American public—having been experimentally fashioned into a kind of all-purpose lynch-mob through the inflammatory defamation of the entire Islamic world vis-à-vis 9/11—is now being conjured to demand the destruction of the noted incredibly-broad constituency of American men. While there is also given incidental scope here something of the stigmatization of the “odd” and the lonely: a self-fulfilling prophesy, a cornucopia in itself of reactive aberrations of every sort. Part in turn of the Puritan/American doctrine of a sort of social predestination which allows only a half-dozen personality-types at most that are considered normal. A species of extremism which serves well the demands of an ever-tightening system of corporate-driven social control: a religion of sorts which has lost its faith but redoubled its stranglehold on the national mind.

Penetrating exceptionally well today’s bewilderingly-complex assault on humanity—represented both by the noted media-sleuthing and a host of other public anomalies as well—was the brilliant John Lukacs, who noted on a C-Span book-review of his latest work that hatred unites monolithically, while love draws distinctive self-defining lines of sane mutual appreciation. Of mutual betterment. While the approach taken here on this website is held to be the only possible escape from what is perceived by us as a mass-orchestrated, identity-suffocating “united we stand” moral/societal death-hug. As well as from those very heinous sex-crimes used as an excuse for ever-newer forms of quasi-official bondage. Furthermore, in the U.S. approach to such social and moral issues we witness the consequences of that radical departure from traditional Western moral and other ideals, that reversal this country has come rather proudly to epitomize. A thoroughgoing revisionism it has come to regard as its own special vanguard mission. A tendency to the far-fetched and the avant-garde however and in practical terms with ample connections to a multi-dimensional Satanism, a yen for the occult, which has been burgeoning on these shores for several decades now. The only possible cure for which ill—with connections to murder, incest, pedophilia and other perverse and unnatural crimes being obvious in a “religion” which systematically violates the entire moral law—is a return to age-old Catholic spiritual and organizational principles entailed in the “Thy kingdom come” of the Our Father. Involving for one thing a universal reverence for the individual human person: that which would be best achieved through a formal, repeated nationwide consecration to the Holy Family: Jesus, Mary and Joseph. They who alone can restore the lost national sexual health and purity, and deliver us from the multi-institutional, totalitarian, Hellish onslaught of this day and time.

Winner in the ongoing, media-driven competitive search for the most cruel and unusual punishment for a vast array of sometimes rather ordinary men is that of “physical or psychological castration”: a solution media-aired by one law-enforcement official. The sort of obsession which is right down the alley of the ghouls who brought us Abu Ghraib, or a highly-similar Pitesti (Romania) and Stanford experiments. This idea of the real or virtual castration of American men having actually been for some time now perhaps the ultimate fixation in American life: an obsession whose deeper subliminal sources no doubt go back to early Colonial Puritan days in Salem and Boston. Religious falsehood typically entailing that infinitely-variable phenomenon of personality-frustration which is the very fountainhead of the abuses it pretends to address. For it is the interiorly stunted and atrophied that do these wrongs: not the robust and fully-developed. The latter self-realization being gained by patterning our institutions after Our Lord’s sound and positive understanding of our human nature: which He indeed shares with us, if without defects of Original Sin. A supremely-vulnerable and overwhelmingly-innocent growing manhood being too-often here twisted, deformed and ultimately put in chains under the near or remote influence of an erroneous, radically nature-condemnatory Calvinist theology and its many random and incalculable spin-offs. Consequences which over generations have a way of remaining long after Faith itself has fled. A paradox of denominational error spawning a contradictory combination of libertine and oppressive institutions and court decisions going a long way toward producing those addicts, sodomites, child-molesters and other offenders of which this land has become a nesting place. Although it seems never to occur to righteous-faced official and media paragons that there must be some such deep-seated reason the USA has long been far and away the leading venue on earth for such disorders.

The underlying ambivalence of the Calvinist/American miasma—that which for starters always sees sex as some sort of vaguely-guilt-ridden, juvenile-minded “thrill”—this roiling pathology thrashes about with special force in that academia upon which the judiciary so regularly depends. In a whole unstable sea of ideas in which a sense of humor is one of the more critical ingredients which is most lacking. And where accordingly fringe-radical hypotheses abound toward polar-opposite extremes. Some discovering a need for more reckless “openness” in some area of child development, of educational policy, or of personality formation at all ages—others mounting a bully pulpit toward the brutal, sometimes indeed sadistic repression of same. The first being floated somewhere in some behavior science department, or in one of the growing number of disguised collegiate versions of same—the latter typically-enough in law schools, justice-studies, police training academies and the like. After which this “latest thing” in either direction begins to be written up in the academic literature as having rapidly attained new and exciting vanguard status. Being destined next to hit the popular media, receiving stellar status from both ordinary and profession-oriented columnists and “anchor-persons”, and romanticizing in blockbuster movies, that are key milestones in the new idea’s meteoric flight.

Again, what is really most involved here is the quintessentially-Puritan/American idea of having invented a new kind of holiness: something which however in today’s secular terms must ceaselessly manifest itself in new and revolutionary legal and social forms. There being implies the imperative of the perpetual discovery of the new and the sublime: this from Lancelots of all disciplines whose most consuming ambition of all is to lay to rest Catholicism and traditional Western institutions with some new and special finality. Having inherited little of faith but all of the prejudicial hatreds of buckle-hatted forebears. Their “discoveries” indeed comprising for educated America an ever-expanding new “deposit of Faith”: one beckoning not to a past revelation but rather to some phenomenological futuristic secular paradise. If oddly enough with the dour Puritan exterior evident throughout: now directed resolutely and indeed vindictively toward a severing of any connection to God at all.

Thus inevitably do our courts—the very robed High Priesthood of this developing statist religion—begin toying with ways to put the new and radically-change-oriented theory into practice. Progressively coining new hybrid legal terms and phrases, all to suit the new “take” on some species of vice, failing or vaunted new social necessity. Making for us overnight monsters and newly-liberated victims: to add to those amply-sufficient numbers we already have. Legal/academic ponderings from out of a view of life and human behavior which can never quite seem to get it all right: in areas of concern positively fraught with near-insoluble complexities. Short-sights for which experimented-upon children must pay. A debility especially inevitable apart from that grace of God which once made common cause with our most common institutions. A veritable lexicon for a new and radically-divergent legal doctrine rather being sedulously prepared by these experts and functionaries, whether in newly-construed categories of crime, or in the invention of new and perverse or hip-booted definitions of values like virtue, law-and-order or family. Ambitious formularies—assembled by elites operating at the most putatively inaccessible—but at the same time oddly philistine—of moral heights—that take months or years to develop. The idea being to produce a whole plethora of false morality, of a false concept of personal and organized life: this to completely take the place of Christianity, whether openly or just in plain fact. Scorning above all else as it does the mild and mutually-uplifting prescriptions of a Savior whose words and Sacraments alone contain the balm for noted societal and personal wounds.

From out of the above-described process some ground-breaking decision is the inevitable result, and as suggested an accompanying new legal dictionary of new and re-construed terms. While even the mere application of some especially-ugly misapplied name to someone is capable, given the right circumstances, of destroying his/her psyche in the shortest of times. A case in point perhaps being the previously-impeccable, role-model-caliber Black man in Atlanta—under accusation for “aggravated sodomy” and rape—a “sodomy” which in today’s legal lexicon, as I understand it, quite often means nothing more than the old “statutory rape”, or sex with someone under 18. A man who went berserk in a court building a month ago. And whom everyone concerned had no doubt taken a hand in treating with that contemptuous presumption of guilt with which our media and criminal justice system are so thoroughly ridden, and which they are so melodramatically good at projecting.

The much-applauded high or low court decision—either draconian or gaga/permissive—is likely to be greeted by a professional unanimity in many ways uniquely-American in character. An acceptance which however may easily and quickly travel a kind of world upper- and upper-middle-class circuit, from Chicago and New York to London, Paris and Bombay. A domino-effect which began with the above-noted obscure academic who first dreamed up the new “construct”, and ended with those educated classes who are too-often game for almost anything that will make them appear variously clever, correct, employable or on the cutting edge. As noted capitalism and world-finance being much of the behind-the-scenes venue, the sine qua non for the new, bizarre and ill-founded. The fodder for which are disproportionately “lower” classes and races: those who have failed at an ever-more-fantastic, arbitrary and unreachable “American Dream”. Economics and racism thus adding a strange multiplier here of exponential scope. The new judicial-dogma thereafter post-climactically “hitting the street” in any number of mind-numbing tragedies: whether of drawn-out death by starvation or suction-device, duly-televised sprawled-eagle handcuffings, dysfunctional families and other moral and personal hatchet-jobs of a bewildering variety of kinds.

Incredibly often one of the main academic golden calves adored in all this, if you read between the lines of esoteric court formulations, is the tired old less than zero population growth dogma. That ultimate species of applied Puritanism: of the noted radical Calvinism which is really only a sub-school of a long historical series of cultic Dualist or Purist ideologies born in ancient Greece, Syria, Mesopotamia or India. A broad brace of inhuman beliefs and practices the contaminating contact with which—and wholehearted embrace of—was undoubtedly most responsible for the Jewish rejection of the Savior. The Dualist or Emanationist being the possessors of a whole mindset at essence radically opposed to Christianity, vital personal reciprocities are most-often anathema to them (depending upon their degree of adherence). Cultists who too must always reject human flesh with its vulnerabilities, even as they often revel in its pleasures. The exuberant affirmations of the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, especially their full and generous acceptance and self-giving, being thus a total impossibility to one so formed and prejudiced. Upholder that he is of a species of the ancient fundamental falsehood in this case so deadly-negative that it has precious-little place for life at all. Life here in the U.S. being increasingly limited to a chosen few. These sclerotic judges and their up and down stream allies being religiously intent on drastically limiting the numbers who see the light of day, or who are allowed to see it for very long.

Under such an inescapable influence—typically found alike at home, in school and in the broader world—boys here are from the earliest years subjected to bewildering kinds and levels of personal institutional frustration. This mostly with respect to their developing manhood. For one thing too because it is men who topple dictators, personal or institutional, or a combination of both: and the purist-ideologue Frankensteins who presently control ours are perfectly willing to affect such a society-wide nipping in the bud. Both readings and pedagogy in the schools is geared to turn out anything but a well-developed young man, an able bearer of domestic and civic responsibilities; while the fate of girls is a somewhat similar one which space and time doesn’t permit us to examine. So that a certain man-bashing starts in day-school and continues up through grade 18, and is beyond question a major reason for institutionally-lucrative and dependable amounts of woman-and-child abuse. The largely-polluted store of experimental psychological research being an especially fruitful source as well of clever ancillary behavior-modification schemes in all such regards. So that there are crippled from their very first inception in Johnny’s mind such monumental concepts as what it means to be a man: down to every marvelous, endemically-fragile, infinitely-individual detail of courtship, and finally to the ruthless destruction of the ultimate divinely-intended product in the womb itself, if all else fails. As the Purist/American negativity, indeed all-encompassing, multi-institutional nihilism, reaches new and abysmal depths. Can we be surprised that real pedophiles, fixation/obsessives and other madmen result from such a regimen?

As noted above, our “educators”, media gurus and theory-spinning “experts” have no problem with arousing a fervent desire for sex in children of the youngest years. If nothing else as by way of Michael Jackson or his sister grabbing themselves in front of “concert” crowds: sights later dutifully recorded on the TV screen. While the great mass of sodomites who run our entertainment industry, together more recently with people like George Bush, the great “Christian” moralist, tell us blankly that all you need to do is “turn the channel”. As if all the dark institutions just described could be so simply and readily dealt with. Again, in an institutional giving-of-latitude to the most immature, disorderly and socially-nihilistic of sentiments and behavior. Youngsters who then too often come spilling out of schools or their own living-rooms and go looking for some adult upon whom to practice their newly-aroused or acquired, sometimes incredibly precocious and sophisticated charms. A phenomenon of such common familiarity that it requires no commentary: and that is even portrayed as being measurelessly cute on some of the sitcoms. While in another sense and in view of all this obvious latent capacity it shouldn’t at all surprise us that our ancestors of as recently as the early eighteenth century considered eleven or twelve to be a rather standard age for a girl to marry: so that there is obviously no problem here as to mental, emotional or spiritual capacity. So that accordingly the possibility of a man being strongly affected by the many eager young school-coached females of this age—let alone those sixteen or seventeen—of our day and time cannot be regarded as abnormal at all: as it however universally and redundantly is. Especially considering the fact that the male by nature possesses if not the more easily-aroused yet the more explosive of the two instinctual counterparts. But again, underneath all the expressions of educated horror and reprehension—and even odd notions of a kind of “purity” coming from the most radically-impure—is this old saw of anti-life. The attempt ultimately to make the whole idea of natural sex so repugnant—and fraught with such moral and psychological stress and duress—by way of both draconian-punishment and near-debilitating over-exposure—that masses turn to “safer” things like genuine sodomy. That which is seldom referred to as such, although it is the self-same sin that brought fire down upon the thus-named city. A fire which now threatens the sodomite USA. A perversity rather referred to today—by the same legal-word-smithing crowd—only in the most sympathetic, even patently-positive, indeed glowing of terms. Among ideology-driven judges and others with Manichean levels of hatred for human life and its innocently-pursued natural processes.

Here comes into long-overdue perspective the age-old sedulous prohibitions of priests and moralists over immodesty and over-familiarity: even with respect to the tiniest of children. That which the same above-noted educators and judges would no doubt regard as the subject of a hearty guffaw: but which is the only dependable defense against this conjuring of elements of overwhelming power. One Irish priest, the author of a classic whose name I have forgotten, but which is familiar to many-a Catholic traditionalist family, stated about 1913 that we must not hold children of any age and either sex on our laps for very long, noting that a certain “disquiet” in oneself will ultimately be both consequence and warning. After which—and certainly as much as possible before, by way of prudent care—the child must forthwith be set down. Noting as he did—even way back then—a fact known to pastors of all descriptions of his time—namely that sexual vice toward children was already becoming a serious problem. While the cleric’s injunction no doubt carried the sanction of grave sin: in those days when theologians taught religion instead of Freudian psychology or some new version of Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick”. While considering the longer years we now expect people to wait before they marry, if anything even more prudence and modesty—of both dress and behavior—should be exercised, and demanded of our children.

Plainly the difference here from that American Calvinism which is so much of the problem in the first place is that Catholicism treats of this subject with tremendous reverence as well as trepidation. For while acknowledging that sex is indeed the means by which Original Sin is transmitted, and that it consequently manifests the latter’s “inordinate” qualities more strongly than any other area of life, yet sexuality is also regarded by Catholics as an integral, indeed sacred part of the human character. Something to be sedulously guarded and fostered: if mostly in indirect ways. Indeed usually with a careful avoidance even of its actual mention. A view which could never look upon a girl or woman—let alone a tiny child—as an object of exploitation. Here being contained those marvelously-solid and non-verbal customs that are passed down over generations; that are part of the culture-coding of a nation. The more Catholic the nation the more sublime, positive and truly-sophisticated the cultivation: sometimes the more-so among the less-educated, the illiterate, than among the average college crowd. Key elements in a people’s life that are however positively destroyed by the vulgar, perverse, nihilistic, counter-intuitive, experimentally-pursued probings of today’s alliance of education, the media and a dictatorially-empowered judiciary.

Finally, mildness—rather than either the permissive or the draconian—and certainly not a volatile combination of the two—mildness is the far-more-dependable guardian in all such infinitely-sensitive matters. If we would have a society that doesn’t systematically auto-destruct. Humanity, patience and understanding being the balm not only in the saving of souls but also in the saving of innocents. And of the minds and moral-characters of all. While extremes of the broadly punitive and condemnatory—not to mention the ignorant, jingoistic and juvenile—only have a way of multiplying the faults or crimes at hand. Clemency—backed up by a sane vigilance and a genuine and positive understanding of human nature—and bolstered still further by the profound insights of the Christian way-of-life—things with which our construct/orbital courts and academics are totally unfamiliar, or toward which they are brutally contemptuous—clemency having been demonstrated in other lands as the proper regimen to follow. While systems that are harsh and violent in punishing—let alone in doing to death the good and innocent—these only produce more harshness and violence in society. Our own crime rate understandably being many hundreds of percentage points above those of most other nations. Although our present catastrophic world-influence is as I write narrowing that margin fast. For as Esther in the movie Ben Hur said, “death begets death as dog begets dog”. A saying with applications to a wide variety of critical public and private things.

 

April 13, 2005: Supreme Court justices afraid for their lives.

 

The Supreme Court justices and other anti-life judges are complaining that they don’t have adequate security where they work and where they live. Apparently they want to be escorted everywhere: to save them from the masses. These timorous souls who however experienced little trepidation in killing a young disabled woman. As surely as if they had shot her: except without the mercy that such a demise would have entailed.

I can find little pity in my heart for these miserable men and women. God will surely allow them to live out their ghoulish lives: which is really the worst punishment He could mete out to them. Kind of like Herod being allowed to live as he was slowly eaten by worms. “And their worm dieth not”. In this case parasites of shame and guilt: and no doubt for eternity, despairing remorse.

 

April 12, 2005: Uncle Sam’s Reformation-era crusade.

 

The United States government and that network of corporate connections for which it speaks is in a very real sense the last surviving war-of-religions regime from out of the Reformation era. For its denominational antecedents were born in the sixteenth century, it retains an unmistakable element of the Reformation zeal, and has furthermore actually succeeded over centuries and in a very real way in imposing its ideological vision upon many of its global neighbors. An accomplishment attained almost entirely by a fervently-pursued armed might, aided by a stonewalling diplomacy that would been quite at home in the era of Elizabeth I or a later Phillip IV of Spain.

Consonant with such a Reformer zeal, the corporate capitalism the U.S. advances by these and a host of other means is pursued with all the ardor of the same Wars of Religion, while actually being in many ways only a real-world application of the Reformers’ “faith without works” central paradigm. Even as the peculiar brand of democracy espoused here is likewise a part of this secular-creed: being modeled directly after Congregationalist radical-group-sovereignty ideas which were the real powder-keg that touched off the American Revolution. Far more than any umbrage over the sale of tea. This Calvinist/American idea of self-rule—for all the vaunted “self made men” emphasizing the group to the near-total neglect of the individual—being in turn only an adaptation of that Medici-imported-Greek Classical communism with which Calvin himself was so taken, and which he forthwith applied to his fledgling Presbyterian communities in Geneva and elsewhere. That wherein the brotherhood—secularly/subliminally convertible, especially once faith is lost, to the bald group—is ever regarded as supreme: indeed for all practical purposes even over God Himself. In a reinterpretation of Early Church devotional and organizational existence at Jerusalem which would in turn be the battle-cry of Post-Conciliar Catholic ecclesiastical spiritual and organizational radicalism. Egregious errors which have come uncannily close to prevailing against the gates of Peter. In each case an already-extreme organizational form that would rapidly snowball into further reaches with time: a culture-of-the-fringe-radical which would find a veritable laboratory in the physically, socially and ideologically insular conditions of American life.

As might be gathered, this American secular religion—far less evident during the Kennedy Years at mid-century—involves an idea of both democracy and commerce which gives only disappointing levels of sway to the human mind and will. Readily surrendering affairs both public and private into the hands either of oligarchies or virtual mobs, or a combination of the two. Genuine human leadership being perhaps the principal casualty involved. A phenomenon far from the elaborate political wisdoms and solicitudes of the third century distributive Chin Dynasty of China, ancient to early medieval Kyoto, or the age-old guild-based democracy until recently indigenous across the Muslim Middle East. That which prevails here having to do for one thing too with a certain “altar call” phenomenon whose stentorian, highly-emotive tones are uncannily suitable to the noted Calvinist/Alinskian-collectivist “Basic Christian Community” cell. All together conspiring toward a chaotic approach to which however popular government need not at all devolve. A case in point here being for instance the recently-inaugurated ultra-revolutionary “rule by media-polls”: whose misleading wording and untrustworthy results are easily manipulated, to be used as incendiaries toward some elite-chosen policy goal. These and similar mass mechanisms being capable of reducing the American public to some version of the “Red” and “White” factions of Ancient and Early-Medieval Greece—or “convicted” Calvinist mobs on the street-corners of mid-seventeenth-century London. As we have seen in these last two Gulf wars. The people mindlessly dominated, if only “for a day”, by various political or religious demagogues, or locally, less-frequently and according to the odd circumstance by sodomy-oriented, radical-feminist, anti-life or other elites.

But there is something further involved as well: since this species of denominational conviction which motivates American organized/official thinking is unique in that it typically recognizes no middle ground: that which is of the very heart and soul of such critical governmental functions as diplomacy. For whereas Catholics recognize the variable accessibility to grace of anyone of simple goodwill, through the unpredictable inspirations of the Holy Ghost, “Who worketh wither He will”—that anointment in various measures marvelously made available to all men everywhere, of any persuasion through the remote instrumentality of the Catholic Sacraments—American Calvinist Protestantism, especially as developed during the “Great Awakening” in the early to mid 18th century, rigorously requires a clearly-defined, highly-emotional “altar call” or “born again” experience before any grace or goodness are considered admissible in anyone at all. As so many have indeed been imperatively informed by “born agains” on street corners or at one’s own front door. And although American officialdom has for a long time now strayed from such an evangelical idea of the straight and narrow, yet it has maintained in double doses a certain above-noted and uncanny parallel secular sense of a chosen or pre-destined condition. The very struggle for independence having originated in the tent-meetings of the Great Awakening, which would in turn unavoidably and incalculably color the sentiments of those involved in the foundation and subsequent development of the nation (See for instance Gaustad, 1993).

Hence by way of this unique secular “altar call” exclusivity, those nations America deals with—indifferently whether in alliances, negotiations or as opponents in wars—such partners are invariably regarded, by a unique fanatical imperative, as not yet having “cleared the bar” in a whole host of fundamental ways. The mark set by Americans being matched only by way of the fervently-embraced altar call of an acceptance of key American impulses and institutions, substantially united as well with an inseparable infinitude of obscure signals and body-language ear-marks. Although even this distinction can never allow to others not from the chosen land anything much beyond a fledgling status: inferiors under a new criterion which of course no longer has any real connection to Christian Faith at all.

There are several painful lessons here: demonstrating redundantly for one thing that might doesn’t at all make right. A sense of balance being ever required especially where strength has no bounds, and circumstantial firewalls are lacking: without which loyalty or patriotism can become exaggerated unto folly. According to the old axiom of moral theology: “Virtue lies in the middle”. And one might also add, sanity as well. Any aberration or ambivalence in areas which gravely affect human life and the common earthly good—no matter how patriotic it might seem—being capable of reproducing Bedlam in a host of public, private or global realms.

But yet more disastrously—if further disaster is conceivable—because of the inseparable element of irrationality all this entails, the typical American diplomatic team or cadre of advisers is easily buffaloed or prevailed-upon by those who know how to “push all the right buttons”. Since the noted tent-meeting hysteria is a two edged sword, and is never really that far below the surface in a Negroponte, a Rice, or some War on Terror diplomat. A highly-manipulable commodity found in equal measure both in such officials and in the newsmen and bureaucrats who often uncannily freeze ill-considered policies in stone. A susceptibility-to-exploitation—of which Roosevelt was a victim in his strange negotiations with Stalin at Yalta, and for which all of Eastern Europe would pay—as was likewise pitifully obvious in Bush’s recent meeting with Ariel Sharon at Crawford. Where the latter was in complete and undisputed command—and Bush basically in a state of incoherent, near-babbling complacency. Certain key “strokes” being all that the latter required. Words of abject protest over outrageous West Bank policies being only a further docile tribute to Sharon’s over-weaning omnipotence. The little dance duo being only a repeat of that which took place a year ago in another setting, when the West Bank—someone else’s land—was first surrendered to Israeli Hegemony. An abject posture which nonetheless hardly prevents Uncle Sam from continuing to attempt to plant the Stars and Stripes on every shore. Since for one thing every American outpost is likely to contain an enclave of the Israeli Mossad, or its other even-more-exclusive team of special ops assassins. All this in sanguinary sixteenth-century Wars-of-Religion style.

 

April 11, 2005: Arafat “wasn’t nice”.

 

He wasn’t handsome; some even say he looked like a billy goat. He had no time for any oily diplomacy of words: when it came to his own People having a character much indeed like the latter animal. Such as is required in someone who represents a People fighting for their very existence. Such traits, such features, gain new beauty under such circumstances. Having been the sole advocate of those who, even after his departure, still stand alone against all odds. Over a span of more than fifty years having confronted the ill-disguised bad will of multitude of American administrations. These invariably and for all practical purposes being stubbornly ranged alongside Israel at the bargaining table. Neither having had anything but nice words for Palestine: and precious few of those.

Abbas, the man who took Arafat’s place, has conceded several major Israeli sticking points: but nothing can change the Israeli/American tendency to “wait and see” with respect to “the intentions” of a perpetually-betrayed and victimized Palestine. Part of that hideous phenomenon of our perverted times, remarked upon below: that the guilty, all too typically, are utterly unable to forgive those they have most wronged. Perhaps for having committed the unforgivable sin of getting in the way of their schemes, and then having the temerity to trouble their consciences as well. As with so much innocent blood. Whether the victim involved at any given time be Terri Schiavo or a handful of Palestinian schoolchildren gunned down on their way over “the wall”, to and from school. As Israelis continue to raise this sovereignty-invasive monument-to-cruelty, and to build thousands more houses in new illegal settlements on the West Bank. The latest Israeli building project promising to prevent Palestinians from the realization of their perfectly legitimate goal of a Capitol in East Jerusalem, where their population had been centered for well over a thousand years.

But all the major networks—and most of our politicians—can only continue repeating how good it is to be rid of “the old intractable Arafat”. He with whom “one could never bargain”. He who however, blank-faced media slanders aside, only spoke for Palestine candidly, without guile, without craven words. Anything less being a shameless dishonor on the lips of any representative of his people. These latter types, alas, being the universal darlings of the global corporate media.

 

April 10, 2005: DeLay Sacrificed on the neo-con altar

 

Nobody in the “New Right” has any concern about ethics. But they do have a concern about DeLay’s defiance of the “right to die” lobby. That which has deep roots in a comprehensive avant-garde anti-life alliance: and to whose defense “conservative” papers like the Wall Street Journal rush unfailingly. Here we see plainly that the Republican leadership and its supporters—with all the major stations and papers dutifully shaking their heads over Tom DeLay—have no loyalty whatever to Christian values. It’s all window-dressing to get votes from a trapped and besieged Christian electorate.

Like Herod, who had equally little concern for human life, these “conservatives” would undoubtedly have found “scandal” attending the just deeds of St. John the Baptist. It would indeed have been right for DeLay to “threaten” a dictatorial judiciary which did far more than “threaten” Terri Schiavo. They are murderers, but not only that: since they go about their crimes in a drawn-out, twisted, ghoulish way. And it’s time real murderers like this, and their well-heeled Congressional and other facilitators and accessories to the fact—it’s time they all hang. And not just the hastily-accused Blacks and Mexicans from poor rural areas and inner-city ghettos that George Bush, when governor of Texas, has been so good at putting on death row.

If we start exercising this kind of true justice—whose time, as Terri Schiavo’s brutal demise bears witness, has come—and stop worrying about misleading polls, and a loud-mouthed but tiny minority of sodomites and other freaks—then, with the help of God, we will truly make this country safe and secure. For all, especially the most innocent, and not just for these perverted elites. Otherwise it will fall to our enemies: whose collaborators know how to don the most disarming of patriotic disguises.

 

April 10, 2005: The people.

 

The People absolutely must at all costs keep the levers of organized life close to hand. For they are that force which alone keeps society, government, institutions from going out on a limb, from becoming either tyrannical, extravagant, irrelevant or trivial. They give a incomparably-sophisticated and unfailing azimuth to events which otherwise doesn’t obtain.

These reflections press in upon my mind after listening in to any number of discussions on C-Span: like one only yesterday, of authors on world-organizational and political topics. One of which literati was a bright young lady who spoke of the E.U. and its many key personalities, networks and intermediary bodies: that which had for years been the object of her intense study. However as bright and optimistic as her commentary was—and however well-taken her points-of-emphasis—unless the people keep stoutly intact their close identification and interrelation with these functional elements of official bodies the latter will overshoot their bounds in a host of ways. And lead infallibly to organized-incoherence, poverty and war.

I set forward in these pages and publications an approach which I believe most favors the exhaustive involvement of the people in what are essentially their own affairs. A basic goal to which the proposed EU constitution is an insidious contradiction. My own system, my own brand of distributism, constituting not only solid and substantive democracy, but a uniquely-free economy in practical, hands-on terms. I think furthermore that it is the very system given us by the Savior. As contained not only in His own words and those of His disciples, but also in those ongoing historical inspirations of the Holy Ghost which He promised us would be ours until the end of time.

 

April 10, 2005: Talk-show TV pitfalls.

 

You good and intelligent people who read this site and others somewhat like it: beware of getting fired up by what you read and calling in to one of these shows that invite listener participation. You can be sure that most of them will smash you verbally for shouting from mountaintops what is presented matter-of-factly here. They will "make an example" out of you for benefit of their audience: perhaps cutting you off before you finish, or at the very least emitting a well-rehearsed, exasperated chuckle. You and I however don't argue on such a plane; nor should we try to bandy words back and forth with the typical talk-show host. Which is often-enough to "cast your pearls before swine".

 

April 9, 2005: Despite all the Muslim-monitoring of the Patriot Act, we are actually backing the most radical sort of Islam in the Middle East.

 

Ironically, Islam represents the closest possible confessional convergence with Judaism: if followed by the close runner-up of a Judeo/Calvinist USA. Both Islam and Judaism cultivate an elite caste of scholars; both scornfully deny the Blessed Trinity; both tend to have a certain vague contempt for physical creation. This latter in Islamic circles in rigorous prohibitions against the depicting of the human body in art of any kind, especially religious art. While in Judaism this ever-recurrent dualism, the root error in a host of warlike, barbaric or genocidal system in history, has many manifestations, like for instance the body-bashing which shows up in a Jewish humor. Which tends toward the sardonic and sarcastic when it comes to the frail realities of humankind.

When we get rid of leaders like Saddam Hussein—who with the previous king of Jordan was singularly accepting of Christians among Middle Eastern leaders—and replace them with the likes of the rigorist/revanchist Shiite/Kurd coalition we installed in Iraq—when we do this we are guaranteeing the final triumph of our worst enemies. Politically, ideologically, confessionally.

Yet those worst enemies aren’t the Muslims at all, who for one thing due to the debilitating inner contradictions of their religious system in themselves generally threaten no one. Rather are we paving the way for the final triumph of Zionism/corporate-finance. That which has long planned to own all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. And a whole Globe for that matter besides. And which because of the above-related constitutional similarities—and many others besides—is capable of working hand-in-glove with Islam to a consummate degree. Actually what is afoot is that the forces of Zionism, which in less-than-candid ways positively control both the region and the United States government, are going to whipsaw the nations, sects and tribal elements in the Middle East—and across Central and Southeast Asia—until they have exhausted themselves in a sea of blood. With locally-notorious Israeli and American NGOs and agents provocateurs pitting one element against the other until all are without strength or unity. If for no other apparent reason than the grand and glorious “opening up of markets”: which for these regions means little more than corporate monopoly and the Opium Trade. Then the foreign Overlord will simply step in, politically and militarily, essentially unopposed.

The extreme ideologies of Islam seem to have roots—as I gather from extensive historical reading on “the Middle East” and “Central Asia”—in a millennia-long existence on the edge of human endurance—under tyrants and conquerors who push matters yet further. To a sort of squeezing of blood from desert rock and sand. Conspiring with historical Manichean and other dualist cultic influences, this regimen produces a human being who easily more or less implodes. Who, while mostly being very good in many ways, yet develops a nihilism of sorts, one which often finds its fulfillment in a total, abysmal self-denial or self-annihilation. The alternative to which on Asian desert or steep, as historical experience has taught them only too well, is likely to be a moment of self-assertion to be followed by a swift death or a rapid descent into the most abject forms of human misery. Besides opening to us the gates of Paradise, it was chiefly to bring relief from such very things that Christ came.

But the bosses and hegemons of Zionism/capitalism positively thrive on the driving such products of human misery under the whip. People whose oftentimes pessimistic, inverted sense of things can likewise and in rare form symbiotically thrive under such masters. As they learned long ago under Tamerlane and Genghis Khan. While even under The Prophet—who was not mentioned in any contemporary records until sixty-some years after his “flight”—it was the Jewish global connection of the time—strongest of all when the name of the enigmatic leader was first recorded for posterity toward the end of the seventh century, so long after alleged founding deeds—it was that alliance, not to say dominion, that lent thrust to the more-or-less disorderly mass uprising of the Bedouins, and gave it a strategic unity, a global purpose. And the machine that results in any age can be almost impossible to defeat. “But with God, all things are possible”.

 

April 9, 2005: Trinitarian heresy and the errors of John Paul II.

 

I have read that Christian heresies always have to do either with the Incarnation or the Blessed Trinity: but in my book Integral Catholicism I develop the idea that errors regarding the first always assume yet deeper ones regarding the last. At the most basic of levels because truth of any sort is bound up with the primeval Utterance of the Divine Word: that one divine Syllable by which all things, each at its own created level, are called into being as well. Explaining for us why God would have our words, too, to be simple and without guile: if we would wish to be His friends, to as it were share His native Tongue. So that all human mis-pronouncements of truth—divine/processional or of any other kind—must ultimately be related. As the breach of an integrity which is meant to joyfully and pacifically invade all things, which is at the basis of all joy or happiness, both on earth and in Heaven.

Trinitarian errors seem invariably in some way to boil down to an oversimplification of the human/divine Hypostatic Union: in which this same integrity binds to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity a human nature in a perfect if unspeakable bond. Producing the Person Jesus Christ. Trinitarian heresies, put in the simplest of terms, favor Christological ones which either find the Son to be so “spiritual” as to blot out His humanity, or so human as to blot out his divinity. Furthermore and of the utmost importance to our discussion: these errors always have their counterparts in Christian moral and/or social behavior: since the Devil only introduces them in order that we might be brought to sin. Since Christ, the Word, the “firstborn of many offspring”, is our cipher-book by which we understand ourselves, the Church, and all things: a lisping imbalance or imprecision in the one infallibly producing its like in the others. Truths unobtrusively lodged in the Christian consciousness—in the illiterate often more surely than in the learned—the latter often marvelously embedding them in their daily activities, as they were found in the humble life of the Savior at Nazareth. And this is precisely where we must look to understand the incredibly-subtle—and yet at the same time egregious—errors of John Paul II. To catalog them all would take yet another book, so I will speak of only one: his continued (from the time of Paul VI) de-emphasis of things like modesty of dress. That doctrine which has over decades been so ridiculed and ignored that the mere mention of it is likely-enough to bring from today’s loyally-John-Paulian Catholic intelligencia a “good-natured” guffaw.

The oversimplification here actually involves an over-spiritualization: one however with paradoxically vulgar consequences in external terms. It is the idea that “purity is entirely within”. When the truth—in divine/human Hypostatic Union terms—is that it is both within and without. (No Pharisaical ritual purity being involved here, which Our Lord rejected, but rather an outwardness with direct and indeed obvious moral consequences) The error here is the notion that what we do with respect to our bodies has—or should have—no effect with respect to our souls. This over-spiritualizing can become so extreme that it finally allows for any sort of “external” sin—adultery, abortion, sodomy, and so on—all the while the “inner man” is held to have remained immaculately pure. That which was the cornerstone of the unquestionable supremacy of the Manichaean “pure ones” or dictatorial cult leaders. Hence the abomination of the “gay Catholic”, adherents in their own foul way of the basic error of the Manicheans, they of whose heretical system, in its long history, have typically been capable of the most bestial things. This while Manicheans in ample quantities are to be found in many another purist Christian sect as well, with thrown-backs to Gospel-condemned Jewish notions of ritual purity. Virtual Gnostic Manichaeanism being for instance at the base of American Puritanism, that obscure complex which in turn underlies an outwardly brassy but inwardly unstable American success-ethic. The idea of “election” or “predestination” containing the notion that certain people have a certain superior inner purity so that they can basically do no wrong. And even when they admit having sinned there is tacitly held to be something “special” about it: an idea which vaguely suggests a sort of all-absolving inner prudence or discretion. Incredibly often of the sort which never gets caught. While with respect to the effect of immodesty and other bad behavior on others: if it tempts ones neighbor, so the error goes, it is because they themselves are of this “foreknown” or indiscrete sort of cast. In other words, according to the old self-absolving saw of many-a miniskirt-wearer: they have “dirty minds”.

John Paul II’s reign was positively full of this error; he announced it from every pore. It is a falsehood which invariably produces some variant of a “charismatic movement”, since it involves a removal of Christian life from its practical/moral moorings, thereafter easily going up, up and away into the giddy atmosphere of pure fantasy or display. Hence the insistence of the Desert Fathers—those ever-youthful roots of Christian spirituality—on something Cassian called gravity. A quality both joyful and sober, capable on occasion of communing with the heavenly hosts, yet remaining firmly planted on solid earthly soil. A maturity—as of the finest Heavenly Wine—positively critical to higher Church leadership. Some measure of which is indeed required in political leadership as well. While the contrary hyper-spirituality at a wider societal level inevitably involves the gradual disengagement of Christians from the determination of their own public morality: that which is at the base of law, order and political freedom alike.

 

April 8, 2005: Pope John Paul II was not an “arch-traditionalist”.

 

John Paul II’s failure to uphold the filioque vis-à-vis the Eastern Catholics must be counted as perhaps the most radical departure in thirteen hundred years of Church history. Involving a de facto hijacking of that unequivocal doctrine of the dual procession of the Holy Ghost which has always been so resented by various Jewish elements so active in Eastern Christianity from Arius to the fall of Byzantium in 1453. Those “Judaizers”, mentioned already in the Epistles, who besides leaving us a Schism also left us the legacy of a whole spectrum of heterodox thinking—receiving occasional infusions of money and influence from the same Jewish quarter—which has always had a problem giving due honor to God the Son. At least as an actively-reciprocating Divine Person. A principal and inevitable result being the grim loneliness-of-spirit, and the historical tyrannies and armed militancies, of much of Eastern Christianity. An approach to God which in this respect actually shares much in common historical with both Judaism and Islam. But dropping the filioque was of course, as often in his case, a carefully-unpublicized departure on the part of John Paul II. While by contrast when—every so many years—he did uphold some Church teaching, long left to languish in some kind of doctrinal exile, it was with so many “bells and whistles” that it made you think he was the traditionalist of the ages. However other teachings and elemental disciplines having to do with basic Christian morality he allowed—in the style of Paul VI—to simply whither and die. So that a host of deeply-cherished Catholic customs and morally-ancillary, customary values were abandoned without a whimper from the Vatican, together with a parallel and indecorous entrenchment of worldly styles of every kind. Like the above-mentioned Catholic grade and high school championing of the miniskirt, long after it had fallen out of vogue. “Catholic” schools being destined to usher the same perverse clothing back into the limelight once again just a few years ago. And thereby to mass-titillate that sort of madness of which all mortal men are capable, given the odd circumstance. And for which reason they are warned by spiritual writers of all sane ages - considered "prudes" by those avant-gardes who brought us such style-perversities - never to be too familiar even with their own tiniest children; nor to allow them to be immodest.

In modern Western society we are taught to think this sort of school-yard immodesty is supremely cute: and this kind of thing can indeed sometimes—although hardly dependably or without danger—go on for some time without the worst sorts of harm ensuing. In particular in some especially well-balanced places in Europe. Although on the other hand with purity/modesty we are dealing with a subject which as St. Louis de Montfort tells “divides the Esaus from the Jacobs”. The Jacobs—or the children of Mary—are ultra-sensitive to the least thing that could harm their—or their children’s—purity. That chastity which is a lily which wilts with the tiniest over-exposure to the sun of worldliness or sensuality. So that it is from out of such a garden that those prodigies of purity—genuine vocations to the religious life—those who typically maintain the angelic purity of early youth—are born. And not usually from careless truck-patches overgrown with the weeds of immodesty and over-familiarity. So that we see that the Catholic spiritual life is a sedulous and painstaking thing: not the ultra-simple sort of hugging, even blubbering personality-“charisma” it has been much-touted as being since Vatican II. Yet the Esaus positively love this broad, abandoned, less-careful—but to them far-“saner”—way.

However in a place like the USA, with its undying historical Judeo/Calvinist Puritanism, any indiscretions with respect to modesty are purely catastrophic in their societal consequences. Since American society is full of treacherous blind-spots and both rash assumptions and undermining insecurities. A vulnerable condition shared by those of all denominations here, including Catholics, by way of open and subtle influences of great formative power. An obscure culture in which we are equally as ignorant of our deeper strengths as of our common human weaknesses. While on the other hand immodesty is the broad road—on both sides of the Atlantic—by which the people lose their Faith. A treasure which simply doesn’t survive in hearts dealt with carelessly in such regards. Even if some might sometimes manage to hang on somehow, through muck and mire. The upper classes in particular being able to provide themselves, and to a degree even their children, a kind of privileged moral and spiritual environment. Thus too for instance a highly-privileged Vatican City in which the Gregorian Liturgy in some ways still holds pride of place: even as pop-culture horrors and rare vignettes of the vulgar and tasteless abound in the Masses of the English-speaking world. But as our Churches steadily empty of the virtuous, making way increasingly for the crass and vulgar—the sodomite, the morally-indifferent, the pro-abortion, the perfectly heretical in mind and heart—Faith itself, even in such higher circles, must ultimately perish. Like a school of fish in a steadily-polluted Sea of Galilee.

 

April 8, 2005: My father told me once, “everyone who smiles at you isn’t your friend”.

 

It’s amazing how many believe otherwise. The trend is closely connected to the ethos of the stock market, of installment plans. Bull markets are manufactured, as it were, by big grins, by a “contagious optimism”. But bear markets are inaugurated by even bigger grins. So the guy or gal with the smile is always the winner. Thus too the famous picture of Franklin Roosevelt, the only one you ever see, with his huge smile and foot-long cigarette-holder, held up like the mast of a ship, ticker-tape coming down behind him in cascades. The greatest promotional-photo ever made, of the same guy who together with others of his kind would carefully orchestrate World War II. In a futile attempt to pull a canonized capitalism out of an epoch-making world economic crisis from which, epic-heroics notwithstanding, it hasn’t emerged yet.

Of course, the winning combination of smile and sound-bite is directed at the right people, while to some it is enough to just bask in the sunshine of those with such smiles. To shine their shoes or to carry their bags. To read about them in the newspapers, or see them on TV.

John Paul II always had a big smile for the right people; and the right people always had a big smile for him. It didn’t really matter that Churches were emptying, that young people were steadily losing their faith, going on dope, turning queer, joining weird cults, committing suicide. Nor that their parents and grandparents were in a contest to see who could be more like the young people than the young people were themselves. And Grandmas eagerly shaving their heads to look like some menacing wharf-side crew. No, that was the fault of “worldly values”. Kind of like diseases that fly through the air, and for which no one in particular is to blame. Especially not nice smiley popes who say lots of encouraging words to the right people. And give expansive speeches at Yankee Stadium and in front of the U.N. And who tell us again and again how our worst fault is to ever think we have any enemies.

And finally, these several smiley popes enlightened us with that bit of optimism that can only be regarded as on the level of a new “Big Bang” theory—a new date from which to set the calendar. They made a more-or-less solemn definition (not to worry about being too precise here) that we or our parents had had a way of getting too vigilant about evil, and too solemn at Holy Mass, way back when (valid Tridentine) Latin Masses were everywhere. While these same new pace-setting popes have taken the added sedulous precaution to warn us that some still threaten to get too serious again: vaguely suggesting the faint possibility that there might indeed have been some enemies all along. To be flushed out forthwith and heroically with the zany cacophony of tambourine and guitar. After all, who wants to kneel around in a big crowded church, listen to a lot of frightening organ chords reverberating off the walls, only to have to hurry up and get out of the way for the next big crowd coming in for the next big Mass? (With people congregating outside, in a low hum of pious merriment: obviously a homeland-security risk of at least an “orange” level rating.) And while still within having to listen to the clatter of a lot of rosary beads against a wooden pew? And get overpowered with a lot of thick, otherworldly incense? And in dark and inscrutable ways be induced once again to be “heartily sorry” for our sins? And maybe in this way avoid the endless agonies (sorry, no smiles there) of Hell? Truly-smiley popes can always think of lots of better things to do than all that.

Few know that the Second Vatican Council—much like the Opium Trade vis-à-vis China—was among other things tailor-made to get the Church deeply in debt. That which would be a sort of insurance policy, an enforcement clause, for the giddy new “Conciliar Reforms”. That new Decalogue which was so good at clearing away such Sunday-morning riff-raff. The sessions—and the correctly-discrete and in-the-know Rome high-society ecclesiastical party-goers—went on in a seemingly-endless stream, and no one seemed to be keeping the tally or the tab. Ultimately the bill for this and related extravagances would be in the tens of millions. With the Church for the first time in history in the red. A Church which unfortunately only knows how to raise money for the missions and for schools, orphanages and other charities. And the fact that dour and disdainful people like Hans Kung—standing out incongruous amid the aggiornamento festivities of lengthy Vatican II sessions—kept coming up with newer and yet more impossibly-convoluted “schemata” to consider, as the conciliar years raced on, and expenses for thousands of basically-vacationing churchmen mounted—well, here again, no “bad people” could possibly be found, upon whom to lay blame for that. Some years later the man in charge of Vatican finances “committed suicide”: the only curiosity at the crime scene being that in the suit-coat pocket of the body, found hanging under a Roman bridge, was a bit of broken masonry. The quaint sign of a Masonic ritual-murder. Because he had let down the Masonic brethren, and had not promptly taken the Church to the cleaners in the best Opium Trade Skull and Crossbones traditions.

But no matter that Paul VI, in an uncharacteristic fit of grim, un-cool heroism, ignored red bottom lines and Hans Kung alike and came out with that “reactionary” Credo of the People of God. Or that the “reform” had hit a snag in other ways as well. For there was a new and smilier pope waiting in the wings. An ex-actor with a hit movie just then being made about him—anyway about an Eastern European papal nominee with basically the same name, and sporting the same square chin. Doing a box-office smash for which his actual debut would be an uncanny rerun.

 

April 7, 2005: Faith, privacy, choice.

 

Faith is not something we get from others. Rather do we get it, perhaps more directly than anything else, from God. Yet like the Blessed Sacrament at the same time it is intimately personal and unique it is also marvelously shared. Both Faith and Sacrament—at the same time they partake of the solitude of a hermit’s cell or cave—are like being welcomed by throngs into the gates of Paradise.

This is the reason Catholics, although we respect it, don’t worry too awfully much about things like privacy. Rather we carry our own privacy with us wherever we go, in the pressing crowd. A quality, a capacity about Catholics which positively frightens some people, and is much of the reason for many-an old wives tale. Because we are able to carry about with us our own little—and at the same time infinitely-large—world. One that is sober and celebrative at one and the same time. It is that certain staid something about us which makes the toddler so at home with the nonagenarian—and the two at home with all those in between as well. It is much the same thing that typically-enough makes us paradoxically desire to be unnoticed, unobtrusive: especially if our input isn’t really required. This impulse, this phenomenon—one however full of an active presence and goodwill—which used to be shared to a degree by all, of any faith, in the West. One of those social currencies Catholicism used to bring with it for free: and which I remember still being strong in the Spain, Belgium and Portugal of the late sixties. A kind of silent acceptance which needed few words—once found to a degree as well in England and the United States of the times. A certain something which has much to do with “security” on streets and in homes. A quantity intimately bound up with an unassuming sense of what it means to be a German, a Swiss, an American. A free inherited gift—a stranger to the din of cacophony—which can even remain for a while after Faith itself has parted. But not for long.

Analogously, we learned our “preambles” of Faith from those around us. As we grew up our parents in particular, as well as our aunts, uncles, teachers and neighbors, showed us, instructed us, in their quiet way, that Faith is reasonable and convincing. However it is Almighty God alone Who can bring us to that moment when we believe, with childlike simplicity and directness, “on the word of God revealing, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived”. And furthermore it wasn’t likely to have been a moment wrought amid thunder-peals—or requiring an “altar call” at all. Probably we don’t even remember it: that momento de la verdad of a lifetime: buried back amid the momentous forgetfulness of childhood. Yet at the same time the very Old English words convey a subtle sense of those unassuming people and surroundings of the past who made it all agreeable, plausible to our minds and souls. Syllables which still carry the charged atmosphere into which the lightning of God’s gift-of-Faith discharged its good effect on the solitary soil of many-a soul. The retention of which Faith requires that these verbal, notional mooring-posts likewise stay in place. Memories that are a firm reinforcement in times of trial: only thought of as sentimental or backward by the ignorant or foolish.

Do the guitars and weird antics of the typical Mass of today provide this kind of support? Hardly. The preambles of Faith, densely complex in character, mellowing in our minds like a rare wine over time, irreplaceable treasures which with the greatest difficulty and distress share space with the crass, banal or boorish. The embodiments, as it were, of Faith sharing this same social, instrumental quality as the people who introduce us to it. Since we being human are given a Faith by God which must come to us fleshed out in material, intellectual, social and emotional events and ambient realities, taking place over time: typically indeed complex combinations of same. Or it comes to us not at all. While at the same time if it doesn’t retain that inimitable fragrance, that stillness, of the mountain retreat, alone with God: then too it has been lost as well.

So that’s where all the “streamlining”, the rote simplifications of Vatican II took us to: the glitzy Starship Enterprise of modern times. Gone is that rich, familiar collective voice, that oceanic presence, from out of the past: that which was wont to be captured in countless things we or others did, heard or saw. That which can modify itself slowly over time: but which once ruptured dissolves and is destroyed. After which Faith can only with the greatest difficulty be passed on from one generation to the next. That conveying which is the chief duty of each age, above all else.

 

April 5, 2005: Catholics aren’t beggars for ecclesiastical crumbs.

 

Catholicism is one only thing. There is no confusion among true believers as to what it is. Even non-Catholics are capable of such knowledge: like one person without any faith at all, who came into a Catholic Church during a rainstorm, from off of a busy thoroughfare. A young man, raised by atheistic parents, who, stumbling past the shadowy old vestibule, through the double easily-swinging doors, found himself gazing at unfamiliar sights and sounds before him, and at length, with a sweet, enchanting suddenness, was wrapped in a momentary ecstasy. During which there issued to him from out of the flame of an altar candle burning at a Mass just then in progress a complete intellectual grasp of Catholic teaching. So that due to the prodigy he knew the substance of the catechism already when he came some time afterward to be instructed. Faith thus standing on its own, needing no score-card mark-ups from sympathetic Jews, and popes who are more Jewish than Catholic, and who rewrite teachings accordingly. And no matter how much these encouraging parties come ever so close to endorsing traditional Catholic belief—and go out of their way to act more traditional than tradition itself—if they miss by an inch, they might as well have missed by a mile.

Here too is the key to why popes from John XXIII to John Paul II lost a massive proportion of the European Church-going faithful. It’s not because they were too traditional for these people: these spiritually-virile folks I knew as a boy in the 50s and 60s. Rather the reason these popes lost out with the Europeans, who knew their Faith from the inside out, and far more than we American Catholics ever did, is because these vicars of Christ didn’t resolutely or convincingly confirm this real if utterly inexpressible thing. This ever-young Catholicism which is a living totality not to be explained away, but rather with which to explain all things. The confirmation of which is accomplished far more through tedious, onerous, painstaking daily shepherding duties—pulling many-a stubborn thistle out of tangled fur—than through speeches and dramatic gestures. A Catholicism ever-young precisely because it doesn’t change. So that people are always ready for a challenge, but deserve better than either a dry, formal emphasis upon especially difficult teachings, or a giddy introduction to things new and facile. For the “hard sayings” have no steam on which to run without the boilers of the whole of perennial Catholicity: and especially the dynamic aid of an inspiring liturgy. Another treasure, one which had in fact only five years before “The Council” been marvelously restored to the closest-possible pristine purity of the Patristic age: albeit with the allowance of authentic enrichments from subsequent times. That Faith-Depositary legacy of the Age of the Coliseum and the Catacombs being an heirloom no one needed to comb the countryside to find. And little help too was a disturbingly-nonchalant moral theology, left for several fatal years after the Council to entirely “run amuck”. That true doctrine for the corralling of which the last two reigning popes now receive so much credit. Another case of stable doors being closed after horses have bolted, and even then more with dramatic flair then with solid and substantial cross-bars.

 

April 5, 2005: “and the veil of the Temple was rent asunder”

 

We cannot go back to the observances of the Temple, to a spirituality of Israel which is essentially what Vatican II was all about, taking in its oceanic wake a subsequent continual or near-continual reign of Hebrew-phile anti-popes as well. Neither can we go back on two thousand years of Catholic teaching: about Jews or about anything else. And if we stand by certain fundamental falsehoods—as for instance John Paul II’s principle of spiritual parity between Christianity and Judaism—or rather in fact of Jewish superiority—then we lose all claim on God’s grace. After that it doesn’t matter if we consider our priests “cultic” rather than “community service”, what they do will not secure the aid of Heaven. No, what we have to do is to cleanse ourselves of the filth of rebellion that is represented by Vatican II and its aftermath. Then the priest will once again be both a community leader and a worthy sacrificer of the divine Oblation. An aid “to the widow and the orphan”, rather than a giver-out of “writs of divorce”. Whether by facilitating the estrangement of man and wife, or by setting up purely-Jewish socioeconomic and other personal de facto entrance requirements or qualifications for parish membership. That by which the Catholic parish becomes a shrinking island of the well-to-do. And comes to resemble less and less Christianity of any kind. And more and more to resemble some sharp-edged Jewish cultic ceremonial: without love, modesty, understanding, piety, fortitude. That is to say with neither Gifts nor Fruits of the Holy Ghost: He Who was mysteriously abandoned at Vatican II. But He Who will claim back His Church, even if it be a smaller and humbler one for now. He will gather His own Sheep within, saying, “I know mine and mine know me”. And will put those present rebellious rams and sheep outside where they belong.

 

April 5, 2005: Just because it feels good doesn’t mean its Catholic.

 

John Paul II was “the great Charismatic”, the eloquent pope who prevailed upon Argentines to lay down their arms and let the English defeat them, a couple of decades ago. Visiting uninvited to proclaim “peace, peace, war never again,”: just when the Latins were beginning to win hands down. I wonder if he couldn’t have talked anyone into anything, given time and TV lights.

But Catholicism is basically very hard-nosed stuff. It is about doing good, doing duty, far more than about simply feeling good. True we are promised a certain “sweetness in believing”, but this is often as not in the midst of pain. Sometimes there are no goose bumps at all. For the inner accomplishments of Catholicism are not essentially emotional: rather intellectual and volitional. Elements from which genuine “consolations” do sometimes truly flow. “Acts” of the mind and will, after which follow the sure offspring of deeds.

But what’s especially nice about this “Catholicism of feelings” is that it requires nothing of us. It is the perfect laissez-faire Catholicism. It is the old Victorian “pietism” to the max—the perfect accompaniment to the robber-baron economic morality of that day and time—translated a century and a quarter to another uncannily of its kind. Little should we be surprised that the tumult of the immediate post Vatican II period would be succeeded by the rigid, even business-like priestly-poses of the past decade or two. Where we no longer see the studiedly-offensive hippie types that used to wear the Roman collar from the late 60s to the early 80s. Together with whom however have also been excluded entirely from parish life those not well-to-do, well-manicured and sporting a late-model car. It was all really very efficient: the pain was for an admirably-Puritanical, antiseptic purpose. And once in a while these paragons can even make a big display of giving out canned goods, before coldly closing the double door. So that the prisoner and the destitute, the widow and the orphan could be classed with the lowest kind of moral trash. And parishioners could prove their state of “election” by the fool-proof methods of Judeo-Calvinism: now become the one universal American religion.

 

April 4, 2005: the big lie.

 

Under Khrushchev, following close on the heels of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Communism began to show the first cracks in its imposing façade as a world empire. (Reagan-idolators coined the incredible but Bush-booby-believable idea that “the ‘80s were the height of the Cold War”, to dramatize an alleged “stunning” U.S. economic/diplomatic defeat which was however and ironically much like the Marxist “rotten door kicked in” by stodgy woolen-wearing folks at home. The Hungarian uprising, the real initial death-knell of the Soviet System, succeeded by another in Czechoslovakia, which would soon be followed by myriad other broad-based movements of change. Outside of Albania and a Korean-War U.S. bomber/tactical-aircraft population-center-napalmed and near-obliterated North Korea, Communism would develop its own homegrown reform movements in all facets of public life, so that even China would begin to self-modify after 1978, at least in its economy. Hence “behind the Iron Curtain” truly great leaders, epitomized by men like Havel of Czechoslovakia, Tudjman of Croatia and a score of other statesmen, political-economists and intellectuals after the same pattern would raise a potent wind to fill the sails of the ship of state. Impelling it to follow this new and adventurous tack. These truly towering democrats brought to bear a new and imaginative “using what comes to hand” resource-efficiency, many of them manning finance ministries or even taking over at the helm after having spent long years in communist jails. Preparing the day when Russia itself would use the same crisis-geared philosophy to redeem both itself and its currency during the Ruble collapse of the late nineties. Reforms in noted Soviet-satellite nations which would have produced something entirely distinct from communism, had they been allowed naturally to run their course, rather than falling under the tank-tracks of a U.S.-dominated “free market” privatization. That anomaly or misnomer which would strip them both of rapidly hemorrhaging financial assets and the unfettered ownership of their own industries and futures. As we can see from the memoirs, official records and occasional local websites of the times: a sober assessment borne out in subsequent deeds of those like Havel, who were able miraculously to survive politically through the often-tumultuous late-90s transition.

But such lightsome and positive things weren’t what immemorial investment piracy had in mind. Hence new heroes had to be manufactured, and new villains. The first of these “heroes” being represented by Yeltsin and those he brought in on his coattails, like Khodorkovsky. While the new “bad guys” would include the very Putin and Tudjman who had been the real national champions, among their number.

This is the broad-brush background required in order to understand all the hype over John Paul II. A man who among not a few is even being marketed as having “single-handedly defeated communism”. When in fact that system was ready to collapse at the stroke of a feather: and might have done so in a much more constructive way had the Polish actors’ guild not taken over the ecclesiastical stage in such an impressive way.

 

April 4, 2005: Law and Faith. A commentary on the words of judge Moore of Alabama.

 

When a people like the Saxons, Franks, Croats or Aztecs became Catholic it was typically by way of some prodigy. It wasn’t usual the case of a lot of rationalistic hair-splitters weighing the evidence and deciding for Christianity one by one, or in small discussion groups. Let alone debating societies. A turning to the true God which, much like the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, was both a personal-volitional event of unparalleled importance in each life and a defining historic communal act of the people. A spiritual seismic event-over-time which finds its like in the history of the Apparition of Guadalupe in Mexico: a watershed which in some ten years would see the baptism of the whole of Mexico then known to Spaniards; and within two centuries basically the remaining half or so well. Especially as the myriad northerly tribes became acquainted with The Virgin.

Yet more organically the very same combination of the intensely-personal and a seamless popular unanimity has been historically evident the world over in the laws and constitutions that were the result of such a tribal joining of “the household of the Faith”, wherever it occurred. And where this natural/supernatural process was allowed full scope, and not frustrated from the outside. A pre-existing tribal or national sense of right and wrong being augmented, sensitized, infinitely enriched: the public realm being framed increasingly in accord with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Things like slavery readily-if-gradually giving way to manumission, to ameliorization, even to various kinds of de-facto emancipation. A process aided by a divine guidance which Our Blessed Lord assures Sr. Josepha Menendez is the very font of human progress. That advancement, together with the triumph of Divine Faith, which He predicted will soon break upon the earth with all the power of an earthquake (TAN Publishers Edition, p. 365). Indeed the “slavery” of an as-yet-hardly-Christianized first century Rome—that evolving legal institution the Apostles were at pains to place in the framework of Christian life—this slavery had already begun to modify toward a lighter servitude. Peter and Paul having hardly been advocates of any backward ideology of bondage in their practical injunctions to “slaves”, such as so many contemplate blank-facedly today. That condition which in turn over the centuries—and even back then to a degree—was destined to be construed more and more as employment rather than anything especially non-voluntary. This morphing being accompanied by a proportional verbal development of the word slave into words like peasant or cottager. For one thing because most “jobs” before our own times had inclusive qualities that were likely to make you a member of some household: if for no other reason than the primitive economies of scale. People of past ages, too, having invariably had socioeconomic ties which were to varying degrees binding—if nothing else with associations of love and gratitude—few if any wishing to be some sort of ancient version of a “loner”. Far cry that such a world was from the highly-temporary modular relationships of our day—and the polar personalities they so often produce, as noted in my own first book (Louis de Joliet Publishing, 2004).

Hence a People doesn’t legitimately, or with anything like true willingness, turn around and undo such a liberating process, in order to return to the “brick-pits of Egypt”. And yet that is exactly what we are doing now, and at a quickening pace. For whether it take the form of a brutalization of laws or a slackening or Faith: the two together work the same effect upon the same individual person, both object and subject of religion and law alike. For we cannot stay admirably Christian or Catholic in our religious lives, and then turn around and take away our neighbor’s feeding tube, or allow someone else to do the same. For that is to undo religion and law together in one homicidal lunge. Nor do we learn modes of behavior that will overturn all the foundations of the family, of morality, upon which society rests. Here rather being a “progress” brought to us entirely for the sake of some chosen few. A system which has no time for either mildness or morality, but only for those perpetual backward partners: animal outlet and brutal toil. Ready even now to harness each of us to some slab, to drag some neo-con Pharaoh’s monument to its place in the sun.

Hence in the sixteenth century no one wanted to throw the whole corpus of common law (which was actually both European and English) out the window with their Catholic Faith. Rather were reformers one and all as eager to keep the one and as to be rid of the other. Little considering that that law that had brought them so many good things, and enabled so many advanced institutions, was Catholic through and through. A lesson that some are perhaps at long last learning now. Perhaps more Protestants and other non-Catholics than Catholics themselves.

Even so, when a Catholics like me talks about instituting a Catholic system once again there is no desire to force anyone to do anything. Any more than there was on the part of Clovis or St. Vladimir. I principally want to see society once again “with peace in its borders, tranquility in its homes and streets”. And for that Civilization which has brought us so many good things to once again give forth its multiple blessings. Amid which I naturally wish to see everyone keep the cult of their own choosing. Yet were the People to wish to see once again state-participated processions in street and public corridor—and the Blessed Sacrament carried before—beseeching God never again to allow the horrors of these past years to stalk them instead—then those who govern should accede to such a wish more quickly than to any other. For reasons which any Frank, Aztec or Ancient Roman could have told you without giving it a thought.

 

April 5, 2005: A word on racism.

 

In my view of race, nationality, culture and so on, humanity reciprocates in relations between small and large self-defining groups: the way life finds us, in our typical natural state. We as it were sharpen one another, like sharp blades rubbing together. The sense of identity of each is enhanced thereby, being in turn the source of both an individual and a reciprocal positive, productive motivation. But by way of the global scale of finance, industry, infrastructure, a very few at the top keep complete dominion over these organic groups by sewing seeds of discord, on the one hand, and impossible visions of total, identity-destroying unity, on the other. A whipsawing by which all are brought low.

The one way to achieve world peace and domestic tranquility is to allow power to distribute itself by way of these local “ethnic”—and many purely local-customary (whether or not consciously having to do with race or nationality)—groupings. All according to local natural choice. These local elements not being “empowered” from above but rather being the organic building blocks which are the most essential sources of power. There is nothing passive here, nor subservient. Higher authority exists in fact entirely to enable this grassroots political/economic existence. To “speak for it” at times, but only when necessary. The real life of the nation is at the level of these local cultural/political groups: with increasingly-formal but no-less-personal ties that reach upward into a regional and then a national organizational tree. Arranged in a progression that gains greater abstract purview according to size, geography and connectivity. And furthermore this configuration isn’t at all unworkable: since higher levels of organization run on greased skids when they draw from lower elements that are vigorous, savvy and coherent. And who have close personal ties to constituencies in both directions: a locational political-economy which in fact forms the perennial-productive culture of the ages. An organizational facility that can however become endangered by anything gratuitously top-heavy: like today’s dense technological interface. This latter radically-top-down (or if you prefer “trickle-down”) system being methodologically and intuitively counterproductive against any human (which is to say rational and reciprocal) interweave. That living cultivar for whose realizations some suggestions are advanced in the writings on this website.

Central to this entirely positive “greenhouse effect” is the recognition of the utter folly of any idea that racial or nationality differences between human beings affect the comparative dignity of each in any important way. That bias which is at the very basis of the capitalist/backyard-colonialist trickle-down ideology noted above. Even if there might be something basically harmless about acceding ceremonial honors to some certain race: be it the Han in China or the Caucasians in the West. I—who both tan well and have perfectly white covered skin—don’t object if some blonde or red-haired Irish-American, who sun-burns on a cool day after 15 minutes exposure, is the customary head-of-state. As long as I and my associates can keep our political agency, customs, livelihood, the ordinary honors of men toward one another in stores and on street corners. Whenever or wherever paths happen naturally to cross. I think I would feel the same way were I black, Asian or Indian.

 

April 4, 2005: Minimalism: papal, clerical and lay.

 

Minimalism is today displayed consistently by key people in the Catholic Church—and might be said to comprise much of the essence of that evil Pope St. Pius X could see coming on the horizon during the first decade of the twentieth century, and from which he prophesied that the laity would “save the Church” in these later years. Outwardly innocuous in appearance, this phenomenon I have heard referred to—during the forty years since the close of Vatican II—only once or twice. It is a papal, episcopal and clerical penchant for veritably dissolving into lovely phrases: this precisely when hard and determined words—together with deeds rampant and uncompromising, painstaking and sustained, tactical and strategic—are critically necessary. During that one, brief, shining “moment of truth” which, once missed, will no doubt never come again in the same ebullient way. Minimalism is the denial that the Bark of Peter is as deserving as any—even more so—to be run as a “tight ship”, that souls might be saved.

This minimalism is a downhill progression which makes every monk the perfect missionary; every parish priest the perfect businessman and giver of backslapping patriotic speeches, rather than searcher of consciences and guardian of souls. While the unparalleled minimalism of John Paul II was also eager to get into the act and overthrow the ramparts of a communism on its last leg anyway since about 1970, or to give addresses in front of the U.N: all the while the papal Flagship was running dangerously aground. With loyal hands on deck, eager to skirt reefs and shoals yet left with no directions, grasping the gunnal in white-knuckled horror. While of course it’s easiest of all to reproach them as having been a scurvy crew: a reproach so often leveled at the Western Catholic laymen of our times. Evincing as they now do indeed a moral indifference which was however hardly evident in the time of Pius XII, but which has grown by leaps and bounds on this anemic “non-directive” latter-day Church-leadership fodder.

No matter that the John-Paulian charm, aplomb or even incisiveness makes a big hit on the evening news: the question of the Heavenly Good Shepherd, directed to any validly-elected pope, is: will a certain tack or course of action “feed my sheep”? As for the newsmen, they will like it fine as long as it makes good copy or sound-bite: while to be carefully considered is that the heavenly injunction is seldom properly accomplished in the limelight. An active papal or clerical responsiveness to the guidance of the Holy Ghost being more-typically of a mystic quality that others "know not where it come from or whither it goes”, albeit a concurrence or correspondence generally accomplished amid the grind of the most rote and tedious of daily priestly toils. So that these reporters can hardly give a cleric the cue for the next line. Church leadership - the rarest, most sublime authority among men - is typically not stunning at all, but rather requires the overwhelming majority of times the accomplishment of duties unsung. And labors woefully non-photogenic.

Hence the early Jesuits in Germany at the Council of Worms and elsewhere—people like Canisius and Bellarmine trying to come to terms with Luther and his followers. The good “sound bite” meant little there: rather did ten thousand clever, carefully-chosen illustrations or interjections only heighten and exasperate the mounting sense of a lost cause. Which you could sense in the running commentary of one of the saints. But it was this tedious, sometimes irksome, inconspicuous labor-of-love—carried on over a period of quite a few years—all-in-all as painful as “squeezing blood out of a thistle”—it was this that bore fruit in the end, to the degree it was born. Sweat-of-the-brow exertions in the divine vineyard which were part of the reason Germany remains around half Catholic to this day. And perhaps almost as importantly that Lutheranism itself didn’t despair into the sheer “lonesome valleys” of Calvinism. That all-determining worldview within which we Americans must thanklessly wander today.

 

April 3, 2005: John Paul II: the papal “great communicator”.

 

Become the motif of an entire age have been the deluge of vague—or pedantically over-precise—words at which John Paul II and two of his close predecessors were so exceptionally accomplished. Men who together promulgated a “leadership”-culture, a conversational ambiance that would culminate in the “compassionate” medical/judicial verbiage so critical to the doing-to-death by starvation of Terri Schiavo. An amorphous or logical-positivist diction fruitful in countless other unspeakable tragedies and wrongs, these deluges of fluent words and seemingly-innocuous gestures indeed provide today’s prime vehicle toward every sort of revolutionary change. Volubilities continuing in both lay and clerical circles all the while Rome has continued to burn and the behavioral quality of life in a heavily Aggiornamento-oriented, “New-Church” West has taken a nose-dive unequaled in at least a millennium.

During the same pontificate “respect for life”, that marvelous and incalculable value, was to retreat to a marginal existence not seen the raids of the Mongols. As if an innately human-life-defending Catholicism—piously-overflowing papal pro-life words notwithstanding—were a mere emotional sop totally without efficacy or power. So that a recent Vatican spokesperson at a U.N. conference on life-issues, when push came to shove, would ignominiously back down on a certain basic pro-life policy concern. Lay militancy—that which finally gets “enough” of anything—being reduced to a mere shadow of its former stature by such a Vatican retreat.

 

April 2, 2005: Death of Karol Wojtyla.

 

We have heard ad nauseum from media spin doctors how John Paul II took the Church its last few “painful but necessary” steps to modernity. This progressivist process no doubt held to have begun with a French Revolution which “jolted” the Church “out of its complacency”. “Of course”, Rome finally proved itself “up to the task” of “ever-necessary change” in the person of the deceased pontiff. And finally, incredibly, he is said to have accomplished all this revamping while “staunchly upholding” the traditional teaching of the Church. This latter declaration being a kind of last-minute concession to incurably-optimistic conservative elements.

Anyone who has a robust, integral, genuine Catholic Faith knows that al these odd mental bedfellows don’t really go together, that they cannot. Such a bizarre sequence which totally contradicts the mind of the Church, and that Holy Ghost Who is its Inspiration. While for those who don’t understand all this—be they Catholics, Protestants, pagans or Jews—“no explanation is possible”. Moreover, it matters not at all how few know these truths: for one only person can perpetuate Catholic Faith, and pass it on to a future generation “with ears to hear”. Something that already happened, almost literally, in the past: in the person of St. Augustine, during a highly-similar time of error and rebellion known to history as the era of the Arian Heresy.

The very first occasion for this kind of progressivist proclamation-making with respect to the Catholic Church was actually to be found at the First Vatican Council in the 1860s and 70s. A synod at which basically the same media forces that in future would be so conspicuous at Vatican II—clamoring for radical change in the Church in headline and nightly news—tried in vain to invade the council precincts, in order to make propaganda inroads back then too. A gathering indeed and at last violently invested by Masonic revolutionary forces of Italy: marking another first in the debut of the synagogue-sponsored no-holds-barred, that which would become so disgustingly familiar in the antics of a Ben Gurion, a Sharon, a Begin et al. While a major difference back then was that most Churchmen were gravely offended by such interference, violent and non-violent alike. Whereas now we have Catholic clerical spokesmen, appearing on the same TV screen with these all-knowing Protestant and Jewish authorities, nodding grave assent to their commentary. A phenomenon which corresponds very well with an ongoing morbid and occult mythology against the Catholic Middle Ages carried on not only by The History Channel but by other networks as well. While the more outlandish, bizarre or revolutionary the statements emanating from such sources the more vigorous the nod from a certain cynical sort of modern Catholic Churchman. “But these things too will pass.”

 

April 1, 2005: “A time of peace and a time of war.” Ecclesiastes.

 

People like Senator Kennedy speak of the danger of emotions over Terri Schiavo’s death resulting in harm coming to people like himself: he who fought so fearlessly toward this harmless woman's demise. As soon as people express their natural indignation, the cowardly Ted conjuring up images of his own violent undoing, and that of people like himself. Is this the voice of his long-feeble, indeed vegetative conscience? Little that he cared about Terri, or the millions in the womb he in major part sent to their death. Not for having allowed abortions—which by the way are still as unsafe as they ever were in the heyday of the “back-alley abortion”—but rather for having removed that stigma of public shame which used to surround that crime, and which countless times supplied where motherly compassion had failed. And we have others like Senator McCain, here in Arizona, who likewise burn incense before the golden calf of the judiciary. But I myself say it is indeed time that battle lines be drawn. Ultimately, whether they be drawn on the floor of Congress or if necessary on our very streets. Since there are indeed things that are worth dying for: besides the sanctimonious “American” global hegemony of a geo-corporate Wall Street. And because the same Schiavo case showed us that these dictatorial, elite-catering leaders—conspiring for decades from both left and right to destroy innocent human life—are beyond quarter or compromise. A battle which has already claimed its first living adult victim—and which must be joined without further adieu while some of us pro-life people are still around. And haven’t yet succumbed to solicitudes no doubt even now being prepared for us by the likes of two noted Senators. For as I say further down this page: this is a war in which so far only the just are forbidden to bear arms, and only harmless little babies have yet fallen. To take their places, indeed, beside other innocents slaughtered in media-engineered wars.

Yes, I know that practically everyone of wealth and “standing”—who take part in those much-made-over but inaccurate polls—are of “right to die” persuasions. But I myself don’t care about such odds. This will be a war of a few courageous, unjustly-slandered leaders at the head of the hosts of the poor and disadvantaged. Those whose kids are most likely to get state-aborted. Again, whether that war be fought on the floor of Congress or on the streets of village and town. For this is precisely the sort of issue over which the people can call no quarter, verbal or physical. Against an enemy for whom words are not a means of dialogue but rather treacherous weapons to underhandedly get their way. Much like those words of “pity” and endearment so hideously lavished on Terri by her murderers.

This is a battle—of whatever type—out of which God and the People can accept only one issue. As in the time of St. Joann of Arc: behind whom motley, ill-equipped Frenchmen overpowered the entrenched forces of tyranny. God forbid we sit back and do nothing while the perverted death assembly-line has its last few screws and struts put into place. Read the wealth of material on this website for a detailed description of the plutocracy’s many death camps, and crematoria: both of the sort to which Terri was subjected and those closely-associated that are economic, political, psychological and spiritual.

 

March 31, 2005: Bush’s Final Solution to the Social Security “crisis”.

 

If you wondered why Bush kept on smiling and telling us he had a “fix” for Social Security, it is obvious to me what that final solution has turned out to be. It has all been “of a piece” with 9/11: that great, indispensable motivator. With the President carefully contriving to be “on Terri’s side”: as he pretended to be so heroically on the nation’s side in 2001. George W. and his Skull and Bones friends having guided events—at the very least by default—in the terrible direction they have taken: by always putting dominant multinational-corporate interests ahead of those of the nation. A carefully-marketed 9/11 having generated unquestioning loyalties: these being followed directly by the immediate formation of a genuine police state, one more and more rigid in its contours as time goes on. (Note of 04/09: Demonstrators in doughty Minnesota were only yesterday charged as terrorists under ever-expanding Bush Patriot Act laws, of which there is no talk of abrogation under Obama). That neo-Nazism which would be so evident in front of the hospice where Terri suffered and died. All this to the tune of a carefully-prepared near-absolute control of the media. One which allows for no more than a certain amount of polite criticism for a deified head of state. (Note of 04/09: the new multi-trillion-dollar Obama budget—which mostly doesn’t bother getting into thorny specifics—illustrates how Bush’s chief legacy—presidential edict—is here to stay under this supposed libertarian savior.) Bush’s “final solution” indeed being destined, after many twists and turns, to be very much like that experienced by so many at various Death Camps around Europe. Bush providing in the sum total of these maneuvers—a hero in every scene along the way—a way to that veritable herding into boxcars that Terri Schiavo’s fate presages for all of us, in whatever condition of serious dependency to which we might be reduced. Here, indeed, the expenses connected with Social Security in all its many dimensions will be amply reduced. And flag-waving privatized “care-giving” corporations will have profits aplenty. The “separation of powers” doctrine providing a blind for Bush to hide behind, at the head of a Republican leadership which has never been sincere in its religious right affiliations.

 

March 30, 2005: “Right to die” judge disingenuously cites respirator as “ordinary means”, all to prove a point.

 

A woman judge, whose name I don't recall, was on the air last night, defending the judicial murder of Terri Schiavo, and it was a chilling experience to listen to her rationalizations toward the taking of a human life. With the notorious tit-for-a-tat detachment of the anti-life protagonist, she asked, “what’s so extraordinary about breathing?”—after her opponent, Pat Buchanan, correctly named a feeding-tube as a theologically- and legally-defined “ordinary means”. By which artifice she hoped to disqualify the “ordinary means” argument for keeping Terri alive: by claiming that a respirator is “ordinary” too (since breathing itself is “ordinary”).

But this is only a shameless play on words: since breathing is only “ordinary” when it’s done normally. So that the possession of the least amount of ordinary humanity would make the matter crystal clear to the judge: since when you need a respirator to stay alive you really are almost dead. And the “pulling” of a respirator “plug” (electricity) amounts very literally to “allowing a person to die peacefully”. That “relief” which—incredibly, with noted ghoulish detachment—is said to be granted to a thirsting, agonizing Terri Schiavo by such judges. Patients on respirators also being unconscious in basically every case as well. So that electric-plug-pulling in this case is plainly the “ordinary” thing to do. While to take away a feeding tube is by contrast to do someone to deathsomeone very much alive—in a savage, barbaric way: something indeed quite “extraordinary”. A life which has shown enough vigor to take many days to be terminated: even as the pulling of a respirator plug ends life in basically-painless minutes.

Was that rousing music “the march of the SS” that I heard in the background to the Judge’s remarks?

 

March 30, 2005: American law and the law of Moses.

 

American law is strikingly like the Jewish Mosaic law: that Old Law which was full of ritual prescriptions entirely symbolic of a true purification or laver of redemption yet to come. The original genuine core of which ancient legislation was added to by various judges over the course of Jewish history, finally becoming an onerous load indeed for the common man and woman. A load which the judges themselves, in Our Lord’s own words, “lifted not a finger to bear”. A sort of law which tends disturbingly toward being based not so much upon justice or right but basically upon the outlook of a chosen few.

English and American law are both said to be “unwritten” in the sense of being based on case-precedent. However here is where most similarities cease, since for one thing English law gives great latitude to things like mediation and arbitration, while American law progresses by way of adversarial, black-and-white decisions. A grave stroking-of-beards and bringing-down of gavels. A whip-sawing which is hair-splittingly-“literalist” from the word go. Litigation here in fact taking its inspiration from “judicial combat” procedures that were already outmoded across Europe and England by the end of the twelfth century.

By contrast the English value profoundly a sort of unwritten—even unspoken—“sense” of the law. While actually continental European law is much the same, its much-made-over “statutory” nature being highly exaggerated. For alongside a corpus of Roman Law observed mostly in Southern France and Italy, common law has also thrived throughout Europe since tribal days as well. And in much the same flexible approach, described above, familiar to Englishmen for centuries. European common law being really only a remnant of Salic and other barbarian law, with roots deep in the various European peoples that would reassert themselves strongly across all Europe as the medieval centuries progressed. While finally, even Roman Law itself was a form of common, or customary, case-precedent law: the basically-futile attempt of Justinian to codify it—the mammoth result nonetheless being like trying to pour a lake into a thimble—this thankless exercise having produced those “stiff, unyielding” statutes that are scoffed at by so many American would-be jurists.

But as suggested above it is in that very America in which European “statutory” law is viewed so critically that law is stiffly statutory. The central problem here, by a kind of pathology which runs deep in the American psyche, and that is much addressed in these pages, is that there is little real scope for that law “written on the human heart”. One based on fundamentals like the absolute preemptive sacredness of human life. A natural law which, although retaining some points of divergence from one nation to the next, yet holds such very critical, legitimacy-guarding things almost universally in common. A law readily capable of defending those spiritual and sociopolitical treasures we hold most dear. This while our own law is so prone to the abstract, ideological and priggishly-precise as to frequently—and indeed at the most critical moments—miss the forest for the trees—finding no way to defend something so fundamental as innocent life. Finding the “rights” of every sodomite to violate sacred traditions of public order to supercede the right to breathe of disabled women and babes in the womb. Our law being ever ready indeed to sacrifice human life—if only it be especially defenseless—on the altar of some sharp-edged caricature of “the rule of law”. Our judges and legislators thus bearing a striking resemblance to knife-wielding priests of the Aztec god Quetzaquitl, dispatching back then, when a “cruel” Cortez found them thus occupied—at a comparable rate of one every fifteen seconds—human beings then without ado thrown down the stone steps of the towering Ziggurat—when their murder and homosexual-defilement was done. Providing fresh meat to satisfy the cravings of waiting, grunting herds of swine below: of which kind we have so many around our ears today. Here reigning a stern bringing-down of gavels in front of which a devotion to human life is regarded as suspiciously Catholic in character. And although Europeans have found a way around their magnificent human-life venerating sense of law—developed mostly in monastic scriptoria—to allow for legalized abortion: yet it seems to me they are unlikely very easily to come up with the razor-sharp Rosenberg-like murder-facilitating formulas of the courts here.

A fatal flaw in all such hyper-literalist, hyper-litigated law is that one statute or ruling can always be superceded by another more-astutely worded. To finally get at what vaunted elites rapaciously desire. One of many processes whereby “the letter killeth”, readily obviating the substance of its more-benign predecessor. A mechanism which has the added effect of keeping a law-formulating elite, a Sanhedrin, ever at the pinnacle of power. With little tolerance accorded to those “least”—like Terri Schiavo—for whom genuine Western law ever finds to be “the greatest”. The remedy for which isn’t “tort reform” but a whole fresh new look at law itself. Or if nothing else at least the introduction of moratoria on further legislation (“court” or legislative) wherever basic things like life are under threat.

Typical of our hair-splitting law is that in spite of being so precise it hardly knows how to deal with a husband who carries on an affair with another woman for ten years and yet refuses to get a divorce: obviously because it would sever him from Terri’s court-awarded monies. He the while being “so concerned about Terri” that he wants her to die. Not even Nero would have known how to jump through so many moral and logical fiery hoops, and still come out standing on his two feet.

Is it a wonder that murder stalks the land, is multiplying, while Terri starves and thirsts? That the most bizarre sorts of crimes and perversities are taking place day to day? Believe me, it will get much worse, and in many more ways besides.

 

March 28, 2005: Autopsy: will it only be another cover-up?

 

The degree to which evidence has been suppressed in the Schiavo case leads one to wonder if the autopsy will be compromised in the same way as all the other major facts (Note of 04/09: alas, this feared outcome did indeed take place, and was glibly shoved down our throats by the usual gaggle of doctors, judges and oozingly-sympathetic anti-life advocates.) I have cited an instance elsewhere on this page in which many witnesses of a murder in Arizona were unable to bring a conviction, simply because the defendant was the son of a prominent citizen. And this kind of thing happens quite common throughout the land. The example of gangland trials is so notorious as to be redundant to even consider, and it seems to me there is more than a little chance that there are underworld ties involved here as well. In a Florida which some consider its home-of-homes. While even if that isn’t the case there’s the underworld of “right to die” and anti-life as a whole: which like the pro-sodomy movement is willing to do anything to get its way. Judicial murder and “the end justifies the means” being the “legal principles” involved here. That which all the “compassion” and stonewalling is meant to divert our attention from.

Hence it is essential that the autopsy be performed under the eye of impartial authorities from various jurisdictions. (04/09: Of course, as we know, this didn’t happen, and the autopsy was done in the most flagrantly questionable manner possible).

 

March 28, 2005: St. Tarcisius and the Florida police, Father Drinan rides again, and “the rule of law”.

 

Vatican II was much touted as having been a “rapprochement” with the world: but Christ told us what He Himself—the divine Founder of our Faith—thought of that world. And we can see a bold and brash representative of that cursed world of which He spoke in the United States of the Bush Regime. With Florida policemen who lustily beat down a man attempting to bring Holy Communion to a dying woman: on the excuse that he had “stiffened up”. It reminded one distinctly of the obese guy that the same sort of police beat to death in New York last year: for the similar mortal sin of trying to fend off with his bare arm the excruciating blows of their Billy clubs. But actually the guy’s “stiffening up” in Florida—contrary to the accusations of ever-closely-allied policemen and newscasters—was simply a matter of trying to keep these excessively-violent “law officers” from knocking the Blessed Sacrament out of his hands, and onto the pavement of the street. As you saw if you listened to his pleading on the audio, and truly appreciated the significance of his movements and gestures on the video. So that in all of this the kindly gentleman—the bearer of the King of Mercy—was very much like the martyr St. Tarciscius—the boy who brought the same Viaticum to early Christians held in a pagan Roman jail. Who not only “stiffened up” when similar enemies attempted to spill the Sacred Species on the pavement, but actually gave his very life to prevent that sacrilege from taking place. (Note of 8/08: Since the doing-to-death of Terri Schiavo, Florida has been stricken by a strange sequence of catastrophes and bizarre crimes of every shape and size, was just flooded, and is now once again being born-down-upon by a major hurricane).

A far different aspect was presented to us by the now-elderly “Catholic” Father Drinan on Meet the Press. For he was, as always, very much a spokesperson for the familiar Vatican II rapprochement with such a sacrilegious world. That Council which in practical terms managed to be very much a back-slapping prodigy-of-oblivion to such a very Evil Empire. A council-of-compromise—which lent so much motive-force to Drinan-beloved radical movements of the late sixties and the seventies—a synod whose espirit and policy, upon reflection, reminds one very much of the whole massive, bewildering, indeterminate anomaly of Judge Greer’s decision. And its backing by basically the entire Government at all levels: anemic, histrionic gestures aside. A composite-falsehood which “never says what it means or means what it says”. So that in both cases we are dealing with a mystery of evil which sanctimoniously pulls over itself the garbs of justice, piety and right.

For the Council was indeed a desacrilizer of the first water—an abolisher of every Catholic—nay, every Christian—cultural or sociopolitical institution. Since to Father Drinan and his kind we are all supposed to quietly tuck away our religious faith when conducting our daily affairs. Unworthy priests “whose number was legion” back then and whose collegial minority dominated Vatican II through the same sort of media/propaganda the Bush White House so skillfully employs to dominates the USA today. A Faith we are basically counseled to be “ashamed of before men”. And the falsehood, the bankruptcy of his position—which in halcyon days just after the council was aimed directly at youth carefully groomed to despise all tradition—is evident in the fact that he stood at odds with basically all of the new generation youthful faces around the press room table the other day. Arguable in fact in direct proportion to their youth. Indeed, “a page has turned”, bearing bright witness that it is a once-much-heralded rapprochement with the world which is tired, toothless and old; and conversely that it is a militant Christian tradition which is perennially young. As so many even back then, decades ago, though shouted down by well-placed people at every turn, argued so well. But now “the tables have turned”, and try as Father Drinan might he was unable to shout down—or silence with some sardonic witticism—those around the table, as he had been so skilled at in the past.

For it was indeed the cultural and political ascendancy of Christianity that once admirably held at bay that ever-potentially-godless state authority which would now once again spill on the pavement the Precious Blood of Christ, as in ancient times. Law and Order in any land—the most obvious of the purposes of government—not at all being formally distinguishable from the cult and creed of the People. Be it formally, overwhelmingly Catholic, or be it Muslim or Sikh. And any attempt to make it so—to render it a stiff and formal statement of abstract juridical principle, determined by the courts as if by some sort of new caste of secular High Priests—this recourse totally vitiates law and civil society alike. For order comes to us cloaked in our religious beliefs, or it comes to us not at all. An aura of the mild and pacific that for instance in America before the Council and its horrendous-if-insidious impact came to us in a marvelous amalgam of confessional values—a totality in most important ways shared by all creeds. A producer of peace on our streets, and contentment in our homes. For although people make much over their doctrinal differences, when push comes to shove in their day-to-day affairs they are all in fact more or less Catholic—especially as society becomes more and more civilized. As we could for instance see during the Kennedy Administration—and as you can still see in old news-clips even before his time: which breath a totally different world from today’s. While everywhere Kennedy went he spread the same gracious and agreeable quality, the relenting toleration, the sense of humor which was never unkind. For on the level of the practical—that which is the subject-matter of states—Catholicism is little more or less than that very innocent and undemanding, universally-valued something. While it is “Faith without works” Protestantism—which in better times Protestants are in practical terms ashamed to display—which is everywhere rude, demanding, foreign-policy-dictatorial. A spirit which is becoming more and more evident in the “Born Again” America of today. The America whose leadership was inherited by those who murdered John Fitzgerald Kennedy and his brother. Their easy-going charisma—which “for one brief moment” animated a whole generation—by contrast having been admirably “at home”, whether in Islamabad or in Rome.

 

March 27, 2005: Only about Terri?

 

Terri’s brother has frequently requested the crowds of pro-life people around the hospice grounds to “behave themselves”, not to get themselves arrested, and this in tones of considerable authority. He has also repeated a time or two the old stand-by, much-heard around scenes of police-state oppression—a saying decidedly reminiscent of a much-alluded-to Nazi Germany—about the police “only doing their job”. It makes me wonder what that job really is. But in fact there is much more involved here than only Terri’s life or death. This is a precedent setting, ultra-radical, corporate-euthanasia-lobby “right to die” test case: and if it is allowed to stand the toll in human life and personal freedom will be horrendous. Hence it is not “just about Terri”—as much as she is loved and venerated—that people have come hundreds, maybe thousands, of miles. The life-line of an entire nation is about to be pulled. And we just cannot meekly allow that to be.

 

March 27, 2005: The Schiavo case and the proper subject-matter of adjudication.

 

The immemorial reverence for life since Hammurabi has always defined for us the broad trend of judicial inquiry and decision-making, so that the total rejection of today’s American judiciary toward this broad stream of legitimacy can have no provenance in law. While we all know by what tortuous means this horde of anti-life judges has been put on the bench, at all levels, by elite-America: men and women without conscience who call murder mercy and mercy murder. This in a long, unanimous line all the way up to the Supreme Court. Deeply-compromised persons whose sidestepping of plentiful evidence of criminal conspiracy in the Schiavo case can thus be little wondered at. The only thing new here is a blissful state of ignorance among a certain non-thinking but highly-vocal popular constituency, who continue to defend the whole diabolical charade.

Educated Catholics here often hold up as an example in such cases the expressions of heroic levels of loyalty of St. Thomas More to Henry VIII, the royal turncoat from the Catholic Church, at the very time the saint was up for “treason” at the behest of the same thankless sire. Such co-religionists averring that we should reserve equally-heroic pitches of loyalty to an American Bench with no concern for human life, simply because “it is the law”. However the point is precisely that in this one respect at least it is most definitely not the law. And furthermore not only was the case of More entirely different on every score, but neither was the position taken by him necessarily the better one in all respects. For in fact Henry’s actions lacked any shred of legitimacy on several counts: and one wonders if he abdicated his throne many times over by his deeds during those portentous times. So that even abstracting from Henry’s shaky standing—in comparison to other contenders—in terms of degrees of royal blood, there were the legally-unprecedented demands—like his recognition as “head of the Church in England”—which he so insolently made on all three estates. There being indeed a certain inauspicious comparability between swearing fealty to the wife-butchering monarch and giving much credit to those judges who emerge from the double doors of our radical pro-sodomy, anti-life law colleges, and go on to make such an illegitimate anti-life stand. While the few who escape these warped juridical/ideological persuasions too often turn out like Albert Gonzales: whose macho penchant for other kinds of sadism won out against an especially lame and cowardly baby-killing and feeding-tube jerking crowd. Continue reading for further commentary on this case.

 

March 27, 2005: Easter. Natural law justice.

 

Not only is Judge Greer dead wrong he is also a criminal, as is Michael Schiavo. And no amount of legalistic hedging can change any of this. While in the doing-to-death of Terri we have a palpable breakdown of law and order which shows us the illegitimacy of the whole post-9/11 regime Bush has brought into being. In quiet collusion as it is with the worst elements of anti-life, of sodomy, of all the evils of our day. Spawning a spirit of lawlessness which reaches down to the lowest levels of the judiciary. And which stalks the halls of Congress in the form of a criminal stonewalling and irresponsible cowardice, and our streets in a jerk-knee conformity in drugs and crime, in the latest lockstep column and line.

This is a question of bringing an outlaw judge to justice, not simply of saving an innocent woman from his murderous conduct. All of this calls for Governor Bush to use the Guard, to declared martial law. And if he refuses to do so then the citizenry must do the obvious: they must physically intervene to save a woman from being plainly, obviously murdered before their very eyes. Here being the classical case for the posse commitatus, for the intervention of the natural law assembly, and of the right of citizen’s arrest. If this results in a violent local struggle—or even the likely calling-in of anti-life thugs—then it might as well be settled now, while something can be done. Since for one thing it is coming anyway, except under much worse odds for the cause of right, if it is out of craven fear delayed.

I have offered here on these pages an alternative to the non-government, the non-legitimacy we have now. I ask officials at all levels, together with the People, to if necessary renounce their loyalty to this bandit regime. This killer of Iraqis, this blackmailer of whole religions and continents, this mute, cowardly pawn of corporate finance. Such a comprehensive resolution—reinforced by a mass “walk out” against both the federal government and those mammoth corporations it serves—should be succeeded later by a constitutional convention. Something the People are ready for: since already at least 40% even of those serving in Iraq - who often do so against their will - know the War is unjust, and the government sunken into a perverse barbarity in its policies, both at home and abroad. If we act now, there should be a minimum of difficulty in securing the needed solid consensus, and the resolute deeds it will make possible.

 

March 26, 2005: Murderers turn the compassion crank

.

The Terri Schiavo case comes more or less under the heading of family law, thereby lending itself powerful toward a certain courtroom strategy. For in a case of this nature a laboriously-sustained illusion of compassion must above all be maintained: although that legality which is really at stake is neither compassion nor families but rather the expeditiously securing of a foolproof right to judicially/medically murder. There being here a palpable element of cynicism which makes it all the more necessary for these radical activists to “pull out the cry rag” in displays of hovering concern. Statements abounding by Michael and his attorney about “pity” and “understanding”, whether for Terri or her family. Motivationally enabling thereby a hyper-sophisticated legal doctrine which will be assiduously employed both by elderly and disabled people who no longer wish to live: as well as by relatives and other “interested parties” who wish to see them die. New “rights” enabled through a sort of emotion-based “counter suit” phenomenon. For the substance of the case is as potentially comprehensive in real legal terms as it is nebulous and indeterminate: with the latter quality inevitably only providing more leeway to our benefit-of-the-doubt death-minded courts. But again it is made to appear like so much grease on the wheels of compassion: when in fact it is all about selfishness, and the new and burgeoning doctrine will ultimately be employed primarily to get rid of a tremendous number of inconvenient persons. The wheels of certain kinds of profits for certain kinds of people turning briskly well. Those victims in favor of whose person compassion alone can be displayed: and whose dispatch will effectively banish that virtue from among men. A new kind of law which given time will crassly and brutally cross the present vague line drawn between “Terri’s choice” and the patently involuntary. A decision, finally, no doubt destined to remove from the scene growing numbers of the destitute: who are such a painful embarrassment to our shrinking well-to-do constituency. The modern American/Hitlerian mercenary/military state grinding out its death-verdict to the tune of “Michael Schiavo’s great love and compassion for his wife”. A paraphrase of countless statements which contain not a single honest word or sentiment.

Few know any more that the same sort of “compassion” strategy was at the base of a now-seldom-discussed 1970s child-custody drive. That judicial activist’s litigation paradise which—especially after Illinois and a few other states led the way in declaring that an incredibly-generic criterion—“the child’s best welfare”—rather than the parents’ statutory fitness—is the criterion for a retention of custody—would eventually see thousands upon thousands of good and upright parents lose custody of their children. In a court doctrine most-often brought to bear upon the poor, or even those less-well-placed than their counter-litigants, judicial victims who in our “success ethic” society get little positive public notice to afford them redress. Living to see their children placed in foster homes—all out of “compassion” and “for their own good”—where they have incredibly-often been exploited in a host of ways. In a program which is still almost never well-monitored, much like the near-invariably-heinous treatment of the developmentally disabled. All the while the couples or persons—and no-doubt increasingly-often-today corporations—awarded custody often experience drastic improvement in their economic circumstances by this means, under extremely-generous subsidies. Or are at the very least afforded a dramatic expansion of moral stature which opens many a social and economic door. Meanwhile the court-and-agency sought-after socially-“correct” life-style and attitude being all that mattered. (Although somehow allowed to fit into this utopia-of-correctness are the most bizarre forms of foster-parent or even custodial/institutional “born again” fanaticism: a confessional pressure-cooker which is the notorious cornucopia of wife-beaters, child-abusers and BTKs alike). All this having not by accident been initiated during that decade when the open practice of Christianity—in things like modesty of dress and personal comportment, as well as parental discipline upon childhood reading material, and so on—when all these once-rather-common things were suddenly under violently siege. It was pure brutal interventionism—with a mass toll in terms of psychological damage—among parents and children alike—which is beyond calculation. But that was all the more reason to turn the compassion crank all the more vigorously: on behalf of supposedly somehow “deprived” children “needing a better home”. A deprivation and corresponding improvement both of which were typically conceived of in the most value-trivial of terms. In campy mock-righteous courtroom scenes repeated innumerable times in the hearing-rooms of the time. The whole representing a pitiless—if drippily-patronizing—judicial and social services bureaucratic radicalism whose final triumphs are not yet in sight—indeed, after a brief hiatus, once again mounting by the day—but which is only another facet of the court-interventionist “march through the institutions” that would in a sense culminate in the Terri Schiavo case. A court policy which would issue fairly-quickly along the way in such extremes as the frequent placing of children with homosexual couples, or heterosexual couples both of whom are sodomites. One of which cases of this latter kind I have personal knowledge: in particular with respect to the devastating consequence and criminal effects visited upon the children involved. Something, much as in the Terri Schiavo case, which remains utterly beyond judicial remedy or reprieve.

 

March 26, 2005: Court appointed lies and bench deities.

 

The amount of lies involved in the doing-to-death of Terri Schindler Schiavo is an epic tale all its own: a house of contradictory cards however constructed with consummate care. First there is the idea that she should have a right to commit assisted, colluded suicide—a right totally unfounded in law to this date, except perhaps for that exercised in the secretive hallways of the hospices of Florida. An illegality…even had she wanted it. A suicide which this alleged agreement to the pulling-of-a-feeding-tube would have amounted to. Then further there is this idea that life and death are “strictly family matters”. When in fact the march of civilization is strongly punctuated by the graduation of law regarding such grave issues—not only the procedural but also the evidentiary and other substantive parts of the case—to realms of the national courts. In contrast to which the new and radical legal doctrine being fronted by the forces of “right to die” in the Schiavo case is quickly returning us to something on the order of the state-human-sacrifice of the Aztecs, Canaanites and Carthaginians. So progressive are the elites of today who now exercise unmitigated control on these shores. Able ultimately, under our system, to pass any law or bring about any court ruling. Mostly through the big three: the schools, the media (particularly by way of prejudicially-framed, strategically-timed, if not outright-lying polls) and the courts.

To the above fantasyland is added a sort of legendary-dark-ages refusal to examine the evidence: simply because the sacrosanct lower-level judge Greer infallibly pronounced it to be beyond dispute. Like the purely fictional group of theologians who are said to have refused to look in the mouth of a jack-ass to objectively count his teeth. A number, so the anti-Catholic legend goes, revealed in Holy Scripture and thus placed beyond the pale of investigation. Indeed, one of the “right to die” people even equated judicial pronouncements emanating from Greer to “the voice of God”: in strange new paroxysms of religiosity among this motley, agnostic, blood-stained crowd. This all the while previous and present-day testimony gravely impugns court assumptions regarding the condition—and causes for the condition—of Terri, as well as seriously contradicting other important elements of the case. Yet the new evidence is disallowed by Greer: although such new morsels of knowledge, however insignificant, are quickly seized upon in Atlanta and elsewhere to keep any unfortunate Black man in jail for retrial.

Undoubtedly the inventive Judge Greer will dutifully come up with a name for all of this. Something to take the place of an after-all-verbally-cumbersome court-assisted murder.

Finally, if Terri loses this her final battle, these worshipful obsequies to the Bench—and to that Judge Greer Who sits upon it—will no doubt extend to a refusal to allow an impartial autopsy. For that too would be to blasphemously impugn the deeds and utterances of the Judicial Deity.

 

March 26, 2005: Terri Schiavo, Kyrgyzstan and the Washington two-step.

 

Discussed here is a variation on the great Washington Two-Step: about which we were told by the chief executive who looks like Bush Sr. in the movie Clear and Present Danger. Except this version of the dance number also has a step three and four. First the media and NGO propaganda/psychological warfare campaign against the beleaguered little state is initiated: in answer to which the courageous Akayev openly refuses to be intimidated by these forces of “the West”. Second, after a falsely-impugned election, busloads of thugs are brought in to the obscure Capitol from both foreign countries and outlying regions of the state. These then overthrow the weak and sorely-beset governmental machinery, inaugurating a rampage of looting and the seizing of government facilities. Third, and most cleverly of all: after a few days the imported thug elements suddenly stop their destabilizing activities, obviously-enough at a pre-agreed signal. A return-to-order and relative calm for which the new regime—whose officials will soon find out they are only lackies for a reinvigorated Afghani heroine drug-cartel—are allowed to take full credit. But who will thereafter be held at the end of a short leash by this geo-corporate mob with ties to the Bush White House. Fourth, and as a final psychological coup, the disorders of past days are generously laid at the doorstep of "disgruntled agents” of the ousted Akayev government—that which has just been violently overthrown. (Of course this kind of violence is sacrosanct, Lexington-bridge style “democracy in action”: excepting of course the case of courageous Iraqis against the U.S. occupation). In this way the all-important if pre-manufactured sense of no return is achieved: so that the neutered state will thereafter always remain a pawn of forces beyond native control. The whole sorry sequence having been seen in the same Iraq, myriad times across Latin America, and to a considerable extent in the Ukraine. While finally the very worst of the recent violence around Baghdad and elsewhere has very probably been conducted by clandestine force of American-enabled Israeli regional hegemony. (Note of 04/09: New evidence indicates that Blackwater likely had much to do with the Akayev overthrow, and a host of other clandestine interventions all along the southern flank of a U.S./Israeli subversion-targeted Russia.

But this kind of physical/psychological blitzkrieg has also long been used on the American people: if within intensifying levels of bold-faced perversity. And the fate of that Catholic family, the Schindlers, is a classical one in these annals of supra-statist control—here in its home-of-homes. For Americans don’t run their government or their affairs any more than anyone else does. So that the Schindlers’ endurance of a long series of invasive assaults by the radical courts and their bosom ally, Michael Schiavo, can then be succeeded by long periods of study for behavior-evaluative purposes. To glean what valuable behavior-modification lessons can be had from the grizzly species of reflex testing they have been through for so long. Induced popular states-of-shock—like their sovereign-level counterparts—being the chief weapons in the Eichmann-like arsenals of the radically-illegitimate modern anti-state.

 

March 25, 2005: Professional ghouls.

 

Listen to these "right to die" people on the media, with their lying polls, invariably produced by such elites at critical and decisive moments of crisis or popular upheaval. As they express their patronizing sentiments toward the American people, telling us we should “let Terri rest in peace”, as if she were already dead, and we were foolish occult visitors to a graveyard. They express their dire disgust over our unruly “displays of feelings”, which however and in the next breath they pityingly inform us they “understand”. They smile before the camera while they consider our childish, naïve reactions to their clever, murderous, hyper-educated Eichmann-like formulas. These mostly-sodomites and gay-rights and gay-marriage people from whom I have always fled in horror and nausea. For whom civility is to conduct oneself in a patently unmanly, un-Christian way. Who speak of an enlightened outlook which will ultimately require us to send our grandmothers to some sort of death camp: as their kind of progress finds ever-newer ways and more-complex reasons to kill. But there are ways to bring their much-vaunted hegemony to a permanent end. Please read on, including my two books to date, to be found here in full-text form.

 

March 25, 2005: “Original jurisdiction”.

 

Our court system has too often been a sort of death trap to prevent rather than achieve justice. This is mostly because local county “superior courts”—often presided over by venal and corrupt men—have a radical form of “original jurisdiction” which is for most practical purposes immune from appeal. Whereas in other legal systems the appellate process is of the very heart and soul of the judiciary: typically-enough one fought over historically in painful national upheavals. While our one-of-a-kind system has ideological roots in Colonial-era suspicions of kings and royal courts: a borrowing in turn from a parallel bitter Colonial/Calvinist antagonism against Anglican and Catholic hierarchical authority. What this doctrine actually does is to protect the standing of the local judge and court machinery and to abandon the rights of the individual citizen to their “will and whim”. An approach to law which can come dangerously close to local mob—or an in-many-ways-inseparable local elite—rule. One which no doubt contributed heavily to the notorious frontier lynchings of the 19th century, in which many-an innocent rancher, cowboy or farmer was for purely-economic reasons basically put to death at the behest of more powerful and influential neighbors who wanted his cattle and land.

The worst thing about this basic lack of vehicles of appeal—except for easily-circumvented appeals for “procedural matters”—is of course that it applies to issues of life and death just as quickly as those of vagrancy or trespass. Hence the Terri Schiavo case, through which for the first time a court has had the gall to deliberately use these grave judicial shortcomings with much ceremony—rather than with haste or stealth as in the Old West, or Midwestern borough of today—take the life of a plainly innocent person. The obviously prejudiced local judge being permitted with great pomp and circumstance to administer a caricature of justice with a host of grave discrepancies plainly evident throughout.

Is it abnormal that people should be ready to rebel over such a travesty? For although these judicial shortcomings have always been, yet there are limits to the bald and flagrant evils that ordinary citizens can endure, inflicted upon innocent women. No matter whose vaunted judicial majesty might be offended by popular expressions of rage and reprehension. Or even the just bearing of arms. Surely, for court ears to suffer thus, in hearing of such sentiments, is nothing compared to what Terri suffers. Is this not the kind of thing for which human beings are given feelings: to vent just indignation, impulses of mutual defense? The criminally violent ones here are the judge, and the homicidal husband. (And sometimes I wonder about the possibility of a complicity brother, who is so unnaturally meek and docile toward the court, and who by his lengthy presence at the scene of the crime is a definite person of interest himself, to any impartial investigator). Hardly felonious being those throngs of people whose reactions are entirely noble and basically just and good. People whose civic consciousness is not yet dead, like that of so many judges, doctors, media experts and other elites. Indeed, to quote Thoreau, in an unjust society it can get to the point that “the place for every just man is in jail.”

 

March 25, 2005: The real Auschwitz.

 

The Auschwitz of World War II was only a preview of the present-day death camp epitomized in the fate of Terri Schiavo. Those weasel-like professionals that destroy minds and take human lives all in the name of protecting them, these have spent half a century preparing for us that which we experience today: an anomaly supported by the unprecedented fringe idea that local courts can hand down sacrosanct judgments that are beyond hope of appeal, especially in cases of the taking of human life. But this is modern man’s new and ultra-correct religion, his god to whom he sacrifices human lives. His American/Canaanite Baal.

Government, to be valid, must be able to respond—as an integrated unit—to every single issue, without exception, and this with directness and dispatch. But present arrangements render us mere guinea pigs for a world-finance-sponsored elite, one much written-of in these pages. The Open Market indebtedness of nations like ours—a sum which can never be paid down in currency—paying out the nose instead—and as was indeed astutely planned—in terms of religious persecution, social experimentation, extermination of the weak, of “inferior race”. The People themselves having become mere “expendables” for a debt-finance-driven economic system which grudges life to more and more people, especially those who believe in God. Since for one thing life-giving profits go into diminishing numbers of pockets, of those who are among “the chosen ones”, by way of an inexorable asset-funneling processes. That “market system”—which in practical terms simply means the total economic dominion of a rigged and exclusionary, river-boat-gambler stock market—in support of which the courts have become the main venues for a sort of unforgiving guerrilla warfare against human life. That which the earth is said no longer to be able to sustain. For the time being, in a targeting in particular of those in certain vulnerable, unguarded moments or situations. And later in a wholesale butchery, finding some mass-media disseminated excuse. (Note of 04/09: as in the right-wing media hysterical alarm, and advocated arming-to-the-teeth, of a sacrosanct “middle class” against a meltdown-motivated and “increasingly restless and malcontent poor”.) When in fact we live on a globe which uses only a bare two percent or less of its arable soil, and whose inbuilt synergies are systematically frustrated instead of harnessed and coordinated. All in the name of the same elite-catering, heinously-extractive “market system”. The people thus being prostrate victims—of whom Terri Schiavo is a perfect example—all the while the whole charade is bragged about as some epic example of democracy, to be exported to others across the seas at the point of a bayonet.

Fitting where they may into this “market system” is the whole sorry spectacle of our treatment of the veteran, the retarded, the mentally or emotionally disturbed. The big-business of drug-abuse, as well as a criminal justice system in which the ordinary, self-sacrificing “cop” is more and more despised, and which is mostly conceived of as a place for college-grads to get high-profile jobs, and to have popular TV dramas made about them. Rather than as a venue for just and speedy redress, for crime-discouraging forms of humane punishment. All of which degenerating institutions have over the past several decades—mostly since the demise of the Kennedy brothers—come to be characterized by brutalities difficult to render in mere printed words. Debt-income-driven anti-life and anti-God phenomena steadily descending to the most barbaric levels ever seen among men. And of course the incredibly-inhumane treatment meted out to Terri Schiavo over some sixteen years is no exception: that which this ironclad court system cannot be so much as prevailed upon to candidly, scientifically examine. Rather contenting itself with the medical methods of the nineteenth century: all in the name of some bizarre idea of human advancement.

Looking at the matter in political/organizational terms, and considering the role played today by these our dictatorial judges and the oligarchy for whom they are in many ways the mouthpieces—this together with the standard control of the micro-local venue by an alliance of home-town elites and “privatized” corporate financial power—I hold that state and national legislative government should claim the citizen’s first levels of interior loyalty. And although these official bodies often repay such confidence poorly, yet they are all we have as foundation upon which to revive a genuine state, a genuine economy and way of life. (Note of 04/09: have since this article was written developed in more detail the idea of the Frankpledge, both as a new party and a base upon which to build a new and this time legitimate state). One reason I say this is because state and national legislatures tend by the very nature of things to have more immediate, organic, legitimacy-laden ties to their constituents than do the courts or the favor-pandering local city or town hall. Who have of late entered into a collusion with global finance which is positively unprecedented and unpredictable in scope. So that whereas judges at all levels can for instance get lost in esoteric regions of radical theory, or become immersed in political gerrymandering—or even as in the case of Judge Greer of Florida, collude in the extended homicidal cover-ups of Michael Schiavo—and still warm their spots on the bench, and keep their hefty salaries—by contrast higher level legislative and executive officials must interact frequently with their voters. There being here a certain continuity, an elementary sort of connective chain. Since according to my own application of a principle familiar to those who have studied political science in its classical sense, in the higher legislatures the public good tends to be identified more-closely with the private good in the person of the official involved. A mutual identification of interests which is positively pivotal to effective government: which otherwise becomes either an unrealistic attempt at pure altruism or pure theory, or a descent into a rotten pork-barrel of corruption. The effective kind of immediacy—of agency and interest—of legislatures comes across for instance very evocatively in the personal interest which Tom DeLay has taken in the life and welfare of Terri Schiavo. Concern for a human life which the vast majority of judges shrink from in disdain. Or as we have seen in so many TV interviews in recent days, in condescension, ridicule or even disgust. Ever ready to leave life and the individual human person to take a second seat to some sharp-edged abstract excursion into pure ideology. Paradigmatic flights which however have a way of paying the most pragmatic of dividends for sometimes-less-apparent interests involved.

In fact and as you will find if you read my book Integral Catholicism, the institution of the judiciary as a completely separate branch of government easily amounts to a crippling blow to the critical integrity of any sovereignty where it has been initiated. For which reason judges and justices the world—as in England to this date—have always been just another part of government’s ranging machinery, with key members of the House of Lords continuing until today to hold key judgeships as well (http://www.jm.u-psud.fr/format/langues/doc/English_Legal_System). While the old royal French system had a whole chamber devoted to judicial and administrative proceedings taken as an integrated whole: and which was the real heart and soul of day-to-day French government. For although there is indeed a sort of natural distinction, even a kind of natural tension, between the legislature—which has intimate ties to the old tribal “moot” or “the people in assembly”—and the executive, who bears a natural affinity to the immemorial position of kingship, or of Roman Consul—yet no such logical distinction marks apart the office of judging. Judgment since earliest times having actually been exercised for the most part by the executive and by those he appoints: if sometimes in consultation with the legislature. Men who have invariably served at the discretion of others in the fulfillment of purely passive adjudicatory duties.

But when judges begin to sit in a kind of unapproachable majesty all their own—and even to chuckle at those who would presume to invade their Olympian realms—then absolute power has gained weird and previously uncontemplated ground. Among many reasons being that while the legislator is constantly required to demonstrate not only his skill or lack thereof, but also his levels of loyalty, service, self-sacrifice and so on—things remediable at the next election—the judge in the modern sense answers but little to anyone, and typically has to do something egregious before he come in for any appointive or election-time penalties. Dealing as he does with matters on a person-by-person basis—issues brought to bear upon subjects who by the very nature of the adjudicatory process tend throughout to remain mostly hidden amid the discretions of the courtroom scene. Indeed those dealt with wrongfully tend to leave that chamber not only full of sorrow but also full of shame. For, right or wrong, that is of the very pith of being “brought before the bar”. So that wrongfully-adjudicated defendants will many times rarely have the personal strength left to publicize the miscarriage-of-justice they have suffered.

Hence above all other duties that of judging should be done by those who are under constant requirement of having to prove their metal, their fairness and integrity. That which is most revealed amid the press of affairs, whether commercial or political, and ideally a combination of both. While the idea that a judge is someone who spins pure theory out of thin air—or out of the even-thinner pure-ideological—or even highly-manipulable statistical probability—atmosphere of today’s typical law-school classroom—this is useful only toward the advancement of certain equally-rarified interests. Among those who condescend upon the common citizen from on high. As in the homicidal concerns of Michael Schiavo and his attendant lawyers and other professionals.

Indeed the judge today, under recent hyper-professional concepts of the positions, is typically a sort of icon of academic prestige, his interests tending automatically to coincide with this elite: which is so far removed from popular needs and perceptions. When actually and as partially suggested above the task of judging is for the most part a matter of moral judgment: that which is most gained from both an upright life and years of experience of the affairs—and ruses—of men. Qualifications sometimes indeed possessed by those with little if any formal education. While for the minutiae of the law there are lawyers present to cite applicable clauses and precedents, which it is then the judge’s place to prudently and equitably weigh. Something which hardly requires a PhD.

All the elite-pandering has trebled in the matter of a mere decade, with the common man—or the common woman like the angelic Terri—being subject to new levels of judicial/official trivialization and de facto contempt. While there is that other element noted above, of the strange American institution of a kind of Judge Roy Bean judicial localism. Something which passed from the scene in Europe and England by the end of the Twelfth century. An un-exorcized demon which is still alive and well here in the slavery- and lynch-mob-reminiscent United States. Which for one thing allows for the most Neanderthal levels “all in the family” vendetta, and “sweep it under the table” our-neck-of-the-woods malfeasance. Or on the other hand for noted multinational-corporate triumphs at the local level which would have little chance of succeeding at a higher and more candidly-visible one. For the avoidance of which sinkhole of criminal favoritism cases involving human life have since High-Medieval times—in truly civilized lands—been the sole universal province “of the Crown”—or in our own terms of the national government and its courts.

Finally and as intimated above, the more-or-less absolutely independent judiciary seems to represent a vitiated and divided sovereignty in the most radical of senses. Both the executive and the legislature without some strong element of prerogatives of judgment being an “uncertain trumpet” indeed. And as our history demonstrates so well being fruitful chiefly in a policy-impotence which has no historical rival. Accomplished chiefly in promoting unjust wars, and a dismal failure at the timely prevention of domestic injustice and inequity. The powers of judgment naturally as it were accruing or clinging to the well-constituted official in the two “non-judicial” branches and at several levels: a routine judgment which should extend not only to matters of policy but to meanings of laws. Even as the artificial rarification of the judicial branch—into lofty realms of its own—engenders sterile, petulant power and turf struggles perfectly avoidable under a governance more reciprocal and organic. By contrast the natural divide between executive and legislature is much more manageable, amenable and subject to constructive arbitration. While finally the whole purely-American engrossment with “constitutionality”—replacing in every event the authority of the moral law—that for which an independent judiciary is held to be especially indispensable—this involves a confusion over the law’s truly-valid sources, over its genuine conception and motivation. Since law is only binding and relevant when seen and inspired through the dual prism of the moral law as understood by the people, and as tempered by their customary manner of dealing with one another. American constitutionality—with its lugubrious excursions into the tenuous and esoteric—by contrast rather having proven itself a handy tool of above-noted elites who wish to control every facet of human life. And to impose the dictates of a financial elite to whom the people have been bonded and indentured, largely by means of bond-backed money from national banks or “federal reserves”. Both of which are effectively controlled by private forces, so that there is little real difference—strident words of right-wing “constitutionalists” aside—between the two. This whole ponderous exercise in judicial sanctimony having absolutely nothing to do with justice, valid law, or the pressing practical concerns of the people.

In fact it is the job of everyone—down to the humblest citizen—to insure the integrity, the perpetuity, of “the rule of law”. That which is nothing less than a complex, exhaustive, ongoing struggle to keep the spirit, the soul of the nation alive. A comprehensive, universal effort which now and then has a conspicuous individual hero: like St. Thomas More who laid down his life before a tyrannical king. But furthest from the truth is any idea that day to day matters of governance—and of the adjudication of cases—should be poured in a kind of ideologically-contoured, evidence-impervious, life-extinguishing concrete: as has happened in the Terri Schiavo case. Where earmarks of criminal misconduct have been resolutely ignored, all in the name of the golden calf of judicial discretion. The idea that this sort of life-and-justice-indifferent stonewalling is a “necessary evil” is sheer folly: carrying with it the unmistakably Puritan/Pharisaical notion that God, the author of law, is some sort of “hard man”. His law rather being for life, not death. His clemency ever ready to be granted: even, as the messenger of divine love, Sr. Josepha tells, “at the moment of one’s last breath”.

 

March 24, 2005: Life, Sanguinity, Terri Schiavo and the Courts

 

Among the modern anti-life, avant-garde crowd there is the unmistakable idea somehow that this world’s rude and spontaneous enthusiasms must with rare resolution be extinguished. That there is a rosy pitch of sanguinity in human life which must be systematically “nipped in the bud”. These supposedly “forward looking” people seeming in all this to possess oddly-little of the spirit necessary to surmount—let alone surf—life’s towering waves. When confronted by its more elemental and indomitable aspects these would-be explorers of weird new universes instead display a ponderous negativity, a head-shaking pessimism. A typically-well-heeled constituency which for all their dour sentiments you would think had suffered some daunting privation, amid the tribulations of their 20-acre-estates. Or were crushed under the weight of rare McMansion-dweller fears, trials and vicissitudes.

After the epic bouts of hedonism of the 1970s there were some of us who sensed implicitly that there was to follow a rigid Puritanical reaction of the most unmitigated kind. For sin, national or personal, is but a kind of death, and it ultimately pays the most generous dividends in kind. Since according to the same fatal sequence after the young-blood American/Calvinist buck or heifer sows all the wild oats he/she has in them to sow, they near-invariably settle back to being the most harsh, pessimistic, condemnatory of judges and Pharisaical stone-throwers. While it is the guy who was shy through grade and high school, who married the girl who was probably much the same way, who oft-times ends up being a lively old wit into his eighties and nineties, to nobly and virtuously charm young ladies tired of the standard, tawdry machismo fare.

This lesson has a forceful applicability to courts and political existence. For identical tired apprehensions and moral/notional lethargies are to be found there as well: vitiating tares amid anemic later-life harvests of the same one-time wild-oat-sowing crowd. The identical idea obtaining among this consequential crowd—an element paramount in the ranks of judicial enablers of weird varieties of hedonism—that the worst enemy in the public realm is anything like life or virile enthusiasm. Rather is the public arena—of laws and court decisions—regarded as the sole venue of tired visages of bitterly, even savagely bleak and cynical persons. So that it is thought a rare travesty for men like the Bush brothers—“who should know better”—to become at all involved in the plight of a woman who very obviously—patently-inapplicable estranged-spouse-fables aside—wants to live. These judges ponder in long-unvisited levels of 19th century gravity such a juvenile positivity, cautioning us against after-all-only-marginally-pro-life politicos that they are opening up new and dangerous precedents in sparing a feeble life. Hardly evoking in such halting hesitations the old “devil may care” drug-abuser or bar-hopper of yesteryear. These judges, doctors and other dour professionals many of whom no doubt missed AIDs or hepatitis only by the skin of their teeth, back in earlier oat-sowing days.

 

March 24, 2005: Catholic Liturgical Joy.

 

In the high-volume traffic that this site has attracted since it first came online, no doubt there has been a Catholic pastor or two who has read a line or three here about the present state of the liturgy. Like for instance my lament about the lack of Catholic joy: not indeed only at Mass but throughout the modern-day American-Catholic approach to life and Faith. Hence do I, self-importantly, imagine a subliminal reaction in a Holy Thursday TV Mass I heard the other day: in which the standard dirge-like New Ordo sung-Mass seemed to have been mildly souped up. Where there seemed to have been injected an attempt at a note of the joy whose absence I decry here on another line.

But really the kind of joy I was speaking of isn’t necessarily “upbeat” or syncopated in meter. It is more like the wondering joy of an infant, that halting joy between tears that Gregorian Chant has captured for two thousand years. That gained from a Deity qui laetificat juventutem meam. It is in fact a joy actually not at all brassy but rather more typically sober and grave. It is something positively impossible to render, to ad lib; which must be known from within. And must be forthwith and without delay—or ponderous evaluation—manifested, lived. It is joy of the same species which rejoices, like Terri Schiavo, in being “ground in the teeth of wild beasts, that I may become as pure and holy bread”.

The clergy and local “liturgical commissions” of New Church will never get it right: they must humbly go back to the real wellsprings of Faith, of devotion, if they are ever to know real joy or life. In that perennial Catholicism which is typically many things at once, and seldom in discursive series one simple thing at a time. For here, in these realms of faith, and hope and charity, we are approaching that Godhead Who combines every conceivable power or virtue in His integral Self: and Who the closer we come to Him pulls the powers of our souls, spirits and societies into the same kind of tightly-love-bound, yet organizationally-loose-knit, unity. Very much like a good elderly Hungarian housekeeper my brother and I once knew: who cooked and served meals for the priest for whom we and another mutual childhood friend chanted the newly-restored Holy Week liturgy as boys. A humble, fervent cleric who hastily threw together a parish for refugees of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, back in Joliet, and who had heard of my brother's rare talents as a youthful organist/choir director: the latter then commandeering the assistance of a classmate and myself. That parish which is the single best memory of my entire youth, at whose center in my mind and heart is this little lady—many of whose hearty meals this eleven-year-old shared around the rectory table, between the many Masses, whether for solemn vigils or Summer feria. Easily in her 70s, her smile was nonetheless from out of the simplicity and innocence of earliest life. Though no doubt she had lost a relative or two in the gunfire or under the tank-treads of the Soviet troops who put down the revolt as brutally—if by comparison in an admirably-frank way—as those patronizing hyenas who presently destroy someone in Florida much like herself.

 

March 23, 2005: Jeb Bush should send in the National Guard to save the life of Terri Schiavo, and ask questions later.

There is obvious criminal collusion going on between the radically-anti-life courts, Michael Schiavo and the mega-bucks “Right to Die” lobby. Which in this case means “right to murder”. There is no question that Bush has a legal and moral right to use the Guard to bring this Eichmann-like barbarity to a halt. See more details of the case below.

Then too no credence whatever should be given to the latest polls. They are being phrased falsely, to people who don’t know what the true facts are. The fact is rather that Governor Bush could easily enlist the vast majority of Americans to back him up on this issue: for if direct democracy doesn’t apply here, then it doesn’t apply anywhere. Masses ready to end the dictatorial rule of the tiny elite minority who back or bring-about such court decisions, and who sit on a disproportionate number of court benches.

Take notice, judges and executioners of an elite-catering American court: you are raising up another John Brown in your judicial murder of Terri Schiavo. And you are preparing the day when it will not be safe here: not only for the disabled or the retarded, not only for criminals like yourselves, but for everyone. For you are ushering in a court-arbitrated lawlessness—and a passionate counter-reaction of those who love law and right—the collision of which two forces will ultimately take a heavy toll of human blood before it exhausts itself.

 

March 22, 2005: More on Terri Schiavo.

 

The Schiavo case is very much a matter of at all costs establishing a benchmark. A test case for the right to die. This is precisely after the manner of Rowe versus Wade (1973): where facts were the last thing under consideration, and pure ideology meant everything. The ideology of nihilism, of death. While an interesting aside is that the supposedly epic-conservative Fox Network sounds, on balance, to be suspiciously pro-death in its treatment of the case. Showing us where the hidden loyalties of its hip-boot corporate-American sponsors really lie. While today there is likewise fast developing an ethos, a sort of super-machismo, of death whereby professional operatchiks of all sorts—lawyers and judges, psychiatrists, nurses and doctors, lower-level “health care professionals"—in other words America's hyper-sanctified—yearn to carve out a name for themselves—a sort of “notch on their gun”—as having counseled, or been a proud party to, someone’s, anyone’s, “legal” demise. A macabre sense of their own power which is gradually but relentlessly taking over all stratas of American life and official policy alike.

Just visit your local group home or nursing home, and watch the staff, not the patients, for evidence of the BTK-like infernal and bizarre. Although in this humane world the word “patients” was twenty-five years back already thought to be too deprecating, having been with signature lock-step discipline back by the highly-deferential “clients”. A term no doubt coined somehow—with a ringing eureka!—in between epic bouts of barbarous trivialization and mistreatment of some immortal soul, at some such facility. A name which then spread like wildfire among corporate boards-of-directors and grave administrators and floor supervisors of every stripe. A highly-professional term which however was just not imposing enough to convey the ironclad bubble of self-importance in which these functionaries live and move. The new and self-sanctifying nominative having escaped me entirely—insignificant dog that I am—a word which manages to lodge especially well in minds with a rare sense of the sardonic which I myself do not possess.

Hence too, in the somewhat similar world of ‘70s welfare moms, was a distracted Rowe prevailed upon to sign a document whose significance she didn’t grasp, and to whose purpose she would have been entirely opposed, had she understood it. But the ruse was to be thrown back in her teeth as “the breaks of the game” by the avant-garde death squads of anti-life of 1973.

An incredible chain of lies, distortions and telescoping tyrannies lies at the murky base of the Schiavo case, many of them detailed in commentary-pieces below. A “right to death” case which will inevitably go from “begging an inch to taking a mile”: capable of being legally-developed later to Auschwitz-like proportions of the patently non-voluntary. Among the hordes of Bush-regime-enabled corporate-anti-life lawyers. If I can capture the picture in a brief capsule: (1) Terri was evidently assaulted by her husband—and/or perhaps even by her own brother, who was present, either alone or with the former, for a protracted period of time—after she had informed the former that she was going to leave him. An encounter which left her with severe head trauma and bone fractures. This by written witness of “document of origin” attestations gathered at the scene and adjudicated and recorded shortly thereafter. (2) These latter were however somehow very quickly sidelined by the courts: this in favor of the ad libbed story of an estranged husband with a roving eye. Much as happened in Arizona with similar damning evidence some thirty years ago when a well-placed man’s son had murdered a classmate in front of most of a graduating class. (3) This miscarriage of both evidence and justice is no doubt and in turn a result of the taking-under-advisement of the whole matter by the Florida “right to die” people. Who have their own kind of uncanny “roving eye” for a winning homicidal contender, so that the unimpeded “progress” of the case was thereafter all but a foregone conclusion. Something many of us pro-life people could “feel in our bones” was forthcoming after the conviction of the “right to die” Dr. Kavorkian: which we were convinced was only a disarming legal sop before the finally death-advocacy assault. (Note of 04/09: I haven’t kept up with this issue as well as I would like, but I remember some barely-acknowledged court-reversals of the non-conventional verdict only a couple of years later). (4) In the case before us among these lies and distortions are the statements about “19 judges” having sat in judgment on the Schiavo matter at various levels: a number overwhelmingly composed however of individual members of panels that refused to even look at the evidence. While the various doctors reports—supposedly also of unprecedented numbers—were likewise mostly done by physicians who had never seen Terri. This is obviously corporate-catering, judge-buying litigation at its furthest stretches of death-dealing chicanery. While furthermore (here being a later editorial comment) it is also interesting that there is now (as long ago at least as the Fall of 2005) a (well-rewarded, after the manner of the celebrated head of FEMA?) Schiavo—an obvious close-relative of Terri’s husband—somewhere at the head of the Florida disaster-relief bureaucracy. But among those who have examined the facts—including a Nobel-prize nominee in the very medical field at question—the outrage over the drawn-out murder, and the obviously-criminal court-politicization which has made it all possible, is hard to convey. (5) Furthermore, there were no CAT-scans or other such up-to-date evaluative measures employed—the ultimate court-admitted exams having all along been pre-Civil-War or even near-Neanderthal in their levels of competence. (6) Finally, there is this matter of an Eichmann-like legal “telescoping”: by which the criminally-induced deteriorating condition of Terri—who at first could still do many normal things—and was even considered a kind of "live wire" at the different facilities where she was kept - this heinous neglect was not only not remedied or sought-penalty-for but rather in fact used as an ongoing pretext or excuse for repeated court-ordered efforts to put her to death. Something vaguely akin to the sort of diabolically-circular, conundrum-oriented justifications we have grown to expect from today’s War Hawks and torturers, bolstered by expensively-promoted secrecy-doctrines of all kinds.

Plainly what we have today is not only a “dumming down” but also a “doing to death” of America. Perpetrated by our enemies, both foreign and domestic. In fact it constitutes a state of war in which only the just are forbidden to bear arms.

The big point here, as suggested, besides the latter ever-present state-of-war, is that nobody involved in this hijacking of a human life cares if these lies and distortions are uncovered later on. Like Bush’s War, as long as they can establish their fait accompli, their grizzly and all-but-immovable “legal” benchmark, they are satisfied. An indifference evident in the Rowe vs. Wade protagonists of the early 70s: who had an insolent, sing-song “tough luck” cant to throw at Ms. Rowe, when she not that long ago finally met with a degree of success in her epic efforts to publicize what had been done to her, how she had been used. Having been criminally misrepresented to justify a perverted, diabolical culture of death which she hated as much as do we.

 

March 22, 2005: Send me your tired, your poor, your wretched masses yearning to be free….I raise my lamp beside the Golden Door.

 

Little Jessica came from such a tempest-tossed world, but she found no such refuge. There was no place for innocence personified on these shores, and goodness revisited in “the American Dream”. And there are countless other little girls who had their own kind of magnificent smiles, redolent of the fragrance of Eden, and from whom these smiles were taken, “beside the Golden Door”.

The woman who posed for the Statue of Liberty is sometimes said to have been a Paris prostitute. Whether this is vicious rumor or not, I don’t know. But I do know that were the lady at the harbor to be rededicated; were this bit of sculpture, of iconography, to be slightly modified, and to become a real and indomitable symbol of liberty—but this time the liberty of the children of God—a symbol of Holy Mother Church, and of Catholic social, economic and political doctrine—that then the Jessica’s of this world, and the Terri’s, would find a safe harbor here. In a land with its own name for a change: not one stolen from a whole hemisphere. One renamed The Refuge. The Refuge of Our Lady.

 

March 21, 2005: Terri Schiavo’s husband is trying to cover up his attempt to kill her sixteen years ago.

 

There are reams of testimony that plainly lead to that conclusion. For one thing, the only physical evidence she bore on her body to account for her condition were head trauma and bone fractures. All this stuff about “heart attacks” and “eating disorders”—as well as the “19 judges” and um-teen doctors’ examinations—all this is sheer tripe, and hype. From an institutionally-supported murderer. Assertions with absolutely no evidence to back them up except the husband’s (avant-garde and thus by definition admirably humane) pontifications. Furthermore, the day before her initial hospitalization she told her mother of her intention to inform Michael she was leaving him. At 4:30 the next morning she was found by the police, in the noted condition. All this accords perfectly with facts of abuse and neglect, mentioned below, that would follow on the heels of the above, perpetrated over a period of some sixteen years.

Thus there is much indeed at stake for Mr. Schiavo, causing him to carefully keep Terri from recovering: by hook, by crook or by injunction. That distinct possibility of rehabilitation which was a certainty sixteen years ago, and which has repeatedly been maintained by real rather than phantom or compromised doctors, and other experts well acquainted with this and similar cases. Indeed, this sort of positive prognosis is old hat among medical-media viewers: even though there will always be found a bevy of doctors and health-care people to maintain the most pessimistic of forecasts, out of nothing other than their incredible, inimitable sense of undertaker-like self importance. Members of a field—together with that of an epic-lugubrious psychiatric- media-commentary—which has marked megalomaniacal propensities: having long ago stopped resembling the old mature, common-sense Doc on Gunsmoke. All involving too the stubborn maintenance of lucrative “turf”: that ugly anomaly that now drives so much of American life, and which takes in the bulk of our many compromised “legal experts” as well. Not a few of whom wouldn’t object over a court-swallowing of the bulk of American life whole: leaving in the place of the “teeming masses” some stone monument to the god of death.

Thus if Terri recovers she may testify forthwith to what actually happened to her that night. The sort of things against which so many so strangely “stop their ears”, precisely like the Pharisees in the Gospel. Just as continues to be the case regarding the true facts of September 11: in place of which so many would rather have a kangaroo-court, race-and-religion-hatred-motivated fable. That which we can always count on to jump to the defense of corporate-catering “American way of life”. While if the trauma of that night has blotted most of it from Terri’s memory, she may at least provide enough circumstantial clews to fill in the picture: one which hardly needs to be filled in much further. So that if the truth ever comes out her monster-husband will be up for attempted murder, conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud and no doubt a host of other criminal accusations. But don’t hold your breath over any of this, in a model “rule of law” United States, enforcing its Jolly Roger justice on the seven seas.

Of course, these are not the things you hear about first in cases like this. It has taken some amount of digging to find these facts on the internet; although they were at length—no doubt only after a few of us “bloggers” had unearthed them—revealed in the nightly Scarborough show. After which they have not been heard, to my knowledge, since. (Although I must admit that I haven’t really looked yet: since a diet of the media—or the freak/porn-advertising internet—first thing in the morning would make me sick for the rest of the day.) But because of these damning pieces of evidence a top New York Medical Examiner concluded that she had obviously been beaten. And furthermore all of this is part of the official record, having been duly commented upon at the time. Do we have the Mob involved here? If so, then after a whole century and more—since the days of the Tweed Gang—there has finally been found a Republican who will stand up to them. Let’s hope this is the case: and the beginning of the turning of a truly-heroic new leaf by George Bush. But the whole farce in Florida shows the degree to which it is a death state; and the degree we take seriously the butchers and judge/executioners involved shows how much we have become a death society.

 

March 21, 2005: Any “law” against life is ipso facto null and void.

 

The action of President Bush and the bi-partisan coalition in giving Terri Schiavo another chance is a long-in-coming recognition that no law or court action which wantonly takes human life can be valid enacted or legally binding. In fact anyone who does whatever he can (of course in as orderly a way as possible and necessary) to prevent its execution is doing a virtuous and civic-minded deed. All the more-so a duly-constituted President and Congress who do so. This direct immediacy-of-applicability of law and truth—especially in defense of life—is indeed a principle so deeply enshrined in immemorial human law since Hammurabi that it shouldn’t even need reiteration. No jurist since the ancient Mesopotamian would have even contemplated such a barbaric ruling as that which came forth repeatedly out of the anti-life Florida courts. Nor of the right of any citizen or official to withstand it. Which is a measure of the moral, and especially the judicial, backwardness of our “progressive” times. Whose much-vaunted futurism is more and more like a spaceship full of lobotomites obeying a maniacal judiciary-captain’s barked commands, as in the old movie The Black Hole.

 

March 20, 2005: Ashley Smith’s privacy.

 

Is this day when the right to “privacy” of every abortion-seeking woman, or of every feeding-tube jerking husband, is rigorously mandated by our courts, is this the way we treat the most ordinary privacy-rights of such a heroine? Have we a right to know every little detail of her sometimes-difficult life? Ashley Smith is really a victim of the system very much after the manner of the Black man she bore with so compassionately. And so she has to be brought down a peg or two by the racists and other bureaucratic-elitists who run it. So the machine can go its accustomed uninhibited way in grinding out its brutal sort of “justice”. And forget that forbidden words like mercy and kindness were every uttered in connection to the pursuit of a felon, or found on the lips of commentators on American TV.

 

March 19, 2005: Terri Schiavo.

 

In the case of Terri Schiavo the controversy over life comes back to roost here in the United States: a land which has been championing the cause of anti-life for several decades now: whether in domestic or foreign policies, in Congress or at the U.N. This culture-of-death meeting us today everywhere we turn, and most insidiously and disturbingly of all in the very way we deal with one another on a day-to-day basis—at home, on the job, at school. For this kind of black-heartedness clings to everything we say and do, and colors our lives forever thereafter. But thankfully we now see some Democrats joining with the Republican leadership—the latter in spite of a pro-war record which is nearly as bloody in its own way as the Democratic championing of anti-life—and the two together being mobilized to pro-life action by this evocative case. One involving a woman obviously very much alive, and full of love and good will, who is about to be candidly put to death by her own husband: so far have we progressed as a nation, as a society, that such a thing is even thinkable or possible here. The couple having won two million dollars in a medical malpractice suit, money meant to be used for Terri’s rehabilitation from a temporary heart-stoppage she had suffered (editorial note: this media-ubiquitous assertion later found to be false. Rather was she beaten nearly to death). The prognosis was good for her ample recovery: she was at first still able to talk and had many of her other normal powers as well. But years of neglect rather than therapy—punctuated by her spouse’s attempts to have her life “legally” terminated”—have naturally seen her condition deteriorate to an enormous degree. A husband who had suddenly “remembered” (but only after the two million had been awarded and he had developed a “roving eye” for young and fully-able women) that Terri, before the heart-stoppage, has once mused that she wouldn’t want to be kept artificially alive were she to become “brain-dead”. So that there were to be found judges who could twist the facts of the case to fit such a homicidal moral enormity, and rule in favor of such a monstrous lie, to terminate a human life. Which today means less than that of your neighbor’s dog in our courts.

Terri’s steadily-deteriorating condition—not being given some of the most basic care required by anyone who is grievously ill—is dramatically evident in photos taken over this fifteen-some year long period. So that this steady decline—of an originally robust-if-injured woman—together with the several court decisions that have allowed for the “feeding tube” to be removed—amount to a drawn-out, grizzly conspiracy of murder, between spouse and the courts. Her husband having all along used as an excuse for all of this what amounts to the tired, twisted old version of “privacy” which has been the familiar battle cry of the anti-life left since the late sixties. In a society in which privacy otherwise means so little that all our children are mentally—if not physically—raped in the schools and over the media before they reach puberty. A cause whose mostly-Jewish elitist champions invade the privacy of the common citizen regularly and with an Orwellian high-handedness of the most insolent kind. Privacy for these people meaning strictly the ability to kill with impunity, and to otherwise sin without shame or impediment.

This business of hale and hearty family members going about in glorious levels of “privacy” determining the futures of to-varying-degrees vulnerable spouses, parents or siblings: this phenomenon, although present to a degree before, veritably ballooned into prominence here in the USA during the 60s and 70s. Actually, it all began about the same time as the other moral and organizational aberrations written about in these pages: anomalies which seem to have commenced like so many demented sprinters from the gun-shot starting line of the assassination of John Kennedy. Within a parallel national state of trauma/vulnerability which reached its peak with the gunning down of his brother Robert, five years later. It seems that being done violence to—especially having violence done to one’s life or liberty by inscrutable “betters” and the supposedly “solicitous”—became the leitmotif of American life thereafter. Changes in attitude and practice being inaugurated with harrowing speed: at the end of which period came the notorious Rowe vs. Wade. The ten years of chaotic-but-gradualistic conceptual and perceptual phenomenology having been required for that elite-imposed, court-dictatorial decision not to instantly cause a civil war. Among a People who, almost the day before the noted court decision, hardly claimed the word “abortion” as a part of their vocabulary.

In fact this whole interconnected spectacle is “social engineering” par excellence. Led by a financial elite who already own 99% of the world’s wealth, to whom cash payment means nothing and would in fact be impossible—who already have enough of the baubles that “money can buy”, and who conceive of their commensurate repayment in terms of absolute social and moral control, including peremptory rights of life and death over each and all who must subsist under their remorseless sway. Here being the kind of power which a biblically-forbidden lending at interest—and all the myriad related instruments and policies, cabals and secret-societies, it has brought into being—alone makes possible. Led by an anomalous dual-citizen nationality/religion which regards the rest of us as patently sub-human, or at least sub-Jewish. Indeed as one of the front-running Democratic presidential candidates, I believe it was John Edwards, informed us during the last campaign, it was leftists like himself who candidly imposed homosexual advocacy and other avant-garde schemes upon the American people. A constituency which could never have been brought to defend such fringe-causes by their own free choice. But the whole phenomenon is much larger than even this suggests, and furthermore there is no exit from this blind alley: it just gets darker and darker. As murder, perversity and a culture of death-and-stifling-control become airtight facts of life for us here. And we gradually become thumb-suckingly infantile in our fear and dependency, and murderously imprecise in our moral perceptions.

Hence during the noted period of “judicial activism”—a weird new term in itself for a branch of government originally meant to be only a perfectly-passive reviewer of the law—came not only the rule of the hovering relative but also the very first social acceptability of the sodomite (not as contradictory court/police jargon to be thrown at heterosexual defendants but rather as signifying the very queer inhabitants of Sodom). And this convergence-in-time, too, was far from being a coincidence. For it is of the very pithy essence of the homosexual to rudely or discretely intrude himself/herself into the affairs of others: perhaps especially of the members of his own family. Certainly of anyone who is somehow permanently or temporarily vulnerable to open-ended solicitudes and pseudo-ministrations. And now there would be gradually accumulated a set of rulings which would somehow “enshrine” a kind of sacro-sanctity of “the family” to exercise absolute control over the lives and liberties of its members. The older advocacies at the very base of democracy—the broad fellow-feeling which is its heart and soul, and which will not allow Neanderthal levels of fatherly physical punishment or week-long “lockings in closets”—being destined, in an extreme pitch of irony, to be replaced by a Neo-Nazi-police-state’s: “that’s all for ‘the family’ to decide”. So that last night at the House proceedings one representative would spend two minutes screeching at the top of his lungs that we should “leave his family along”—that such things are “for us (e.g.: him and his family) to decide”. Seeming, hysterically, to have forgotten that no one was after him or his (to remove any tubes or insert them).

In this saga of elite-mandated control we do not in fact progress to “new heights” at all, but rather go backward into the murkiest cellars of the past. Recalling a Byzantine Empire in which younger sons of prominent families were regularly castrated so that there older siblings could attain to higher stations in life unimpeded: not having to share out the family weal (see Norwich trilogy, vol. I and II: 1988, 92). Involving a regimen of forced social change imposed upon the People of the United States during a time of extreme national trauma from several directions social, spiritual and political. A whole vulnerable nation thus brought-under being symbolic of those vulnerable of any kind who are for one thing the classical fall guys in the homosexual moral system. People who, believe it or not, are actually held to deserve their fate by these putative all-knowing paragons. Or to have been placed in the path of these “gays” by a kind of twisted, often pedophilic, not-infrequently freak-incestuous “providence” (One likely alibi being the blaming of such a depraved leading-by-the-hand on genetic factors). While within this burgeoning, murky, sodomy-oriented intervention-ethic—a downward-spirally vortex of mental/emotional debilitation—everything within the life of the subject of such attentions suddenly becomes a matter of urgent concern for the tainted-but-ever-solicitous nuclear-family group. Victims in most cases simply by way of their youth. Typically in favor of some one or two member to whom others “instinctively” turn as character-molders of the highest quality. This under the pale of an insidious, engineered social demolition which has severely blunted our normal perceptions of danger, of right and wrong.

It is no accident that this is the same decade that saw the start of “the Charismatic Movement”: at the head of far-too-many of whose “prayer groups” would with rare persistence be found a highly-fervent, personality-dominant sodomite, male or female. Here being reproduced in many-a church basement of many-a denomination the same sort of suffocating levels of intimacy that were engulfing the American family. Making one think of the 1970s movie—one of the few good ones of that decade (except of course for the Hollywood-mandatory porn-scene)—called The Omega Man. That thriller in which “The Family”—meaning that 99% of the American population which had been mind-altered by some sort of WMD—were barbarically hunting down the last remaining normal people, represented by Charleton Heston and his black female companion. He whose blood—after his self-sacrificial death spirited off in a laboratory sample, Heston himself the while of course easily-symbolic of Christ—was destined to bring the whole nation to a miraculous recovery. But the less-sincere of these “prayer-group leaders” of decades could turn into veritable control-obsessed Eichmanns, given time, cleverly-donned disguises and opportunity: in the many incidents, most carefully kept hidden, some rare few of conspicuous profile. People who did their dirty work quietly, “privately”. Of course “all for the good”—even the “holiness”—of the subject(s) of such attentions. While in families with many grandchildren there could result a veritable army of “gays”—if punctuated here and there by the simply “gay friendly”—as the empowered and admired older relative(s) was (were) commonly turned-to by each and all—under newly-elite-cultivated “instincts”—as the baby-sitter(s)-of-choice. Out of which of course were spawned our “genetically-inherited” and otherwise-inevitability-ridden, phrenological ideas about sodomy. This kind of radical empowerment of course being further inculcated in sitcoms and other family-life serial dramas which would steadily attain sacrosanct status in their creation of ironclad role models: the vast majority of them more-or-less gay-friendly. With those weirdly bi-polar, nebulously-overstepping, vaguely sadistic relationship in which sodomy thrives, and which would replace the balanced friendships and balanced humor of generations past. For instance an innocent-looking but personally-denigrating Andy Griffith Show: in which rank boorishness and petty sarcasm took the place of the kindly humor of The Real McCoys, or of the light-hearted society-building mutual-encouragements of the Nelsons or the Cleavers. (Who were “realistic” enough to know that life has enough of the childish and the sordid as it is, without making them the focus of a TV show). With other examples much worse destined to pave the road of the nightly family viewing, later toward the turn of the Millennium: all paths converging on some moonscape of the unnatural. So that by the end of the seventies—during which the bizarre term “control freak” was first coined—in a generic terminology by which the mental/behavioral world of every sort of pervert or addict would invade the American home—the noted veritable culture of control was initiated. One with which we live in such suffocating levels today. The point having been arrived at that every Tom, Dick and Harry—or surly, bald-headed, cauliflower-eared Aunt Jane—could stick their long nose into your affairs. The extent of its insolence being the measure of the “correctness” of their latest invasion. Can there be any wonder that Muslims flee from our form of “democracy”?

But with respect to whether or not Terri actually “wants” the feeding tube to be removed—by just such a hovering interventionist—it might be that she is still competent enough to be asked about this: not by her husband but rather by someone who definitely wants her to stay alive. For one thing because any least, even any subliminal, indication that her husband wants her dead could kill her own will to live, and would thus be tantamount to murder after an underhanded treachery. Of a kind of an emotional abortion. A sort of “killing me softly” that the noted “hovering relatives” can be so good at.

The way to do this would be to have such a favorable party ask her to indicate her wishes, before a live camera, with a simple blinking of her eyes. One blink means “yes”, two blinks mean “no”. This sort of thing has worked many times with stroke victim and others thus affected.

As suggested, extreme care would have to be taken that the noted procedure is observed, since the motivational element is so critical here. All the while we would like to hope that Terri doesn’t already know that someone so close wishes her to die.

I tried to get word of this idea to those involved in Congress, but was unable to master the intricacies of “getting in touch” in short order time with our legislators. Who have become more and more cushioned from the thoughts and ideas of their constituents, in these times of vaunted democratic advocacy. So maybe someone reading this can get word to someone at the center of this noble Republican endeavor.

 

March 18, 2005: Think-tank geopolitical pessimism.

 

The Western media, together with the many U.S.-based NGOs and “foundations” owned by people like George Soros, present us with a gray and pessimistic assessment indeed when it comes to Russia, the Middle East and Central and Southeast Asia. Amply suggesting that the occupants of that hemisphere with the most oil reserves are utterly incapable of managing their own affairs. Positing the pressing need to “show them how”, with analysts at the many “crisis resolution centers” constructing bleak inevitability-ridden theories to justify “disinterested” interventions of every kind. To which Hegelian exercises are added, as a roaring catalyst, the lies and deletions of the media: as in its “24/7” coverage of current externally-fueled anti-Syrian demonstrations in Lebanon. To the total neglect of those spontaneous pro-Syrian ones that are at least twice as large. Thus goes the dialectic of a regressive-installment-plan “progress”—and of the bald-faced destabilization of a whole region—all in the name of innocently “counterbalancing” various power-blocs, and so on. So intensely do these armchair quarterbacks ponder the globe—scholars who cook the facts of the region to suit artificially-predisposed palates, and throw in the occasional polemical garnish of a CIA-perpetrated assassination, laid generously at the door of some Eurasian “friend”—that we almost feel sorry for them. Imagining them as we do trapped in a self-giving world of hovering solicitudes for Eurasian humanity.

Especially rigorous forms of all these new and rare extremes of altruism are of course American attack squadrons, sodomizing “intelligence agents” and their intimidating prison-yard attack dogs. While we little notice that Soros, the prime representative of those movers who are supposedly against the war in Iraq, feeds us endless propaganda through his vast “Open Society” network—apt phrase that it is for little nations laid bare, borderless and defenseless—that amounts to its most rigorous justification. Motivating men and animals even now said to be chafing on the end of a weakly-held leash, at-the-ready to cross international borders into places like Syria. An excuse toward the invasion of which was all along inevitably going to be found, one way or another. In the high-dudgeon of American self-righteousness: that which, in one way or another, has predominantly determined the shape of the globe for a hundred years. Even as the president-elect of the World Bank, a fang-baring Wolfowitz, readies the financial groundwork for newer stages of the comprehensive, non-stop, ongoing Bush blitzkrieg. That which “thrives on chaos” and a think-tank-driven Calvinist/nihilist sense of no return. In a campy rerun of that “progress”, that Buck-Rogers Futurism which was already morally bankrupt and out of date by the end of the Second World War. Using a dog-eared script actually first written around the turn of the nineteenth century, and containing the dominant sub-theme of the contemporary American Spencerian “survival of the fittest” White Supremacy creed. An age-hoary fantasyland which served just as well the equally-forward-looking ambitions of that day and time.

But there are those of us who are not impressed by epic-heroisms of painfully-self-giving oil-giants and financiers, their Napoleonic congressional politicos or their theory-weaving think-tank protégés. Any more than were others of another generation by a highly-similar, likewise-Zionist-supported, world-finance-driven Hitler war machine: one so well thought of in Skull and Bones circles of the day. A blitzkrieg which of course had equivalent numbers of equally-self-tormenting high-theorists, plying equally complex justifications. We who rather have as our Leader or Fuerer Christ the King: Who “spoke as one having authority”, Who overcame the eternal Sanhedrin and will vanquish the allied modern-day Bush war machine in its own turn as well. He Who, using only the weapons of Truth, will put under His heel the rabid attack-dogs of this putative new order of things. That onslaught led by people who will soon-enough take their places in the graveyard of history beside Nero, Pol Pot and Mao Zhe Dung.

 

March 16, 2005: Pragmatism, Propaganda and Official Legitimacy.

 

Modern governments pride themselves on their Star Trek, brave-new-world realism, supposedly favoring neither morality nor immorality. Oh yes, there can be a species of “idealism”, and certainly of “ideology” in all of this: but not morality. That would be too straight-laced for the brave modern soul. For as the saying goes, “no one should be forced to be moral”: that’s all a matter of “choice”. Even to the point of being able to dispose of one’s unborn offspring as if they were mere sewage, and of ones elders and those on life-support systems as if they were mere cattle. So that under the influence of this new and “free” spirit, more and more of the things we do to one another today are after the manner of an abortion. Perpetrated upon co-workers, family-members, “all that the traffic will bear”. For no matter how neutral and impartial we may pride ourselves on being, it is by our deeds that we rational, moral creatures actually form ourselves, both personally and as a people. And the transformation from a “good Joe” to a Mr. Hyde can be a swift and inexorable one.

Hence at the state level does such an ethical Oakham’s razor go on from there to quickly devolve into a blank-faced the end justifies the means policy-of-choice. But the problem is that the baby thrown out with such bath-water, in this rationalizing about “impartiality” and “objectivity”, is the very substance of state legitimacy itself. That which is radically based on an adherence to moral law. For the human species order is morality and morality is order, all of which is written on the human heart and soul. And history obligingly takes out its hickory stick time and again and teaches us methodically and in large welts and letters what are the broad outlines of this basic lesson. While furthermore the gross neglect of this particular “three R’s” results in a rule not by law but rather by naked power. Since as Bush, Chaney and Blair teach us so well there’s a big difference between the compliance mandated by the coarse epithets of the bully of the block and that called forth by the tones of the old town crier, long familiar to Englishmen and Colonials alike. He whose sonorous “all is well” resonates poorly with the typical coarse accents of the street gang, or of presidential good ole boy hysteria. Such Skull and Bones buccaneers cut out for themselves a broad swath of “territory”: as in that pitch of insolence which is at the very essence of the present-day corporate privatization of government. That state-gangsterism which for instance for a decade, in places like Africa, and now potentially across all of the Middle East and Central Asia, has been in the business of (1) crippling genuine sovereignties, using for that purpose and in close coordination a corporate-controlled press and a bewildering array of special-agent-provoked “incidents”. (2) Graduating from there to a fomenting of revolution in these foreign lands, and then (3) a “patriotic” sending in of mercenaries—or armies checker-boarded with mercenaries—to “divide the spoils” and generate profits. Especially for less-obvious private parties most directively involved. This being the ultimate organized-criminal misuse of the modern system’s vast and impersonal economies of scale: the whole purpose of the state being turned on its head by these means—in a process which is radically illegitimate from the start.

Thus have we come back around full circle, demonstrating that morality is hardly a simple matter of “purely one’s own business”: since a government that doesn’t uphold a fundamental moral code ultimately enforces a candid popular barbarity, and then a polity-righting civil war, these forming the long coat-tails of such very policies. For there is a law to this whole business of human habit by which we either progress or devolve: as we indeed see around us today, in a People as it were bound morally, hand and foot. Among a humanity which can rather quickly be brought to ingratiate some swaggering, verbally-heroic gaggle of Bluebeards, as the past four years since 9/11 have so amply demonstrated. Bringing us as they have what promises to be by far the most complete thralldom ever experienced among men. Such a state becoming candidly evil by this process: and even an “axis of evil” around which the whole world is ultimately brought to giddily turn. Until the cosmic brake is applied of some future Runnymede.

As intimated above, such a swiftly-turning carousel rotates in an opposing direction from the rock-solid doctrine, as old as Faith itself and found word-for-word in the New Testament, that “all authority comes from God”. That which has been accepted for the very beginning by all but the most monstrously wicked and brutal of systems. Of course it remains that the people are indeed the legitimate arbiters of that authority: but that doesn’t mean that God simply rubber stamps the decisions of democracies, no matter how wicked or barbarous they might be. Rather is the emphasis very much here upon the word “God”: strongly signifying that if it isn’t God’s authority—namely, His will—that is at issue, then it isn’t authority at all. So that governments, popular or no, must perform their functions in some semblance of conformity with God’s will, His Spirit, his plan. At least to the degree of their acquaintance with same. While to the degree they willfully depart from the divine roadmap their authority is compromised accordingly, and ultimately capable of becoming completely null and void. And this as much for their own good as for the honor and glory of God. Of course, mainline Western religious leaders nowadays don’t talk about such embarrassing dogmas—rather leaving that to the leader of Iran and other “backward” Muslims like him. Indeed Christian men of the cloth—and makers of movies like The Ten Commandments—tend to give forth the impression that it was poll-driven democracy that was revealed to Moses on Mount Thabor, and that the Decalogue was only a kind of obscure historical footnote to same.

Thus—clever and fanciful ideas or no—it matters little, essentially, how much the Bush media and vote-booth-rigging machine may have near-unanimously convinced the people of the propriety—or even the righteousness--of a certain course of action. If it is patently against the will of God—whether in means employed or ends pursued—it does not constitute legitimate governance and may with heroic virtue be resisted accordingly. All the while too realizing that we depend on the same crooked Machine even for much-vaunted Bush-supportive percentages: but more about that later.

 

March 14, 2005: Serving notice to George W. Bush, his two Administrations and his Skull and Bones associates.

 

Be apprised, those above-mentioned, that I intend someday, if I am elected to the Presidency, genuine law and order once again having been brought to prevail, to prosecute you, through the Department of Justice, to the full extent of the law. For heinous and egregious crimes not only against humanity, but also against your Country. That bringing-to-justice for which those who hold authority “carry the sword”. You will be held up as an example of what lies in wait for those who would put perverse ambition and race- and religion-hatred above all the tenets of law and civilization. While bullying and brainwashing a whole world through a well-rewarded global/corporate polemical apparatus and a prostrate Department of State. And finally I intend to undo what you have perpetrated to the lasting destruction of and discredit to the land that I love.

 

March 14, 2005: Nichols, his angelic one-time captive and the criminal-justice personality-killing machine.

 

After all the hate and hysteria over the real and alleged crimes of Nichols, we see that a healing kindness, understanding and the grace of God were after all what was needed. Not more grim executioners pushing human meat through a legal meat-grinder. That highly-remunerative machine which DNA testing, or the merest dispassionate look at the evidence, so often proves to be dead wrong. That true syndicate which depends upon a certain degree of vice and crime in order to pay a mounting number of salaries. And which systematically goads and brutalizes a growing percentage of the American population: producing in abundance more military drill-instructors who bully or drown their own trainees, and apt candidates as prison-guards and interrogators to staff growing numbers of secret Abu Ghraibs around the globe. This rapidly-accruing popular cruelty and impunity, which so readily pulls itself into a set of hip-boots, more than anything else shows forth the bankruptcy of our system of mammoth, anti-human market/bureaucratic scale. That for which we offer a solution in these pages, as well as in my own candidacy for political office.

 

March 12, 2005: ”Innocent until proven guilty by the unanimous judgment of peers”

 

Brian Nichols is characterized across all the media as having had no respect for law and order, but a review of his life prior to a recent accusation of rape and aggravated sodomy—that term officially used so much today in descriptions of heterosexual alleged-offenders and so little in descriptions of real sodomites—such a review-of-facts nets us no such unruly impression. Rather do we gather the image of a college football star with good grades, a model parishioner, friend and family member: one who by multiple testimonies wouldn’t hurt a flea. That’s what everyone who knew him throughout his life—people in high and low stations—thought of him. And yet Fox News was agog for the first half of Saturday, March 12, in its descriptions of him as being so violent, so cruel, that “four of his friends” felt morally obligated to come forward and “turn him in” for an alleged three day spree of rape and much more. One wonders who these “friends” were.

Similarly, praises abounded for the record-for-fairness of the Fulton County court, between which expressions of united-we-stand solidarity we should however consider the frequency with which the hung-juries of minority defendants end in successful retrials: after prosecutors go home and “do their homework”. This as compared against the outcomes for those who are white and well-heeled, or have some real connection to the criminal underworld. But in fact the bias of our legal system is morally and philosophically toward the innocence of the accused. So that the whole force of the notion of unanimity—which is mostly to prevent hasty convictions—can be undermined if an opposite unanimity is invariably required to acquit. For this is really to remove much of the positive bias toward innocence, if the same rigorous standard is applied to both ultimate outcomes. Where then is the “presumption of innocence”, which only "the unanimous verdict of peers" can overcome? An exalted legal universe which gives no place to modern-day hair-trigger ritual-revenge mechanisms of “law-and-order”-obsessed upper-strata populations, who care not a fig about actual guilt or innocence. For whom a “symbolic” conviction satisfies adrenaline-driven emotions of a gross and adolescent kind. That fine domestic tar-and-feathering sense-of-things which wears so well with a Roy Bean adjudication of a whole Iraqi people.

Hence may this case be yet another example of the erosion here of civil and legal rights, or at the very least of certain legal equities, for targeted-celebrity or other-side-of-the-tracks Blacks and others that aren’t especially-lucky or well-to-do. An erosion that 99% of the time is left un-remarked. But once in a while you find a man in these less auspicious circumstances who is not quite able to resign himself out-of-hand to thus becoming mere ill-considered but politically-valuable “intake” into the criminal justice system. And who “goes berserk” very much after the manner of Nichols. All the while accused mega-molesters and sodomites like Michael Jackson come late to trial whenever they want to, and go on to roam free another day.

And there must be confessed to be another distinct possibility here: namely that of the administration of mind-altering drugs. This by some shadowy figure in an increasingly neo-Nazi-minded official or quasi-official world. That element which always wishes to have another notable Black to vilify. Something to keep the tide of race-hate at high-point: that which was re-inaugurated a decade ago with the O.J. Simpson perfectly-evidence-lacking show-trial. Since to some there simply have not been enough Black serial killers lately to sate our system’s endemic White Supremacy saga of “lower race turpitude”. Certainly, the animus on Fox TV has had racial overtones to it, and was highly-reminiscent of the race-animosities of the late-fifties and early-sixties South. While finally, an element likewise deafeningly excluded from consideration by all these armchair experts is the possibility of an initial criminal conspiracy - by Nichols' "four friends" - to bring accusations forward against him. The sort of thing which is growing increasingly common here: as larger and larger sectors of our society becomes more and more desperately poor, and group- or gang-criminality is turned to by increasing numbers. Whether involving drugs, traffic in stolen goods, identity theft, you name it: and these sinister activities very often requiring a "fall guy" of some kind for their consummation. The machinations of cooperative crime being increasingly familiar to ever-greater numbers of people, as we are impacted as victims of such very things, in various levels of formal and informal malfeasance. Things into whose peripheral edges many run fairly frequently nowadays, and develop a fifth sense toward, and talk about around the kitchen table. But, alas, this is one of the ways in which eligible contenders toward “the American dream” are excluded: so that there is left room for remaining unemployed nephews and uncles of the chosen and willing few.

Somehow, the whole thing brings back to me a college classroom here in Arizona some years ago, and a black man who was a local lawyer teaching a class I was attending. This professor had all the usual earmarks of black success: most notably to me that peculiar ceaseless stern sarcasm that ever seems to generously embellish the entryway here to this kind of status for that race. But in that class was also an aspiring ghetto Black, as you could tell from his colorful language and manner. To me there was no comparison between the two, the latter winning any competition hands down with his supposed better: whose personality was by contrast as stiff and unyielding as a board. And who constantly and shamelessly used his counterpart as a foil to show forth his own vaunted superiority. All of this has echoes among the bevy of Blacks brought into government at high and low levels with the two Administrations of George W. Bush. While in stark contrast it was the ghetto-Blacks to whom John Kennedy’s heart went out: as well as to those true and heroic leaders, like Martin Luther King and many of his associates, that they had at that time. A President slain in the deep South largely for his very championing of the Black race being today however systematically excluded from a contrived pantheon of Civil Rights proto-heroes. John and Robert Kennedy—both slain in the same cause—being coldly excluded in the vast majority of panel discussions and amphitheater-sized meetings among today’s prominent Black leadership. In favor of people who would lay the highly-bureaucratic groundwork for today’s onerous system of insidious Uncle Tom exclusions. With the Rev. Jesse Jackson summarily excising the two good brothers from all consideration in one fairly-recent discussion of the same watershed decade of the sixties.

 

March 4, 2005: Byrd and Kennedy are right on the beam.

 

The Bush family has been fomenting war since the mid-19th century, through their opium-running, king-making Skull and Crossbones connection. Numerous generations of the clan have since belonged to that secret society, one whose symbolism tells us with juvenile simplicity of its dedication since the early 1800s to piracy and privateering. No doubt there is implied some ideological connection to the late-sixteenth century life on the high seas of Drake, Cabot and others, who advanced Protestantism at the edge of the sword, invading Spanish-American commerce and carrying away the precious metals for which others had toiled. And all these elements are to be found in the present-day policies of George W. Bush, as they were in those of his father, whether in the CIA or later in the presidency. The Skull and Bones group having as well and beyond question coordinated the Kennedy assassinations at their highest levels of intrigue, the reward for which has been slated to be enjoyed by a succession of Bones-appointed, fraudulently-elected Bush-presidential dictators or de facto monarchs.

Because of people like the Bushes it is no accident that our society has been becoming more and more piratical in its whole tone and tenor since the death of John Kennedy: with a multiplication of bandana’d and ear-ringed denizens of every stripe, and every mode of behavioral barbarity. From every sexual excess to the Bones-inseparable dope-pushing. (A clue to the reason Afghanistan was the first place to be attacked in the “war on terror”: after which the flow of heroine was released entirely from the rigors of Taliban interdiction). The Bones ascendancy having for at least a century brought about a gradual extinction of the Western, Christian way of life, while the real genius of this plan is that its chief protagonists disguise themselves as the friends of Christianity, even as being born again. In that form of religion which is especially adept at saying “Lord, Lord”, all the while “their hearts are far from Him”. Yet the greatest coup of all of this high-level Bush/Bones-constituency is that by dint of their own very terroristic/piratical audacity they “meet us coming and going”, inaugurating a dense maze of freedom-inhibitive citizen-surveillance. Thus enabling bondage-like control-obsessions for which pirates have always been especially notorious.

The important point here is that these people will have war one way or another, of course to the stirring strains of a false but carefully concocted patriotism. For in close conjunction with the advancement of their idea of the national good they are also furthering that piratical sort of neo-con commerce which is their very first real loyalty. All the above being very much Hitlerian in nature, so that senator Byrd does extremely well to identify these people for who they are, to at last begin to draw such apt comparisons.

For there is a much worse probability to forestall. Namely the distinct likelihood that these same Skull and Crossbones associates will, if we don’t step lively enough to their Scotch/secret-society jig, jump the fence and back some other contender. If we, with the help of Catholic social and political teaching and the Two Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, don’t stop them cold here and now. People who were indeed actually allied with Nazi aims and ambitions before and even during World War II, and before that with the Secessionists during the Civil War. These ready turncoats could very easily make all our imaginary fears come true about the Arabs, throwing their supra-national weight behind them instead of us. Especially since the ever-in-favor Zionists—bankrollers and bosom confederates of the Skull and Bones—can as easily side with one side as with the other, in the attainment of their own closely-associated aims. Even as it is my considered opinion that the same Skull and Bones, who have never had any scruple about the shedding of human blood, were directly responsible for the debacle of 9/11. Especially considering the quick capital, cash, and poured-in-concrete corporate/political power they garnered to themselves from out of the whole horrendous event. So that the important thing is to express our solidarity with our human-racial brothers across the seas right now, whomever they be. And thus in some ways to obviate the thrust of the treasonous Skull and Crossbones conspiracy (as in the word piracy. No we needn’t be paranoid to see that there are other people besides the dark-skinned who know very well, and for centuries, how to conspire.)

Too, and as partially alluded to below, the discipline maintained by the bloody Skull and Bones crew is based on intimate personal violations, typically having to do with sex. Thus are Bones members initiated at Yale through the eliciting of confessions of sexual experiences of every kind before and during teenage years. And in some or even all cases being subjected to sadistic sex-rituals as well: as for instance is amply recorded in the case of Adolph Hitler, during initiation ceremonies of the sister-cabal, the Thule Society, which still flourishes on the other side of the sea. Hence a certain abject quality discernible in all these verbally-brave people, an ability above all to be blackmailed. And likewise an obvious connection to places like Abu Ghraib, existing at both identified and clandestine locations across the entire globe. Bones will-vitiating self-revelations no doubt continuing permanently after the sordid "initiation", since once such a personality-breach is made it is typically never closed, but is only widened by the years. Thus too notice the pixy-gait of so many of these high level Skull and Bones leaders, whose family names can be discovered (at least at this date) at http://www.ciagents.com/content/view/27/41/.

Plainly, friends and fellow world citizens, there is no escaping these ballot-box-stuffing, citizen-and-voter-intimidating people. They must be met and dealt with, as one would do with a deadly snake. Byrd and Kennedy are right on the beam, and highly-charitable in only drawing allusions to the Nazi leadership.

 

March 4, 2005: Kyrgyzstan’s “repression” of its many U.S.-supported “spin-doctors”.

 

More often than not nowadays both the issue of freedom of the press and of the separation of church and state have little to do in practical terms with any egregious attempts by governments to control people’s opinions or beliefs regarding doctrine, ideology or politics. Rather at question with most governments now being condemned by our State Department for F.O.P. and F.O.R. breeches are serious concerns over the power of modern U.S.-supported, corporate-controlled high-tech vehicles of dissemination to completely overpower the reasoned conviction of the local citizenry. Whether in regard to economic or political issues or the religious patrimony of the land. While such issues loom especially large at times of great national importance, as during the ongoing tumultuous, Western-NGO-ridden pre-election-period in Kyrgyzstan. Another little nation which sits astride U.S. interests in the heroine-route, oil-rich region, and whose highly-educated leader is under bitter attack with respect to a host of accusations by several foreign-controlled newspapers and other media.

It comes as no surprise that the Bush Administration would be the staunchest attacker against governments thus beset: the USA being the very castle from which emerge the word-smithing paladins who do irreparable damage to these little underprivileged, defenseless states. Using that tongue—or its equivalent the pen—which the proverb names as both the best and the worst thing known to man. Being capable when exercised kindly and candidly of healing mortal breeches, but with equal facility in cunning or malice erecting insurmountable divides of hatred and prejudicial misinformation. By such means bringing down even the most justly and prudently-governed of states. While also not surprising is the fact that the Administration and a closely-supportive (aside from an occasional harmless “lovers’ quarrel”) U.S. media downplay the effects of these psychological-warfare attacks of NGOs and other American-supported, largely-foreign opinion-makers. The U.S. and the externally-owned corporate-controlled press concentrating instead on alleged abuses of governments against “opposition forces”. Although these sovereign states are arguably only desperately attempting to brace themselves against verbal and psychological tsunami waves of mammoth proportions, originating mostly on these shores.

But we must be thankful to Bush and associates for bringing the issue of the external attack on institutions into a long-needed bold relief. Allowing us to consider for instance the fates of Catholic nations, and indeed of the very Church itself, since the issue was first raised—and similarly misconstrued—at Vatican II. That council of some forty years ago in which the radicals carried the field in this as in so much else. A synod which since those halcyon days has perpetuated itself as an institutional dreadnought all-its-own: spearheading an invasion—for all its egalitarian eloquence—of upper and upper middle class sovereignty-vitiating capitalist values completely at odds with what had for immemorial ages been before. So that the happenings of recent history since the council, both inside and outside the Church, all tend to confirm in trebled terms, if by default, the sacred right of the state as the formal, institutional representative of the people to protect the moral, religious, ideological climate which they hold dear. Precisely that official liberty which the Council denied governments: if within that synod’s usual waffling, notoriously-imprecise terms. But even the introduction of mere hesitancy is quite enough in such cases, since the least loss of firm resolution with regard to the popular patrimony, religious or secular, is enough to precipitate a national “identity crisis” of major proportions. A bankrupting of that native sense-of-things which more than anything else—far more certainly than stock options or the latest commercialized fad—is the subject-matter of patriotism. Nations having armies and regulatory agencies most especially in order to keep this irreplaceable national heritage safe from those who would deface it. Else the nation in a very real sense cease to exist. That fate over which few multinational corporations—who operate as totalitarian states all-their-own—would shed many tears. While conversely it is only the gradual, organic modification of such profound institutions by the people themselves that is valid: in an arena in which the subliminal twists and turns of “the medium is the message” word-smiths, whose bosses trade on the New York Stock Exchange, have no place.

Indeed and as suggested today’s Catholic Church could be pointed to as the prime example of the deadly consequences of spin-doctors run wild in our time. A Church for decades positively overrun by its enemies: bringing in their train externally-pious protégés with however little real knowledge of the Faith. A situation tailor-made for the sex-abuse scandals and other anomalies of our day. A re-awakening regarding all such little-discussed matters of self-identification, which always have a disproportionately-grave effect upon both church and state, being indeed much of the purpose of these pages.

 

February 28, 2005. The new status of polls: representative government replaced by an alliance of the media, racism, popular hysteria and corporate power.

 

Tony Blair, George Bush and respective legislative supporters have since 9/11 gotten their way basically through a media-misinformation-sustained appeal against legislative due process in favor of sentiments revealed among participants in polls: these typically being commercially conducted. This is often celebrated as a triumph of some sort of “direct democracy”, but the problem is that the whole thing is based entirely upon a sort of gratuitous trust which has few means of dependable verification. While even if the polls are “statistically representative” and honestly reported they are as it were the very opposite of a consultative consensus: that sacred public commodity which has been at the very heart of self-government from time immemorial. Rather are they typically only highly-sentiment-laden “gut-responses” to often-enough poorly-phrased and answer-suggestive questions. Concerning issues today which are invariably and at one and the same time dauntingly-complex and highly emotive and even volatile in character. A blank-facedly hyper-polemical mechanism at best, these polls tread dangerously close to that mob-rule territory the desire of whose avoidance lies at the very foundation of government in the first place.

Then too there is the question: who really answers polls? I know of my own hesitancy to do so, as well as that of several others of my close acquaintance, who like me tend to shy away from unnecessary self-revelations, from the ad hoc trusting of thoughts and sentiments to others we don’t know. So that there argues accordingly the distinct likelihood that polls are for the most part answered by a certain segment of the population, and range of personality-types, and thus even arguable by people of a certain gamut of opinions or tenor of political instincts. Yet this whole nebulous, questionable-valuable phenomenon threatens essentially to take the place of the deliberations of legislative law; indeed showing signs of having already become a sort of lynch-mob “justice” which quickly and easily finds close-cousin echoes on the job, in the neighborhood, in the local store or school.

Thus as executive-order debris riding on this cacophonous, violently-babbling opinion-brook is the latest attempt of the Blair regime to mandate the most draconian of measures in England against mere subjects of suspicion of terrorism. A concept which we have of course seen criminally abused innumerable times since the Trade Tower Crashes, the Blair-sponsored bill in general uncannily duplicating those powers assumed via executive order by the Bush Administration at year’s end, during post-election euphoria, under the informal and highly-inaccurate title of “Patriot Act II”. A measure on the Thames which for a change met a decisive and courageous check in Parliament, but which however may soon-enough show up less-obtrusively in some form of executive decree. A recourse stoutly justified—as has become standard procedure on both sides of the Atlantic—by ways of the same radical empowerment of the surface feelings of what are easily the most policy-illiterate and motivationally-facile sectors of both populations.

All these are only so many ominous signs of the ongoing, unspoken abandonment, on both sides of the Atlantic, of the genuine instruments of popular government. Consultative tools which have nothing at all in common with mob-rule or spur-of-the-moment impulse but rather conspire toward the arrival at a patient and laborious consensus. Giving due credit not only to patriotism and strategy but also to the often-times painfully-complex morality-issues so definitive to the lasting resolution of both foreign and domestic affairs. In a policy-arena which demands many minds and hearts for its proper conduct; one ill-suited to spectacles of race-vendetta or sovereign-level revenge. A noble court of the sort we would wish to leave to our children and grandchildren: one whose self-restraint might at times be tryingly difficult to maintain, but within whose bounds we all-the-more-surely sense our own very happiness and long-term security and safety to reside. The voice of conscience, echoing amid such a chambers of state, gaining much from the reinforcement, demur or reprehension of others: while by contrast too-easily becoming faint and feeble indeed within the solitude of one’s own thoughts, especially when reacting to the misstatements and over-simplifications of pollsters. A true popular governance rather paying dividends in sustainable policies and just and maintainable peace-settlements, involving a rational collaboration within the immemorial colloquial wisdom of peoples. The dismantling of which is the real death of democracy, that ongoing tragedy which we consider at length throughout these pages and publications. And for which we prescribe a philosophically-profound, detailed and thoroughgoing remedy. Countering a steady corrosion of incalculable things which has far more to do with corporate power, mob-paranoia and white racism than with any dangers emanating from the peoples of the Middle East or Southeast or Central Asia. Let alone from your next-door neighbor. So that we wage battle here against the phenomenon of government by a charismatic, even demagogic personal leader holding direct sway over a certain voluble percentage of poll participants, and this being accepted as “democracy in action”. And forthwith resulting in the most sweeping and unprecedented species of despotic rule.

 

February 28, 2005: A geo-proposal: a new strategic alliance between Croatia and Russia.

 

Croatia might do well to propose to Russia a joining-of-forces economic and strategic: an alliance which might promise catalytic developmental advantages for both countries, and indeed for Europe and the world as a whole. In an across-the-board match-up by the terms of which Russia could ultimately get close-at-hand, low-transport-cost access to Western European markets: this together with any number of favorable synergetic co-utilizational arrangements at superb and sorely-needed Dalmatian “warm water ports”. Even as in return a credit-starved Croatia could no doubt secure investment monies from an oil-revenue cash-rich Moscow: supplying in the process the paucity of such incentives from Croatian neighbors to the North and West. Nations which of late are chronically short of ready cash. While avoiding the worst consequences as well of a threatening denial of Croatian EU accession: indignant threats of refusal continuing because of Croatia’s non-inclination to go on some sort of global manhunt for an unjustly-accused General Gotovina. Indeed, even Serbia could become a beneficiary of this economic/strategic alliance, if she could only forget her revanchist dreams of fancifully-construed Serbian-phonetic place-names deep in the heart of Croatia. (And of course, for the idea to get off the ground at all, Russia would have to stop encouraging her in this direction.) While the rest of the "Balkans" would no doubt profit handsomely by such an unprecedented arrangement as well: one made more feasible by a Serbia perhaps ready at last to realize that she has too often been “taken for a ride” on the thermal updrafts of a radically-self-seeking Anglo/American-sponsored policy-world. For whose omelet the cracking of a few Serb and Croat eggs has always been considered well worth the trouble involved.

Especially encouraging toward such a joint multi-level relationship as well is the fact that Putin’s new Russia is no longer owned and controlled by the same old financial/political Oligarchy crowd as in Russian/Croat privatization sour-deals-gone-by. While of course as an added bonus Croats would have little to fear from Russian operatives in the performance of some rerun of Abu Ghraib, in penalty for real or imaginary security breaches or partnership infractions. The no-nonsense northern Bear—despite ceaseless Bush-Administration alarm—having little real liking for such things.

Of equal significance to the above, both Russia and Croatia are lands that really do care about their pristine resources, and don’t just talk about ecology and conservation, the way some in Europe and across the Atlantic do. Perhaps by such a remodeling of the Euro-dynamic we could even expect to see a new “bill of rights” for energy deposits and rare species of all phyla, spreading in Slavo-concentric circles across both sea and land. In a powerful, this time global, re-assertion of an age-old Slavic love of soil and sea, of the things they contain and produce and of those creatures which find their home therein. That pre-disposition so amply signaled in Croatia’s much-contested Adriatic ecological zone: that by which she made no “political statement” at all, but only showed a generous willingness to take upon herself the heavy burdens of defense of the pristine but highly-fragile biodiversity of the region.

 

February 27, 2005: Up-to-the-minute falsehoods.

 

Listening to the media over the past week the chief folly I found constantly promoted there was the idea that man is invincible and needs no one: that enormous presumption which is at the very heart of the laissez faire creed. That erroneous fountainhead of which the neo-con talk shows are such a geyser-like source. From these guys typically of wide-girth who have so obviously cut themselves a large slice of this earth’s pie, peddling a self-serving dogma that for most practical purposes has taken the place of Christianity here. This idea that we human beings, who come into this world more helpless than any other creatures, who thereafter depend abjectly upon others for our education and moral upbringing, who are in need of the most densely-complex of social, political and economic structures throughout our lives—and especially as we grow older—in order to function adequately at all—that we are nonetheless “rugged individualists” who must “make our own way”. This one of two or three of the most-singularly-enormous lies ever glibly pronounced between two sets of well-polished teeth. This unfailing social caustic even prompting the more honest to say, in more honest moments, with the householder of the Holy Gospel, “an enemy has done this”. As no more economic-yield-reducing admixture of spurious conceptual cockle could have been added to the seed of organizational truth. An approach to life which—again in all-important practical terms—has produced a whole generation of workers and businessmen who cheat and short-change you at every turn. Of repairmen you pay out the nose and who leave you with a gravely-defective, sub-standard job. Maybe even worse than the disaster you had before. Since as everyone knows it isn’t really “hard work” that matters in such a “self-reliant” economic scenario, but rather the “smart play”, the more-and-more-universal advancement-aiding sexual liaison, the “one-up-manship” that is positively murderous in its ultimate economic and societal consequences.

The second greatest falsehood of today—among those many I have heard reiterated over the past week on our glorious media stations—is closely related to its above cousin. The belief namely that “the law is not to be identified with the law of God”. That the former didn't develop out of the latter, but rather grew up entirely independently of same. That there is some sort of razor-sharp distinction here: "the law" being indeed regarded as in many way sterling and even pure, compared to which the law of God is regarded as being sadly “subjective” and prejudicial in character. So that in light of such an idea one would think that the revelation of the Savior—that from which we most dependably receive this law of God—is some kind of factional opinion, and is most likely to end in strife and injustice. For highly-exaggerated differences between major tenets of the various confessions are said to constitute insurmountable obstacles to the formulation of just and universally-applicable human law. So that we are counseled to trust exclusively to the abstract or statistically-modeled ideas of our latest legal experts as the sources of all political and organizational wisdom. And to the tender mercies of the latest sodomy-minded collegiate departments or Planned Parenthood for the ethical underpinnings of interrogation procedures, domestic legislation or Supreme Court-rulings.

The urgent occasion for some of these pronouncements of political and media figures is the present-day critical state of world affairs, requiring that pure ideology yield for us fruits of which it is little capable. College departments or the ACLU being insistently importuned to put into less-disturbing perspective such horror stories as Abu Ghraib and a host of other abuses inseparable from the Bush Administration's assumption of unprecedented new plenipotentiary powers. Or failing that to give us some rational or even patriotically-pious-sounding excuse for continuing all the Dr. Jeckle-like activities. But here’s the rub: in that the road to the Auschwitz-like facility was smoothly paved with the same oblivion to the law of God so assiduously advocated by these media-hosts and functionaries. For in the last analysis there is more involved here than just philosophy, theory or salesmanship: that which is most lacking being a sense of moral outrage. Something of which these very sorts of leaders and academics—by the very siren-song of their cynical and sardonic word-games—have rendered society incapable. Making some of their pupils indeed, according to the Gospel imagery, “ten times worse than themselves”: eager imitators having become so “cool” by dint of decades of “impartial” sentiment and reasoning that many would just as soon sell their grandmother as listen to the voice of their conscience. That comprehensive moral commodity which sells on no “free markets” but without which we might as well go back to those probably-legendary but admirably laissez-faire Neanderthal caves of which our agnostic doctors, teachers, biologists and attorneys would seem to be so oddly fond. That sense of outrage which I have heard from only one politician regarding Abu Ghraib, in anything approaching the proper measure of indignation. From Al Gore, the otherwise-disappointingly-fringe-liberal Tennessean, in remarks just after some especially-lurid revelations. In a speech which was however treated like a behavioral aberration by both the audience and the unwontedly-silent commentators of our all-knowing press.

Plainly, it is better to live under a council of the most rigorous Mullahs than to be attacked by such a moral disease as we suffer from here today. To cow-tow to such an elite as expostulate to us so tirelessly from unassailable podia of opinion and power. For the human heart is enabled most forcefully within the precepts of religion, even of those religions that are erroneous on some point here or there. So that I for one would gladly live under some old-fashioned Lutheran or Episcopalian state religion than under the Philistine monstrosity gradually taking form today, under vaunted new academic and legal constructs and ideas. Since almost all genuine denominations—apart from Voodoo or the lurid rites of infant-sacrificial paganism, ancient or modern—tend to emphasis the same fundamental values. While within today's America the vitally-necessary words of indignation stick in the throats of those who have long glibly countenanced abortion-on-demand. From which follows as bud from branch that sort of “prisoner interrogation” which is actually a poorly-disguised sop to the ”gay” community, or to the most perverse sorts of “academic” experimentation. Showing once against how in many important ways the radicals of both side of the aisle meet regularly somewhere “on the dark side of the moon”. Especially considering the notoriously-poor success-rate of such methods. All this from a leadership which readily “chokes on the gnat” of the unrivaled trivialities of political correctness or diplomatic convention. People who remain unmoved by that short but horrendous film-clip-inside-the-womb, of an abortion, called “The Silent Scream”. The sort of thing that would leave some Arab tent-dweller in an ocean of tears. Leaders and teachers who have produced a generation which thinks of itself as being so “grown up” as to have few feelings except for personal comfort or reputation. One which can thus have little difficulty in legalizing the torture and torment of innocent human beings, performed on the basis of the most ill-considered of patently-paranoid suspicions. A policy mandated from the very top of our government, by pixy-like politicians who then go on to give us pious sermons of Christianity, or “the rule of law”.

Do we really believe that the God of Muslims, Christians and Jews - He Who by His very Nature is the very Fountainhead of all genuine, legitimate law - will sit by and watch all of this much longer? Have we not already felt the ominous stirrings of His summons? For, in contrast to our American leaders and educators, He really does have a conscience. A sense of what He must do - and not just say - next.

 

February 19, 2005: Vladimir Putin, Government and bringing-to-justice.

 

The real political debate is about bringing evil men to justice: like pruning a tree of its life-sapping branches, or pulling a garden full of weeds. That for which the Epistle tells us Caesar holds “the sword”. So that legitimate politics is in a certain way essentially negative. This being much of the real “self-limiting” or even the legitimate “laissez-faire” element of government. After which “life goes on” in a positive sense, according to its own wildly-unique, ever-changing contours. So that if government attempts to directively regulate this latter bound-bursting phenomenon it easily becomes despotic or tyrannical.

However justice is far more than just a certain maintenance of “law and order” expended almost exclusively upon lower classes who live in ghettos. Indeed rather than being strictly violence- or “terrorism”- inhibitive justice is even more routinely and essentially an interdiction of the deeds of the great who live in mansions. And it is this kind of vigilance that a much-maligned Putin is exercising now in Russia: pruning the greater Russian garden of noxious weeds. So that herbs, fruits and vines may grow. While laissez-faire government USA style tends too often to be about protecting the liberty of some commercial Johnny Dillinger to go on and rob another day. While the little old lady with the thriving garden has it raided regularly, and trampled under foot with a growing impunity: with little street urchins blamed for everything, and hauled off to jail. So that although this American style freedom has all kinds of soul-stirring pomp and circumstance, fifes and drums, bells and whistles associated with it: at its worst moments it can all amount to little more than merry music for the highly-“successful” and systematic garden-robber.

But the uniquely-sophisticated sort of government I advocate here actually involves a wedding of the legitimate positive and negative elements discussed above, in a transplanting-across-time of a vigorously adapted and refitted Medieval Catholic polity. With leaders little resembling the hooded executioners portrayed in a certain Medieval comic strip, being rather entrepreneurs in their own right as well as politicos. In a scenario in which private-sector activity commands a day-to-day routine preeminence. The positives and the negatives of organized life being wedded in such a way that the noted negative element of the rule-of-law is innocently and even inconspicuously built into the very way things are done socially and commercially in such a matrimonial household. For instance in this mi casa es su casa one practical upshot being that government little resembles those nightly televised chases through poor neighborhoods, peering over the shoulders of down-in-your-face real-life TV police officers. All the while the rich count or marquis in the castle (or McMansion) on the hill above gets away with burgeoning new Administration-enabled forms of grand-larceny, economic-murder or de facto concubinage. Rather is this Catholic sort of governing one whose less-pleasant sanction-related elements “takes their course” through customs and conventions that work their way up from the local, micro-neighborhood level. In a reinvigoration of the old Mongolian and later barbarian-tribal ten-family Frankpledge bond—pulsating on up from there to every other level as well. In various socially-agreed procedures that pleasantly and prosperously nip crime and malfeasance in the bud before they have a chance to flower. A comprehensive interconnected social-unit 95% of whose concerns are positive and constructive rather than sanction-oriented in nature. A system which not only contains but actually is and is defined as an ongoing consultation of all concerned. By whose formal and informal deliberative procedures the less-pleasant but hardly conspicuous—let alone brutal or gloating—proscriptive contours of the rule-of-law are maintained.

This then is a far cry from our own too-typical view of polity: one which operates increasingly after the manner of a purely-external force working its will upon a passive body politic. Lately indeed pulling the graveyard-shift as a kind of organ snatcher—a seller of liver or spleen on some bio-political black market—if the body threatens to become too intimidatingly sound and robust. This vaunted “democracy” of the technocratic—and not-so-technocratic—elite. This incalculable force which is always sanctimoniously haranguing us about what we “must” do or think.

Of course, Putin has no such Medieval system as is advocated here. And so he must do things in a far-more-conspicuous and less-organically-imbedded way. But that is certainly better than blandly and without further adieu lending the power of government to newly-decriminalized white-collar criminality of every kind. Of course with a broad array of not-so-white-collar mob perquisites ever discretely at its disposal.

 

February 16, 2005: Pat Robertson, prisoner-torture, the axe above the stairway, and “the wealth of nations”.

 

Those with something up their sleeve always present us with the most unlikely of scenarios as being eminent and threatening to our safety and “security”: proffered as somehow and with rare convenience standing good for the concrete situation at hand. Thus if a certain course of action seems to many to be called for in some such unlikely emergency, then it is rigorously argued to be just as validly forthcoming in the present entirely pedestrian instant as well. Hence the example, cited elsewhere here, of the rape-induced pregnancy—that which happens no more than one percent of the time—called upon to generically legitimize abortion on demand. That long-standing weapon of mass destruction which weighs so heavily on the American soul. While in the same category belongs Pat Robertson’s C-Span-captured repetition last night of the old saw in favor of a presidential chart-blanch with respect to prisoner-torture. Citing as he did the oft-repeated, highly-imaginative test-case of the individual who knows where a multi-mega-ton bomb has been craftily hidden, and which device is about to go off. And which doomsday machine—adding a little extra umph to the Reverend’s tautology—is calibrated to set off some cycle of thermonuclear mutual annihilation. Torture being broadly alleged to be permissible in such an of-course-everyday situation: and therefore equally so in the case of the Administration's many detainees. Men (and women) who are somehow assumed to pose an equivalent threat to the latter extreme case.

Of course in the case of the nuclear madman/terrorist everyone involved would no doubt be going mad in their own right, and doing all kinds of extreme things. But this fantasy hardly represents a likely test-case scenario by which to justify the barbarity and perversity of myriad prisoner interrogations in Iraq, Guantanamo and elsewhere at clandestine locations around the globe. None of which hundreds or thousands of “terrorists” or “enemy combatants” has yet been found culpable of any crime. Plainly there is a case of "apples and oranges" here. Even if the Israeli Mossad or the CIA—or a newly-debuted Blackwater—might indeed be counted upon in a pinch to invent or even truly-manufacture the classical nuclear emergency: in that agents-provocateurs bit-part they have played so well and so often at numerous global venues in the past.

Germane to all this is the story about the axe hung above the stairway to the basement. And how the householder was found forlorn one day, weeping under that very spot. When queried as to why he was so stricken with emotion, he replied that he had just had the sanguinary vision of that grim two-blader falling remorselessly on the slender neck of his little daughter: the very one indeed questioning him that very moment with a touching sympathy all her own. After which both sobbed uncontrollably on each other’s shoulders. A tragedy which both evidently judged to be eminent, perhaps reasoning that the old axe would momentarily wear out the stout nails that held it in place, perhaps being shaken from thence by the concussion of their very sobs.

But if we were to come down off the rare heights inhabited by people like Pat Robertson and George Bush and consider exclusively and with equal thoroughness the case actually at hand, we would find nightmares of a different type entirely with which to fill our minds. One of which phantoms-in-the-night being for instance the speed with which a later-well-rewarded judge Chertoff fixed upon people to accuse of the crime of 9/11. And this upon the most incredibly flimsy, even fanciful, of evidence. So that there is evident here an identical state of pathological blame-laying as was expended upon the thoughtless axe. While tapped for ready input here as well is a certain lynch-mob psychology unique to the American people: one which unfortunately does more than just consign ash-wood handles and axe heads to the fire. A mindset indeed epitomized in several recent high-level nominees, including Chertoff himself. Americans who have too often found some way to feel vindicated if someone hangs, while giving lamentably short-shrift to the question of whether or not the victim of such a “justice” was the one who actually committed the crime. Thus for instance the well-recorded nineteenth-century case of the three Mexicans hanged on the Western frontier after the disappearance of a local rancher. For the righteous citizenry of the idyllic little Southwestern community “just knew that Mexicans are thieves and murderers”. So that after such doughty American sensibilities had with due rigor been placated, there was to elapse less than a whole day before the poor murdered rancher would re-appear, bursting with his usual ruddy-complected health, and bright blue eyes. Having gone without fanfare or further ado on a trip to a neighboring town.

But in the case of 9/11, Iraq, torture, sodomy, et al, there is this further element for born again patriotic considerations. Namely that “there’s (black) gold in them there hills” of Iraq. For the accession to which the resistance of multitudes of foreknown, reprobated Islamic people must be broken by any means at the disposal of righteous Gothic-American Calvinist emissaries. For our unwontedly-geo-political evangelicals join eagerly with many of today’s Zionist Jews in applying to themselves prophetic verses of the Old Testament. Those which among less-zealous but more-accurate exegists are correctly understood to describe the future prerogatives not of ever-wealthy Jews—and Christians who wish they were Jews—but rather of Christ and His Body, the Church. This divinely-bestowed, socially-multiplied prosperity, termed “the wealth of nations”, being scripturally described as drawn, according to the colorful patriarchal imagery, in caravans full of burden-carrying dromedaries. Divinely-authored words which rather obviously speak of a world economically catalyzed and unified in the love of Christ, rather than owned and dominated by anyone. Our modern-day Zealots however grossly, ham-handedly applying these sublime and mysterious words to matter of money and real estate, to economic, political and military aggression and enslavement.

 

 

February 15, 2005: Ward Churchill and his youthful listeners.

 

Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado, viewed on C-Span the other day—making his celebrated defiant statement about 9/11—was as much an education for me as for the students in the auditorium there. He is certainly preaching a sort of Marxian conflict theory, in his equating of the secretaries and security guards who died on 9/11 with Eichmann. Even if I myself recognize as guilty a certain level of cooperation with criminally-aggressive aspects of America’s foreign policy, such a culpability cannot possibly be applied to such ordinary civilians, working here. Since by means of such logic even the bus-driver or cabbie who brings a worker to some ground-zero would be guilty as well.

What I’m afraid we may have in Ward Churchill is only another agent provocateur, commissioned to help polarize the country, and ultimately to bring about that melt-down so dear to every Marxist heart. That actually hyper-capitalist aim which then allows for a complete rebuilding of material infrastructure: of course to the tune of a debt financing yet-more-onerous than that which led to the cataclysm in the first place. While even if Churchill is just an honest revolutionary he is serving the same ends, if not with the same sort of clear-headed malice. His words having the shrill and lurid accents, his face the granite-like contours of the worst sort of American Indian paganism, which he apparently loves so well. No doubt sharing the desire of almost everyone in the field of Indian Studies to completely discredit Christianity and its mild spirit among indigenous peoples: especially in that Catholic form which was so attractive to tribes across the land. That grand agnostic cause for the impugning of which I myself was called before the History Department chair at college, having breathed the least word in the defense of the Catholic missionaries of the Americas. Who were more responsible than anyone else for building up what had promised to be the world’s most advanced and prosperous civilization by now, if it hadn’t been looted by the forces of international capitalism. That cynical cartel which is a sort of anti-matter in direct opposition to the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. Of course it was not Churchill’s or Marx’s gospel of hatred that accomplished such initial triumphs for the Indian and the Mestizo, but rather the arduous labors of Jesuits, Franciscans, Trinitarians and others on the French-Canadian and Latin American Mission fields. Bringing to two continents the love and cooperation of the Two Sacred Hearts referred to above. These fervent undertakings following in the footsteps of that Maid of the Sierra, Our Lady of Guadalupe: she who in her apparition left as a memorial her own image. One painted with a heavenly hand, on a course cactus-fiber tilma or poncho, and in which self-portrait, on an impossibly-rough surface, the shiny surface of her eyes still reflect the tiny images of Juan Diego, the Bishop and his Chancellor, as they stood before her that day in the early 1500s. With which stupendous event began the Christianization of these continents only some fifteen years after the first landing of Cortez. The spirit, élan and supernatural activism of Our Blessed Lady being embodied in a secular sense in the many authentic elements to be found in Catholic Spanish colonialism. In a lay and religious advancement of Catholic social, economic and political philosophy unequalled since the times of Constantine, Clovis, St. Stephen of Hungary and the other great lay-Catholic patriarchs of the Christian ages.

Yet as suggested there is something unique and instructional in its own right in the electrifying effect Churchill has had on the students at the University of Colorado: giving us a look into the minds and hearts of these kids that few other things could have afforded. These students who live in a world that since pre-school days has been rigidly ruled by the most arbitrary standards of what is correct in mien and manner, attitude and reaction, thought and deed. There has been a right way and a wrong way for everything—one which changed at least yearly, or by the metronomic weekly meter of some wildly-marketed sitcom. With group-pressures constantly being super-sanctified and institutionally manipulated. By behavioral and academic demigods of every stripe of stone-age neo-con-artistry or avant-garde “diversity”. Such a regimen of comprehension-defying extremes ultimately and understandably forming our youth into a super-malleable putty in the hands ever-dominant figures. But Churchill seemed uncannily able to unlock these offsprings of a media/educator world from the asylum of their super-correct precision drill-exercises. Whether of thought or of evolving protocols of cutting-edge courtesy-form. These modern youthful martinets suddenly finding themselves disarmed. For this guy up at the podium was really being sincere. Whether you agree with what he said or not, this guy was not there simply trying to impress people, but was evidently ready to lay down life or academic position for what he believes.

The result, again, was unique. These putty-like people came out of their freezer-wrapped molds in gloriously-popping, Pillsbury-dough-boy style. They were positively goo-goo and agog with a beautifully-infantile enthusiasm. A kind of low hum of wordless exclamations filled the vast room. The one guy was so choked-up with spontaneous emotion that when he came to the microphone he couldn’t put together a coherent sentence, and was finally booed down, if without any great degree of unkindness. There was plainly something more going on here than a simple statement of political conviction, or the standard responses of an audience. And I say all this, furthermore, without a trace of sarcasm. It was really lovely. And my heart went out to them as on few other occasions in recent memory.

But on the other hand and as also suggested what all this says to me is that these kids need some real leadership: and that in the direction of Catholic truth. That fountainhead of the true élan of the American Indian of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Many of whom, found by pioneers living on roots and bison-meat on the Western plain, had generations earlier been baptized and educated by French Catholic missioners. A plurality of which still spoke fluent French, as attested by innumerable prairie immigrant diaries. So that a highly-similar, vigorously-youthful American-student kinetic energy needs to be wisely if to-a-degree “non-directively” harnessed and mobilized. These youth need to be taught and enabled to build: which is what positive and constructive education is all about. “Empowered” not only with a today-non-existent sound philosophy but also with things like genuine organization: which is based on day-in and day-out relationships, with genuine people such as they obviously consider Prof. Churchill to be. That authenticity which is the earnest of so much that is philosophically, conceptually sound and true: and whose mistaken identification is readily remediable among those whose hearts are young. For truly these newly-awakened youth needn't continue to live in an automaton world of subliminal intimidations, canned enthusiasms and barked commands. That which the Bush’s neo-con United States brings us in woefully-artificial shades of red, white and blue. And what’s more the very spontaneity, the inchoate enthusiasm of those young men and women in that auditorium tells me they are quite capable of climbing out of their cookie-cutter molds: because for one thing they have not yet been poisoned with the cynicisms, the utilitarianisms, that too often motivate those who have led them thus far.

In these pages and publications I offer this youth, this “new generation of Americans”, a path down which their new-found enablement and enthusiasm may run unimpeded. In the originality of their unique new discoveries, of themselves, of others, of the world around them. These young Americans of every race and nationality, a generation capable of rising to the challenge of looming crisis, of catching the pass thrown them so mightily by John Kennedy, he who foresaw them in those catalytic “new generation” terms. A quarterback who wouldn’t have let-fly the pig-skin in vain: that which was fumbled enroute by my own generation. Youths with warm hearts and enthusiasms indeed kept alight, but with words well-crafted, and faces resolute, virile and virtuous in character. Profound and incalculable things from many realms that go together supremely well. Potentialities still to be found deep in the thwarted springtime personas of today: who yearn for “life, and that more abundantly”. A force volcanically bursting to be released, in lives for which there can be no re-runs. Amid youths which once fled are forever past—which must be lived once for all—in constructive and purposeful  love, discipline and peace. This seismic event being something we here at Louis de Joliet Publishing hope to unlock, to harness for the constructive future of the nation, of the world.

 

February 14, 2005: The American media prepares to manufactures yet another revolution.

 

The international press, international NGOia and of course our media here at home continue with dramatic flair to paint halos on the wicked, and horns on the good: as a massive show of Russian popular solidarity behind Putin is dismissed as “pre-arranged”. While some number of desultory anti-government demonstrations, no doubt largely staged by the U.S. corporate-funded Orange Revolution people, are by contrast characterized as genuine groundswells of public sentiment. For the global media/corporate establishment will have their second Russian Revolution or bust: much indeed as had their ancestors of yellow-journalism lore of the early twentieth century vis-à-vis the likewise “tide of the future” Bolsheviks. Another Bloody Sunday to be thriftily joined by an Iranian, North Korean and Venezuelan overthrow to boot. To fill to the bursting point as well the dark closet of scores of brutal American-engineered coups of decades past. All because Putin wouldn’t acquiesce in the decade-long American-based corporate/financial rape of the Russian economy: nor allow Russian policies of every dimensions to be dictated to him. And all the while the typical American no doubt hold his hand to his chest in another sentimental adrenaline-rush. Little suspecting that his/her pledge of allegiance is ultimately far more in support of a certain global financial club than of the American flag. Look for your “pro-democracy” sentiments to get perked and massaged from every direction in the coming weeks, enlisting your moral support for a “democratic” Bush Blitzkrieg of ever-mounting Napoleonic proportions. The new black-is-white and white-is-black policy-motif—or the alternate aggression-is-peace and peace-is-aggression Condoleezza Rice variety—these are all the rage in the weird new color-ensembles in the wardrobes of the global politically correct. Threatening to outperform by far after-all limp and unspectacular multiple garish shades of orange. All of which are however like red flags waved in front of a bull when it comes to arousing today's force-fed American mass-militancy to new pitches of enraged, hysterical fervor.

A major theme of this website is the way in which crashes, bombings, strange deaths and candid assassinations, both at home and around the globe, have multiplied fantastically in the years since Bush came to office. Ever suggesting a kind of bloody proof-in-the-pudding in favor of American State Department paradigms and prognostications. So that it would seem that these uncannily helpful enemies would wish to illustrate in bold colors what American leaders only hint at broadly in new conferences. In a pattern which augurs a deeper sort of cynicism than ever filled the mind of any Arab insurgent. The sort of thing we’ve seen for decades and beyond question in Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians, and no doubt frequently in Iraq. Where after a point it must be apparent to any functioning mind that friendlies are expendable—of course in glorious and heroic martyrdoms—for some “higher end”. Especially when we consider the precision, "pin point" characteristics of so many of these attacks, perpetrated by the invariable masked, indeed totally disguise-enveloped assailants. Every actor on such a stage leaving their unmistakable finger prints or "calling card" for the knowing to ruefully acknowledge. A topic to be touched upon here and there below. This end-justifies-the-means imperative being arrived at in Olympian reaches of Wall Street, Tel Aviv and the White House. Thus does Administration rhetoric against Syria in terms of her presence on Lebanese soil seem to receive rapid and lurid confirmation in the assassination only now of a Lebanese leader more friendly to the American view. As if the highest Syrian ambition is to assume her assigned role of villain, all across the headlines of the world press. While the weird promotional campaign continued a few days ago in a car-bombing in Turkmenistan, against whose leader our NGOs have long lobbied in a heightening crescendo of brutal scorn. Local discontents thereby seeming to second a “Freedom Foundation” insistence that “popular resistance” to the regime is rife. This following close on the heels of a bombing and a high-level assassination in neighboring Georgia, as if to light a raging brush-fire where moderating elements were beginning to gain the upper hand. This in a prime thrust area of the grand American Central Asian strategy, and along a likewise-heroically-reopened heroine route. While the only thing that prevents us taking prudent pause in our judgments over these events is the above-noted fantastic idea of some American chosen condition. Of course shoulder to shoulder with the bizarre agnostic/Israeli Chosen People imagery now preached doughtily of a Sunday from so many American pulpits.

 

February 12, 2005: Electronic theft, the idea of money, and distributism.

 

New schemes multiply every day for the electronic absconding of money such as the notorious “identity theft”, as attested by a panel of banking and law-enforcement authorities on C-Span Friday. People who are truly overwhelmed with a task that grows more onerous every day. And meanwhile the dishonest gain possession of greater and greater amounts of specie, and are thus able to dispose of a greater and greater share of the world’s real wealth. From the toil of all classes of society. As could indeed be seen in the preoccupied visages of these high-level figures.

Critical in all this is the very concept and essential nature of money: that which electronic transactions were expressly designed to transform. While implicated too by default is distributism: that organizational system which sits stolidly as it were on the opposite pan of the conceptual scale from these “new and bold” ideas of money and finance. These latter set as a stone in an Information Age world setting. For distributism realistically finds the epicenter of finance and economics to reside in the everyday life of the individual citizen, of the local venue. Money being meant to be the localized mortar, the adhesive liquidity, that dependably “stays put” as the common citizen goes about his daily chores. The while balancing this prime mortar on the edge of his trowel, aiming it like a marksman at the chink it is destined to fill. And by the instrumentality of which skyscrapers of real wealth and polity are built. But if the very money we use is intrinsically a global phenomenon with doubtful palpable connections to the local venue, then it is in fact no longer money at all.

Hence there has to be involved a basic humility after a point. A coming down off of vaunted airs at which modern man is so adroit. Yes, money has to once again and for the most part become the grubby stuff handled by others, that we have to caution our smallest children not to “put in their mouths”. We have to realize that grand schemes toward some ultimate world of the squeaky-clean—typically put together by soap-bubble agnostics—can only take us so far. And that where they take us is often as not someplace “where we would not go” such as was experienced by St. Peter at the end of his life. As money becomes less and less a thing to locally and personally build with and more and more a mere facilitator of theft, state-terrorism and ultimately recurrent global war.

Yet it is from out of such very sobering realizations that “hope springs eternal”. So that I suggest the reading of my books to date, and the rest of this front page, as an alternative that partakes not at all of the vaunted logic of modern-day “money” and modern-day neo-con economics. There being offered here rather a comprehensive return to the wellsprings of Western achievement: indeed of genuine human organizational dynamisms from any global quadrant.

 

February 12, 2005: ”Sunni Minority”.

 

The old communist standby about the “constantly repeated lie” is evident throughout the Iraq War phenomenon. With the “sectarian-insurgent” violence most-often being perpetrated by masked gunmen: a spectacle belied by the fact that the donning of disguises is something honest-to-goodness insurgents almost never do. Even as practically every news article turns the tired old crank about “the Sunni minority”, when every Arab in the region knows that it is the reverse that actually obtains. That if you count the Kurds, who are Sunnis, and the many ethnic groups in Iraq who are also Sunnis, and add this to Hussein’s old Ba’ath Party Sunni constituency, you come up with a Sunni majority of about 60%. But our media assumes that we are unacquainted with the intricate realities of the region, which require some research to appreciate: and uses that putative ignorance in an attempt to pull the wool further over our eyes. Even as no doubt after the last bit of opposition is sodomized into submission there will suddenly appear news articles containing the “discovery” of these facts, of course safely after corporate ambitions have been slaked to satiety.

 

February 7, 2005: Proposal: a special nation-slandering tribunal at the Hague.

 

In consideration of the degree to which media-coverage is today tied to wholesale war-promotion—as demonstrated in particular by the USA—there should be established without delay a criminal bench to prosecute crimes against humanity perpetrated through today’s dominant official/press collusion. For one thing so as to nip in the bud the slander-campaign now gathering steam here against Russia: one identical at all points to that carried out in recent decades against Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, and a host of other nations. Media conglomerates, corporate-funded NGOs and think tanks alike now cranking out enormous factual and interpretive lies and distortions regarding Russian “intentions toward its neighbors”: that red-letter buzzword that we will no doubt soon be hearing nightly in her regard. A phrase we have so long and tiringly heard applied to every land the Bush Administration has framed covetous designs upon: the USA itself indeed throughout its short history having been the neighbor gobbler of the ages. All this being of course joined by much press/official hand-wringing over Russia’s domestic political climate and so on. A communicational onslaught which readily arouses today’s more and more hysterically-hyper-militant masses: this by way of the repeated use of super-charged slogans and symbols and much misinterpreted footage. All the while the CIA and other American-funded operatives, as in the Ukraine, no doubt orchestrate street-demonstrations now gathering force on Moscow street-corners. These calling for the resignation of that Putin who is one of the few friends to appear on the horizon for the Russian citizen since the execution of the Tzar in 1917. And who seems at long last to have only formalized a state of emergency which should have been proclaimed long ago: as when American rogue-investors first began assiduously robbing the Land beyond the Don, back in the early 90s. A state of emergency which Bush proclaimed here, backed by a cowardly Congress, after a 9/11 which to some has all the appearances of having been staged and orchestrated: indeed after the manner of most such incidents over the past century or more. This well-crafted anti-Russian media-slander being the ultimate doomsday machine in the trigger-happy WMD arsenal of a certifiably-deranged Bush Administration.

With respect to media slander, it is intriguing—in a USA in which hit-movies serve as prime political/military motivators—that the Soviet operatchik in The Hunt for the Red October—the unfortunate fellow that Sean Connery does to death in so crude and grizzly a way during opening scenes—is named, and to a degree even looks like, Putin. This likely identity-projection having in another sense been seen as well throughout the 70s and 80s when the anti-Arab hate-movies were first being launched: like the ones with the fictitious time-frame captions at the bottom, ostensibly recording dated, minute-by-minute historical acts-of-terrorism by bearded Islamic-fundamentalists. Cinema-deeds which had however emanated out of the fertile mind of some screen-writer only months or weeks before.

In conjunction with the establishment of the above-mentioned bench at the Hague, I further suggest as an act of justice both poetic and real that there be established as well a unique death penalty there: this to be reserved for those who engage the media in promoting aggressive warfare. To be applied first and foremost, after a future indictment and conviction, to that resurrected American Judge Roy Bean who like his picturesque 19th-century Texan forerunner presided over the execution of so many while he was governor of that state.

 

February 5, 2005: Bush Brand Fascism.

 

At the 60th anniversary ceremony at Auschwitz President Putin made mention of Russian resistance to fascism, as represented by the Nazis: after which he rather abruptly ended his speech and strode from the podium. Most meaningful of all is that he used the word at all: the more accurate and evocative term of course being Nazism: one belonging indeed at Auschwitz, of all places, by a kind of preemptive right. While the especially-crisp manner in which the Russian President’s last few phrases were uttered, and the way in which he turned grimly on his heels at the end, almost like a soldier doing a left-face, and departed with giant, athletic strides: all these things bring further into relief the fact that heads-of-state, educated in all the finer points of diplomacy, trained to make speeches with gathering crescendos and graceful, tapering finishes, don’t often make bold gestures absent-mindedly, or without good reason. So that it is rather obvious to me that by way of this body-language Vladimir Putin was strongly underlining the true but unmentioned significance of his words. Namely in the identification of a new fascism, sprung freshly to life, represented by an American expansionist foreign policy that goes so-conveniently with a much-vaunted promotion of "democracy", and a closely-associated “war on terror”.

Indeed too it seems just as plain to me that Putin was issuing to this new fascism an ultimatum: delivered from the pregnant-with-meaning podium of a World War. For it must be increasingly evident to him that Russia does indeed once again lie in the path a blitzkrieg: a lightning-strike whose methods may be more sophisticated but whose final aim, given several recent examples in both hemispheres, could easily resemble remarkably well that of the Nazis vis-à-vis the Russians of years past. While similarities also abound in the fact that Hitler too was allied to big business in his decades-long drive to power: in a Germany then in the grips of war reparations repayments which correspond curiously to today’s U.S. national debt. That which with rare abandon was ballooned into existence by several Republican presidents. Apropos to which stark letters above the death-camp entryway, arbeit macht frei, have in essence been duplicated in two decades of voluble force-feed about hard-nosed economic-self-reliance and sleeves-rolled-up Horatio Alger “hard work”.

In this land of free speech about the finer niceties of bedroom and bath, there are few words wasted about those wealthy forces which financed and orchestrated recent “pro democracy” events in the Ukraine. Basically the same people—official, financial, corporate/NGO and true- or quasi-evangelical—that in various ways actually led the decades-in-preparation charge against Iraq. And who are even now photogenically—and with high thespian oratory—involved in fulminating civil war in Darfur (for starters, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1318643,00.html., and then the interesting and comprehensive islamonline.net). Here being a hint to the kind of verbal grease used on the wheels of this new armored division. While it is of course considered poor form in the home of the brave to bring up the subject of the privatization rape of Russia during the 90s by Western investment interests, expedited by a certain Harvard team. That finance-related blitzkrieg which precipitated the collapse of the entire Russian economy starting in 1998: an invasion in which Yeltsin, Khodorkovsy and several others were major players. When much of Russian industry and resources were sold for perhaps an overall one percent of their real worth to insider traders, with the IMF looking dispassionately on. And with the same global lender spinning new theories about the progress-related timeliness of four different varieties of corruption. (http://www.gla.ac.uk/centres/csstm/ifis-russia.htm).

The upshot was of course the eventual “despotic” jailing of Khodorkovsy by Putin: while it was only by way of acts of God, called forth by their Faith, that Russia and Russians survived the crisis-of-the-nineties at all. For several years making-do and even here and there locally thriving in a basically-moneyless society—having profited too from the advice of men like Havel and others at the forefront of the defeat of Eastern European communism to “use whatever comes to hand,” in those all-too-familiar circumstances which across the region had long called forth rare degrees of tenacious ingenuity. Even as new waves of notionally-armored Yankee attack squadrons are being prepared as I write: breathless promoters, ranged patriotically in rank and file, even now busy in pre-election activities in nations across the Caucasus. Another centuries-long Russian sphere of interest ringing now with many-a promise of critical investment dollars in years to come. The old iron-grinned and back-slapping élan pulling the whole credit starved and candidly-hungry region inexorably into the same murky financial waters. With strange deaths, demolitions and disappearances providing a staccato background music of an insistent sort of persuasion of another kind entirely. A mega-scenario in which indeed a dioxin-poisoned Yuschenko makes an especially-handy martyr: recalling a much-mourned but even-more capitalized-upon 9/11. With ultra-swiftly-and-conveniently-identified perpetrators now just as then. Moscow being rapidly stripped of elemental parts of its centuries-old sphere of influence by a process which gives “the old hard sell” a new and apocalyptic meaning.

All this and more takes place while relatively-comfortable Americans utter smug words about democracy, and nominees to cabinet posts take you back sixty years ago to Von Ribbentrop or even Goebbels: men glibly ignoring the unanimous voices of the civilized world. Voices raised yesterday against death camps, military aggression and genocide and today in condemnation of American torture-based prisoner detention and interrogation methods of the same general stripe. As well as against savage and ill-justified attacks on sovereign nations, and veiled threats of attacks on others as well. All this being amply reminiscent of the fire-raining Fox of the thirties of hip-boot lore. An aggression which in the consciousness of men like Vladimir Putin would readily call to mind the fate of a neighboring Poland at the start of World War II: the very place where the somber ceremonies were being held.

Citizen-restrictive measures here at home, too, gather to themselves a high-handed efficiency which recalls the old Gestapo, kangaroo judges, iron-gripped operatives and all. The Germany of the times having likewise had “leftist” enemies—among which were real, live communists, and not the Bush Machine’s imaginary ones—to keep alive the same indispensable note of ideological gridlock, of moral self-justification. Here too being the place for a jackel-like Tony Blaire to take his chattering bow, as many an Axis ally of before. While the same sort of craven functionaries who filled the German Parliament of the times are seen generously today about the official podia. People of both Parties who for decades shrug their shoulders over abortion and the rape of American public morality hardly being likely to stand up to a new fascist war machine.

Russians, so they say, have not been saints lately, either. But these reports, principally about Chechnya, for one thing come to us in cryptic and oddly-oratorical words far more than detailed accounts, specifics or pictures, and are thus proportionally less convincing. While the torments of mostly-innocent humanity in Iraq are there for all to see, vivid and in Technicolor, heinous and malevolent in their intimately-personal horror. So that its seems to me no exaggeration at all to see in Putin the distinct possibility of a real paladin, even a DeGaulle. Perhaps the only force capable of stopping cold the new fascist onslaught: just as Russians did sixty years ago, with respect to that of Adolph Hitler. That is, if we Americans don’t do so first, here at home.

 

February 5, 2005: “The long process of preparing for democratic rule”.

 

Is just the opposite of what it is portrayed to be by our media and our ballot-box-stuffing, oligarchy-hand-picked leaders. The true “prep course” for democracy being a very homely thing: a matter of learning to act and think in a independent-but-responsible way. That democratic citizenship which is osmosed from a good and moral life: a formation suggested nicely—if not always with perfect accuracy—by the old show of the fifties and early-sixties, “Leave it to Beaver”. The one in charge of the training being the father of a family, not the president of a country. Nor local, state or national school administration radicals. While actually the two adjectives, independent and responsible, are not only complementary but in a way identical in their meaning. Since one cannot be truly and viably independent unless one is also responsible: something supremely-learnable by the most unlettered Arab herdsman. So that it is George Bush himself, he who pushes the false “democratic preparatory” notion, who needs to be rehabilitated, raised to the rarified plateaus of democracy. Having been thus transformed, leaving off forthwith and with true "born again" resolution his brutal, expensive and un-welcomed stay in Iraq. He who as he stands now is rather the prime example of a “freedom and independence” which are more properly called dictatorship, and which depend on masses of fawning subjects for their consummation.

The avid Bush supporters we see lately so often on TV are of course the well-connected, success-oriented five or ten percent that can afford any longer to dress up and go to “town hall” meetings sponsored by the Bush Machine. Where they can “put on the dog”, as some of us honest and simple folk used call it, with their photo-finish grins and peels of laugher over every Bush cliché or bombastic triviality. Performers indeed, together with their master-of-ceremonies, and this before a national audience. A leader whose chief selling-point is an ability, no doubt acquired by dint of many hours before the bedroom mirror, to project a composite of the traits of a medley of movie-stars. This consummate choreography hiding well an interior callous and hard: one shared by a studio-audience full of “freemen” in charge of the ninety or ninety-five percent of us who are regarded more and more candidly as slaves.

 

February 4, 2005: Political instability as the prime enabler of the “democracy” blitzkrieg.

 

The mysterious death of Georgia’s Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania yesterday—he who was easily the prime adhesive of stability in that part of the Caucasus—adds its weight to other strange and troubling events across the region. While the American “rationalization” of economic and political structures—that which we attempt to introduce in other nations through our foreign policy—leads to the installation of a homogeneous yet radical and unpredictable new power elite. The heightening instability in Georgia, with a car-bombing a few days before the strange death of Zhvania, forming a mosaic of odd congruities with the ongoing polarization and NGO-ization of all of life in the regions. Even as lucrative state-privatizations, human-trafficking, poppy-fields and puppet regimes multiply ad infinitum around an increasingly American-controlled globe. The laissez-faire “scarcity principle” being transformed, largely through our efforts, from a mostly-counterintuitive academic tautology into an everyday reality of the most tangible kind. Driven by debt-driven policies and zero-growth population ideologies of which the “pro-life” Bush is the most formidable exponent in practical terms. While, not to be outdone at home, the Bush blitzkrieg here is toward replacing Social Security with a give-away to the Wall Street investment community: whose ethical shortcomings, coupled with the huge amounts of money involved, promise to reproduce a hundredfold the Teamster retirement fund scandals of the mid-twentieth century.

A looming target for the Bush geo-political panzer division—one for now only hinted-at—is Russia itself (see Ukrainian site http://maidanua.org/eindex.html) That land which survived the ‘90s rule-of-the-U.S.-installed-financial-oligarchs: a legacy which Putin is struggling to overcome as I write. All the while his efforts are rewarded by well-orchestrated street-protests that recall those of the neighboring-nation “Orange” and “Rose” revolutions. And he faces daily media forecasts of his own fast-approaching political demise. Nonetheless he doggedly continues his project of economic and administrative stabilization for which the oil-export-revenue boom has been a God-send. Yet there is no question in my mind that Russia must ultimately be placed under the patronage of Our Lady of Kazan in some formal and official way, if it is ever to escape the fate projected for it by the minions of the Bush machine. That Blessed Lady whose icon was instrumental many times in saving Russia from invaders and other disasters: as when the icon, which some still insist was painted by the Apostle St. Luke, was carried before the Tsar’s troops during the Napoleonic invasion. And before which gracious image the enemy retreated in disarray.

But even amid the gloomy Caucasian regional picture there is an occasional glimmer of reason-based sunshine, as a new and more-sober reflectiveness follows on the heels of much starry-eyed Saakashvilian pro-democracy euphoria. Thus do officials in Tbilisi (the capitol of Georgia) seem to concur with one another for the most part that the perpetrators involved in the car bombing are not necessarily break-away Ossetians, but rather unknown enemies of unity and stability. (Note of 04/09: Quite predictably back in 2005 when these lines were written, these strong local misgivings about all the anti-Ossetian and anti-Abkhazian “conspiracy theories” gave way quickly, under relentless U.S. NGO inducements, to the anti-Russian animus which would lead directly to both Blackwater, Inc., clandestine mercenary interventions, a thinly disguised U.S. military-logistical build-up in the whole Southern, sub-Russian region, and the ultimate brutal invasion of both ethnic-Russian enclaves by Georgian planes, tanks and troops.) But on a darker note, significantly to the ever-consolidating Bush-sponsored police-state motif, and quoting Eurasianet for 02.02.05, “The New Rights-Industrialist opposition coalition (read here Bush lackeys) on February 2 called on the government to establish an anti-terrorism center. New Rights leader David Gamkrelidze said the Saakashvili administration should turn to the United States and Israel for funding and assistance”. (04/09: again, all this could already be amply foreseen back then).

What the nations face today is a global onslaught of unfettered high-tech, media-enabled, geo-finance-leveraged corporate power: one which attacks on a vast number of planes and with an infinitude of both coordinated and uncoordinated assaults. The very lack of identifiable salients with distinct, graspable outlines: this being far-and-away the most formidable aspect of this furious assault. So that, again, it is only the power of God and the saints which can stand up to it. That heavenly assistance which can alone bring peace and order out of such a chaos: just as Our Lord, at the entreaties of his terrified Apostles, stilled the waves of the sea with a single word.

 

02.02.05: Guarding the old wagon train.

 

The one thing in which the U.S. leadership is bi-partisan and near-unanimous is in our role as a kind of hair-trigger global police-force that shoots first and asks questions later. For no matter how many speeches Democrats make against policy in Iraq, the same eloquent speakers will be found—sometimes indeed in little more time than it takes for Hilary Clinton to photogenically say “on the other hand”—to urge armed actions, conventional or special ops or both, on the merest rumor. A recourse invariably triggered by some official buried somewhere in the ranging folds of a totally-unaccountable, increasingly-privatized bureaucracy—in some aid office, or diplomatic district office or NGO. Cranking out homogenized reports which are believed instantly and with wide-eyed wonderment by the most liberal of Democrats. Eyes-to-the-headlines podium-Napoleons who indeed might be said to have spearheaded the first Iraq war. Today taking up calls of “let’s do something now” about “genocide” in Darfur with equal ardor: a heroic scenario to be repeated soon-enough, you can bet your Winchester, about “establishing democracy” in states across Central Asia. The same kind of delirium basically that attended the horrific attack upon Panama under the first Bush President: that intervention we least like to talk about any more. Fomenting regime change or just killing people being ever among the first options on the policy-table: so that above all things we might live up to our self-styled heroic image. And the fact that at least nine times out of ten these deeds have thereafter been shown to have been unjust, and motivated by private greed expedited by spring-loaded diplomatic and military precipitancy: this only seems to be fuel to the American policy-Evangelical “wildfire”. Strange new missionaries for whom the act of intervening is itself the American policy option of choice. Since after all America was “the first democracy”: and that gives it a preemptive right to determine the futures of democratically-younger brothers and sisters, needing sorely to be inspected behind the ears. While it was John Kennedy’s realization of the injustice of such a foreign policy that was largely responsible for his earning of an assassin’s bullet in Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963. In that last crisp, clean, relatively-innocent autumn air of a nation’s history.

 

02.03.05: The Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearings.

 

Here the Republican ability to talk circles around the truth receives a unanimous confirmation all its own. Thus for instance, and as with so much else under discussion at the hearings, the question with respect to torture, which as the President’s chief private counsel the judge had obviously condoned, is not at all the broad statute but rather the rigorously-exploited loophole. Yet in support of their unqualified endorsement of Gonzales Republican committee members continued to cite crystalline statements of generic legal principle uttered repeatedly by the same nominee. (Together of course with endless panegyrics on “what a fine fellow Al is”). (Note 04/09: no doubt some still sing, “for he’s a jolly-good fellow” on behalf of Gitmo Gonzales.) These impressive sound-bites being a good example of today’s rule by promotion motif of the Majority Party: the flip-side to the wholesale corporate privatization of government. Hence the notorious memorandum, endorsed by Gonzales as presidential counsel: that which was finally revised last year after coming under deserved attack. Granting as it had a discrete but very real presidential chart-blanc over torture as a tool of choice, in certain “limited circumstances”. That sort of thing which however—and again according to the noted rigorously-exploited-loophole motif—so quickly becomes the yawningly-accepted rule rather than the exception. But neatly skirted around by the Republicans at the Judiciary Committee hearing has been the clever three-or-four-step verbal dance of Gonzales around administration refusals to apply the admittedly-revised and restrictive provision against torture to the activities of the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Those entities namely whose non-mention was a “loophole you could drive a truck through” in the new torture-related ruling. Republicans of course being much too heroic to waste their time on such tedious strings of notional components, when they would much rather be charging Iran, Venezuela, Darfur or San Juan Hill.

At issue here most directly are in fact not just Geneva Convention rights but fundamental rules of evidence to justify detention. Apropos to which is the stunning fact that none of those thus far detained have been convicted of any offense. So that evidence or even crime is not that which is primarily sought under these heinous policies and memoranda, but rather the criminalization of a whole nation—and potentially of a whole religion and a whole race as well. And the establishment of the unqualified summary detainability—and torturability—of vast segments of mankind: for use on any number of people at a later date. A policy that once initiated may easily thereafter cross these arbitrary bounds as well and be inflicted on the ordinary American citizenry: that which is discretely implied in “patriot act II” provisions recently enacted (neatly, around Christmas congressional break-time). While this travesty-of-justice obviously doubles the injustices poured upon Japanese-Americans during World War II, and trebling those thus perpetrated against mankind as a whole. While the fact that Gonzales is of Mexican extraction turns out to be a blot upon that nationality, rather than an honor. Emphasizing those shortcomings too-often falsely attributed to those south of the border: of a penchant for a casual, easily-facilitated brutality and other similar machismo-laden wrongs. A failing, on those rare occasions when it actually does obtain, which is mostly the result of the extraction of mild and relenting Spanish-Catholic elements from Latin America, rather than of their prevalence. And their replacement by Calvinistic North American non-Catholic—as well as pagan radical-revolutionary Marxist/PRI—influences. The reality being the very opposite of the long-standing Reformation-oriented “dagger drawing Spaniard” slander.

Plainly too what we have here is government by the lawyers, of the lawyers and for the lawyers: in a brave new world of words in which innocent people die. That which has been building for decades here. That which on the Democratic side so cleverly hoodwinked Ms. Rowe into becoming a party to a landmark decision of which she was not even aware and of which she did not approve: this even though she was named as principal plaintiff. So that there is a kind of grizzly justice operating here: as the executioner’s (or the surgeon’s) knife adapts itself skillfully to taking away life not only in the womb but in all its forms. A woman’s right to privately murder becoming a president’s right under cloak of legal subterfuge to torture and deny civil rights. The new Republican addition to the Bill of Rights being that of officials, generals and special-operatives of all kinds to a new kind of privacy-all-its-own: a blanket freedom from criticism or even scrutiny while pursuing a basically-unlimited freedom of action. Breathless apprehensions about terror translating readily into inhuman and prejudicial policies of the most egregious kind: even as the employment of torture is nonetheless deemed by top-flight intelligence operatives themselves to be singularly ineffective to the ends toward which it is employed. So that there is indeed much-more going on here than meets the eye: in a train of logic which can be followed in the following pages. Such heinous presumptions being natural bedfellows as well to the privacy obsessions of the abortionist-advocates: who of course justify their lust-based self-seeking by pointing to the one thing that almost never happens: pregnancy at the hands of a rapist. While deserving equal-time here too are the pedophilic consequences of “gay rights”, that other policy battle-cry-of-decades of the Democratic left. That inevitability which—far from the cited one or two percent pregnancy rate—rather obtains in percentages unquestionably ranging somewhere in the nineties.

Thus have people like Ted Kennedy, as much as he is to be admired for his tenacity in a just cause, have deservingly hog-tied themselves amid the knots of their own legal loophole-making. Inviting an eager: “they did it, why shouldn’t we?” from Republican war-counselors and other strategists. People whose disingenuously-advocated causes rival the cowardice of the grizzly destruction of the unborn. While what we invite both to here, on these pages, is to start thinking really straight and rational once again: to exercise that integrity-based reasoning—the only kind that is worth a fig—one which is holistic and truly-responsible. Actually, I do have hope both Parties can make such a leap-in-thought: else I would be consigning my fellow men and women to the Neanderthal regions of the sub-human. For which reason I even entertain hopes that the Bushites can see the folly of their endorsement of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.