American Pots and Russian Kettles

As Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes up pretty much all of the “oxygen in the room” these days, it has been very difficult to write about other matters in the past thirteen months, although there have been some articles now and again, a writer with responsibilities as a husband and a father must be selective about how to use his time. It has thus been far more important for me to write about Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s serial offenses against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and the harm that he has done to the eternal and temporal good of souls, who have been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.


There are times, however, when it is important to write on matters such as the still developing situation in Ukraine. 

As the situation in Ukraine is complex and involves a variety of historical, geopolitical, economic, linguistic, cultural factors, much of which is steeped in mythologies, including those that most Americans have about the United States of America, that have little to do with actual reality, any commentary on it is necessarily fraught with a whole host of qualified distinctions. That is, there are as many ways to look at the situation in Ukraine as there are those who comment upon it. It is important, therefore, for anyone seeking to comment on it to be careful and judicious in presenting a complex situation in as fair and reasonable manner as possible.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that a commentary such as this one does concern infallibly revealed truths. While truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith will be brought to bear upon various points in this commentary, especially in the conclusion, much of this commentary is a review of historical facts and geopolitical factors have developed the way that have as a result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was institutionalized by the rise of the multifaceted and interrelated by the rise of the forces of naturalism that can be called by the name of Judeo-Masonry, which refers to the overarching belief of all naturalists: that the Incarnation and Redemptive Act of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is irrelevant to the temporal or eternal good of men and their nations.

With this preface having been stated, which is by way of reminding readers that this commentary is provided merely to provide something of one Catholic’s perspective on a complex matter, it is my goal here to provide the sort of commentary on the issue of illegal immigration, which was published four years ago this month (see Good Catholic Common Sense Must Prevail, part 1 and Good Catholic Common Sense Must Prevail, part 2).

No “White Hats” or “Black Hats” in the Ukrainian Situation

Steeped in the mythology of American “exceptionalism,” most Americans, including the lion’s share of Catholics, believe that all “good” is always on the “side” of the government of the United States of America in matters of disputes with traditional enemies such as Russia or China. Some Americans are upset with President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro for his response to the crisis in Ukraine, which began when its then corrupt president, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown in a crowd-sponsored coup d’etat on February 22, 2014, fleeing to exile in Russia. While Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is indeed a vacillating fool on matters of foreign policy, a man who is tongue-tied and paralyzed when it comes to dealing with even the hint of a suggestion that Mohammedanism is evil in se, no American president has any business meddling the affairs of Ukraine. There have been too many American presidents who have made it a point to meddle in the affairs of other nations, engaging in exercises of social engineering that resulted in the persecution of foreign nationals and the needless deaths of untold numbers of Americans, who should never have been put in harm’s way in the first place.

Yanukovych, who had been Prime Minister of Ukraine from November 21, 2002, to December 31, 2004, had been elected to the presidency in 2004 before the Supreme Court of Ukraine invalidated his election on grounds on election fraud following days of protest that came to be known as the “Orange Revolution.” The man who was elected in the presidency in the court ordered rerun election, Viktor Yushchenko, proved himself to be corrupt in his own right and did not even qualify for the ballot to run for re-election in 2010, at which time Viktor Yanukovych was elected and actually got to serve as the president of Ukraine until his ouster nearly three months ago now. In other words, politics in the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which was in existence, albeit with an ever-changing set of national boundaries from March 10, 1919, to December 25, 1991, are filled with intrigue, corruption and scandal. Sort of sounds like the naturalist farce that takes place here in the United States of America, doesn’t it?

Vladimir Putin Takes Advantage of Centuries of Conflict

Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation a former Soviet KGB agent and director of one of its successors, the FGB, under Russian President Boris Yeltsin, from 1998 to 1999, is a corrupt Russian autocrat by dint of his own personality. It was his assignment to track down foreign nations in the Democratic Republic of [East] Germany, a task to which he devoted himself with utmost diligence. He has distinguished himself during his two different tenures as President of the Russian Federation as a corrupt man who rewards his friends lavishly, something that the czars and commissars did before him, of course, and who is not averse to the harassing and silencing of those in his country who dare to criticize him, whether publicly or privately. If you think about this for a moment or two, it might occur to you that it is an act of utter hypocrisy for American President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to criticize Putin’s actions within the Russian Federation as he, Obama/Soetoro, resents and seeks to punish those who criticize him and his polices, which he believes are infallible and thus beyond question.

As a Russian nationalist who has aligned himself with the heretics of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose leaders have long sought to persecute Ukrainian Catholics, especially those who belong to the Uniate Rite Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which has roots dating back to the very Christianization of Russia itself and has been a Uniate Rite since the late-Sixteenth Century at the time of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1595, Vladimir Putin has attempted to portray his actions in Crimea (which was given to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by then First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Nikita S. Khrushchev, who was known as the “Butcher of the Ukraine”–see Crimes of khrushchev Against the Ukrainian People and The Bumpkin Butcher) during his time as the regional governor until Stalin, in 1954) and in the eastern part of Ukraine as being a bulwark against the godlessness of the Western world’s New World Order. Some “conservatives,” including some here in the United States of America, have fallen for this public relations effort.

It must be remembered that Russian Orthodoxy and Russian nationalism are one and the same, which is why the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, who suffered in the gulags under Joseph Stalin for having criticized him, was an admirer of Putin’s in the late-1990s precisely because of the latter’s Russian nationalism and why the late Pultizer Prize laureate in literature, who was justly critical of Western immorality, materialism, legal positivism and relativism, hated the Catholic Faith. For all of his excellent work condemning Marxism and Western liberalism, Solzhenitsyn equated Christianity with Russian Orthodoxy and Russian nationalism.

Moreover, as has been noted on this site many times in the past, the errors of Russia spoken of by Our Lady in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, refer to the antecedent roots of Bolshevism, Russian Orthodoxy.

Indeed, Marxism-Leninism, the most aggressive, atheistic form of socialism, was but a logical successor of nearly one thousand years of errors in Russia that made it possible for Talmudic financiers to build on the overthrow of the the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by Orthodoxy by instituting the overtly anti-Theistic rule of the politburo. Just take a look at three of the pre-Communist errors of Russia, which remains, I believe, an instrument by which a chastisement will be visited upon the West for its infidelity to Christ the King and to Mary our Immaculate Queen:

1. Denial of Papal Primacy, presaging the errors of Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer, et al.

2. Denial of the Magisterial Authority of the Catholic Church, leaving doctrinal decisions in the hands of committees of bishops.

3. The subordination of the Orthodox Church to the civil state, presaging the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the separation of Church and State wrought by Martin Luther and cemented by the rise of Judeo-Masonry and other, inter-related forces of naturalism.

Obviously, the errors of Russian Orthodoxy helped to shape the nature of Russian government over the centuries, something that Greek Orthodoxy, finding itself immersed in the heart of Mohammedanism, could not do. Thus it is that Russian Orthodoxy helped to pave the way over the centuries for Protestantism and Freemasonry by means of its rejection of the Social Reign of Christ King as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church.

The principle error of Modernity, the rejection of the Incarnation as an absolute necessity in the right ordering of men and their nations, had its antecedent roots in Russia. The errors of Russia influenced, albeit indirectly at times and through many filters, the ideas of the so-called Enlightenment in the West. And the failure of those anti-Incarnational and, at times, anti-Theistic ideas to resolve social problems, which have their remote cause in Original Sin and their proximate causes in the Actual Sins of men, made possible the rise of all manner of utopian theories.

Vladimir Putin is thus no friend of the true Faith. He is simply wrapping himself up in the mantle of Russian Orthodoxy to arouse support in the Russian Federation and to win the sympathy of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, having first wrested control of Crimea from the provisional government in Kiev, which is, the birthplace of Christianity in Russia, in order to isolate those who overthrew Viktor Yanukovych and put the economic squeeze on them so that they will eventually make their peace with “Greater Russia.” Putin is simply reconstituting parts of Imperial Russia and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. For a review of the many times in which the boundaries of Ukraine have been redrawn over the centuries, please see 22 Maps That Explain The Centuries-Long Conflict In Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin also has geopolitical goals to accomplish as he seeks to reestablish a semblance of Russian dominance in a region that has seen come under the influence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the apparatchiks who run the European Union. Viktor Yanukovych is in exile now because he accepted Vladimir Putin’s bribe of “economic assistance” rather than that offered by the Eurosocialists of the West, whose ways of “freedom” and “diversity” were admired by the mobs that showed him the way out of Kiev to his exile in Moscow.

In other words, the dispute in Ukraine is not about “right and wrong.” It is about which set of errors, the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity adhered to by the West or the errors of Russian nationalism that have persecuted untold millions of human beings, including our coreligionists in Poland, Lithuanian, Belarus and Ukraine over the centuries, is going to serve as the driving political force in what will remain of the territorial boundaries of the country after Putin is finished with this latest effort to redraw those lines.

The West and the Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych

For its part, the morally corrupt leaders of the pro-abortion, pro-perversity governments of the European Union and the United States of America have a vested interest in helping to spread the same joys of “democracy” and “freedom” that have permitted licentious to lay waste to the remnants of formerly Catholic Europe, whose indigenous population, choked off by means of chemical and surgical abortifacients, is being overcome by the descendants of the Mohammedan hordes who were turned back by Charles Matel at the Battle of Tours on October 10, 732 A.D., by the combined Christian forces under the leadership of King John of Austria in the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571, and by the forces under the command of Polish King John Sobieski in the Battle at the Gates of Vienna on September 12, 1683. Western leaders and their Talmudic financiers have wanted to establish a foothold in the former birthplace of Christianity in Russia, taking full advantage of the fact that over sixty-two percent of the population of Ukraine is atheistic, fruit of over seventy years of Bolshevik rule, interrupted in some parts of the country because of Nazi occupation during World War II. This is all about the consequence of the errors of Russia spreading as Our Lady said would be the case if it was not consecrated to her Immaculate Heart by a true pope and all of the world’s true bishops.

Western leaders, steeped in their support of all manner of social evils as they advance a statism whose goals are Marxist in conception if not in name, see the mobs that ousted the corrupt Yanukovych ready instruments to enslave under their schemes of social engineering and banking. There is not a shred of moral superiority to be found in those who have denounced Vladimir Putin’s bold dismemberment of Ukraine.

Indeed, the aforementioned Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn identified the West’s ethnocentrism as the chief reason its leaders are incapable of understanding the rest of the world, including his own beloved Russia, then in Soviet captivity:

There is the concept of the Third World: thus, we already have three worlds. Undoubtedly, however, the number is even greater; we are just too far away to see. Any ancient deeply rooted autonomous culture, especially if it is spread on a wide part of the earth’s surface, constitutes an autonomous world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking. As a minimum, we must include in this category China, India, the Muslim world and Africa, if indeed we accept the approximation of viewing the latter two as compact units. For one thousand years Russia has belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its autonomous character and therefore never understood it, just as today the West does not understand Russia in communist captivity. It may be that in the past years Japan has increasingly become a distant part of the West, I am no judge here; but as to Israel, for instance, it seems to me that it stands apart from the Western world in that its state system is fundamentally linked to religion.

How short a time ago, relatively, the small new European world was easily seizing colonies everywhere, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but also usually despising any possible values in the conquered peoples’ approach to life. On the face of it, it was an overwhelming success, there were no geographic frontiers to it. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden in the twentieth century came the discovery of its fragility and friability. We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious, and this in turn points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests. Relations with the former colonial world now have turned into their opposite and the Western world often goes to extremes of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the total size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West, and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns will be sufficient for the West to foot the bill.

But the blindness of superiority continues in spite of all and upholds the belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present day Western systems which in theory are the best and in practice the most attractive. There is this belief that all those other worlds are only being temporarily prevented by wicked governments or by heavy crises or by their own barbarity or incomprehension from taking the way of Western pluralistic democracy and from adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which developed out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet’s development is quite different. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)

Those who have any sense of history know how well American attempts to Americanize other countries, starting with Our Lady’s own beloved Mexico, have worked in the course of this country’s history (see  Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part one, Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part two, Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part three, Then, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part four and Then, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part five). Catholics suffered mightily under the yoke of one American-backed revolutionary Masonic regime after another, the devil’s revenge for Our Lady of Guadalupe’s having converted over nine million Aztecs and Mayans to the true Faith.

Consider, just as a reminder, the following Congressional testimony from an April 29, 1920, from a hearing held by United States Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations concerning the hatred of the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson for the Catholic Faith and how its minions aided the Masonic revolutionaries there in their quest to kill Catholics fully six years before the outbreak of the Cristeros War:

On Thursday, April 29, 1920, The United States Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations heard Testimony taken at Washington D.C. Among the many people who testified were Fr. Francis P. Joyce, a Captain and Chaplain in the United States Army and Catholic nun Mother Elias De Sta Sacto, of the Discalced Carmelite Order.

Father Joyce testified of his visit to John R. Silliman: “...Mr. Silliman, personal representative of President Wilson to Carranza. I visited him in the office of Consul Canada, and asked that he take it up with the State Department and obtain a boat to ship those people out of the country. He said, “On what grounds?” I said to him, “If not on the grounds of religion, at least on the ground of humanity. These are women. The priests are men and will have to make shift for themselves.” He then stood up and said, “It is generally admitted by everybody that the worst thing in Mexico, next to prostitution, is the Catholic Church, and both must go.” To prevent a fight I was hustled out of the consul’s office, and reprimanded in a military way for some words I had with Mr. Silliman.”

Fr. Joyce also testified about how the U.S. Government refused all help for the refugees and noted “When the Americans evacuated Vera Cruz, I understood that more than 400 of the sisters were left behind. Afterward I was told that Carranza and Villa’s army tried to have one prostitute to every four soldiers, and that many of these sisters were impressed as camp followers for Carranza’s army…”

Mother Elias De Sta Sacto testified, in part, “They have closed the temples and prohibited the sacraments to the extent of shooting the priest who dares to hear confession or to administer the sacraments. The confessionals and some images of the saints have been burned in the public squares to the accompaniment of bands of music and impious speeches. They have profaned the churches, entering them on horseback, smashing the images, treading the relics under foot, throwing the Hosts about the floor and even giving them to the horses to eat with the fodder…” “…Immorality has increased to such a degree that they have profaned not only virgins but have violated nuns, carrying them away by force where they now suffer horribly. To the great suffering of my soul I have seen in Mexico the sad and lamentable fate of many sisters who have been victims of the unbridled passions of the soldiers. I found many bewailing their misfortune and that were about to become mothers, some in their own homes, others in maternity hospitals. Others unable to flee from despair have surrendered to a life of evil…” See full details here. (See Mr. Martin Hill, Historical details reemerge: U.S. Government supplied 10 Million rounds of ammo, 10,000 Enfield Rifles, military planes & tanks to Slaughter tens of thousands of Catholic Freedom Fighters.)

As horrible as the crimes being committed by the Mohammedan terrorists in Nigeria at this time, let us remember that the government of the United States of American financed and provided massive armed assistance to the Masonic revolutionaries in Our Lady’s country, Mexico, who attacked consecrated religious sisters as described above. The “American Dream,” anyone?

Moreover, lest anyone contend that John R. Silliman’s hatred of the Catholic Church was not a reflection of the views of the man whom James Cardinal Gibbons, the Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore from 1877 to 1921, permitted to address him as “Mister Gibbons,” Thomas Woodrow Wilson, let me provide this corrective, especially for those who are new to this site or who may have forgotten the quotation below that has been used in a number of articles on this website.

Father Francis Clement Kelley, later the founding bishop of the then named Diocese of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, was told the following to his face when he, representing the American bishops and the Extension of Society of which he was the first head, met with Wilson at the White House the anticlerical sieges of Venustiano Carranza as early as 1915 after Carranza took his stolen office:

Wilson replied: ‘I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.’

Having thus instructed his visitor as to the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries. All efforts of Catholics to succor their coreligionists across the border were to prove fruitless, as they were to prove once again in 1924, when the fiercest persecution of all was begun by President Plutarco Calles. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1970, p. 274.)

Bishop Kelley described Wilson’s steadfast support for the Carranza regime and justified his refusal to assist Catholics being persecuted in Mexico:

Carranza was chosen by the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, to be the President of Mexico. When the Turks massacred the Armenians the Christian world shouted its protest. When the Russians murdered the Jews the shout was repeated. No people shouted louder against the massacres than the Americans and the English. About the horrors perpetrated against the Catholics of Mexico few voices were raised. President Wilson told an Indianapolis audience that he would allow the Mexicans to shed all the blood they wanted. He told me in his office in the White house that, as the inspiration of democracy had come out of the French Revolution, which had shed as much blood as Carranza and his men, perhaps something good would come out of the Mexican debacle. His words were offered in consolation. I thanked him and withdrew. (Bishop Francis Clement Kelley, Blood-Drenched Altars, published originally in 1935 by the Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1987, p. 237.)

Wilson did, however, write a letter, dated March 20, 1915, but most likely authored by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, shortly thereafter his meeting with Father Kelley to explain that he was, of course, opposed to the “treatment already said to have been accorded priests has had a most unfortunate effect upon opinion outside of Mexico” (cf. Kelley, p. 241). This is interesting as Wilson was plotting all along to using his own agents in Mexico to pave the way for a constitution with anticlerical provisions. The lady had protesteth a bit too much.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his minions are only the logical heirs of the statist crimes committed in the past by the likes of Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, John Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Milhous Nixon, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and George Walker Bush before them.

Catholics in The Philippines suffered mightily under the yoke of American “liberation” and occupation after the Spanish-American War in 1898, something that was documented in part three of the series linked just above.

We know also of how the efforts of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson, the moralistic American exceptionalist and Germanophobe who needlessly involved the armed forces of the United States of America in World War I and then presided over the creation of secular, Masonic regimes in Central and Eastern Europe in the name of a “democratic self-determination” that did nothing but destabilize the region and helped to prepare the way for the conquering of these nations by the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler and the Red Army of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

We have also seen in more recent times the disastrous results of the American military intervention in Afghanistan (see Bag Man in a Karakul Hat), which has been a total failure, and the supposed “liberation” and then the subsequent occupation of Iraq, something that devastated this country, including the country’s Catholic population, and made it a haven of all manner of Mohammedan terrorists as its domestic politics wound up being controlled by oligarchs who are just as corrupt as Saddam Hussein (see Longer Than World War II.)

Not content with the failure of American social engineering in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, flush with enthusiasm for the supposed “Arab Spring” that resulted in such catastrophe for Catholics and Coptic Orthodox Christians in Egypt and made Libya into another haven for Mohammedan terrorists, something that leaders of the current administration knew and did nothing to stop prior to attack that killed four American in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, statist who is our president “red lined” Syria and targeted it for attack. It was Vladimir Putin, of all people, saved him from committing a blunder that would have cost even more American lives in the midst of a civil war whose results have no effect on the legitimate national security interests of the United States of America (see Different Chief, Same War Drums).

Unlike his starry-eyed opponents in the West, however, Vladimir Putin does not blink when he sets out to accomplish the dismemberment of a country. He knew that the weaklings in the West would not risk a nuclear conflagration over Ukraine. He knows that all of their support for mobs in Kiev that ousted Viktor Yanukovych meant nothing as he could rouse ethnic Russian mobs to pillage and kill in Crimea and in the eastern part of Ukraine.

Alas, you see, it is far easier for Putin to Russify lands that are historically Russian than it is for the blind statists and globalists of the West to “Americanize” or “democratize” lands that will never conform to the American model of “democracy” that is responsible for the triumph of unbridled licentiousness and the rise of a neo-barbarism that calls to mind the state of much of Europe before it as Catholicized in the First Millennium.

American Hypocrisy at Work Once Again

The condemnation by American policy-makers of the dismemberment of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin and the paramilitary forces he has funded in Crimea,whose population of Mohammedans, descendants of the murderous Tartars, was “cleansed” by the Imperial Russian government in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, and in eastern Ukraine is both disingenuous and hypocritical.

After all, the United States of America provided billions upon billions of dollars to the government of the State of Israel, whose founders seize the property of Palestinian Arabs, Christians and Mohammedans alike, and then carted off most of Palestinians into “detention centers,” where they were treated with total contempt and utter cruelty. Particularly harsh in his treatment of the Palestinians–and all other Arabs for that matter–was the moral monster named Ariel Sharon, who died on January 28, 2014, after lingering in a coma for nearly eight years, the infamous Butcher of Beirut, whose crimes were discussed in Moral Monsters. Still and all, course, lobbyists for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee keep making sure that the money keeps flowing to the murderous Israeli regime, noting that the current administration has been more publicly and privately since before President Lyndon Baines Johnson supported Israel in the Six Day Way in 1967 that saw even more territory occupied by Israelis, followed by even more persecution of Arabs. Johnson was even silent as the Israel Air Force attacked the U.S.S. Liberty (see Devils Without Tails).

Perhaps even more to the point, of course, is the long record that the government of the United States of America sports in seizing lands within its own midst, to say nothing of the brutality accorded the states of the Confederate States of America, composed of eleven states whose state legislatures had declared their independence from the United States of America in 1861.

To wit, no miracle effected before his eyes by Our Lady of Prompt Succor at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, Andrew Jackson remained a bloodthirsty hater of Indians, a man who engaged in a massive exercise in American social engineering in the forced relocation in 1831 of the Cherokees, Creeks, Seminoles, Chickasaws and, Choctawas from Georgia and Florida into what is now Oklahoma. Even his fellow Freemason and Tennesseean, United States Representative David Crockett, voted against the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Jackson’s darkened, Masonic heart was completely unmoved by the cruelty experienced along the Trail of Tears and the several thousand deaths that it caused, evoking, of course, memories of the Grand Derangement of the Acadians out of Nova Scotia in 1755 (see Applause For Killers).

This is part of what Crockett wrote in 1834, three years after the removal of the Indians had commenced:

I have almost given up the Ship as lost. I have gone So far as to declare that if he martin vanburen is elected that I will leave the united States for I never will live under his kingdom. before I will Submit to his Government I will go to the wildes of Texas. I will consider that government a Paridice to what this will be. In fact at this time our Republican Government has dwindled almost into insignificancy our [boasted] land of liberty have almost Bowed to the yoke of Bondage. Our happy days of Republican principles are near at an end when a few is to transfer the many. (Davy Crockett on the removal of the Cherokees.)

Unfortunately for Davy Crockett, he did not understand that he was witnessing even at that early stage in American history the degeneration of a nation founded on false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously-indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles. He thought Texas was to be a place of refuge. Many think so today as well! Alas, there is no hiding place from the slave drivers. No hiding place at all.

Thus, no matter what anyone else might assert, if even only by implication, Andrew Jackson, though grateful for the miracle that provided him with a military victory at the Battle of New Orleans, remained an American slave driver of demagoguery and hatred and racialism in  his own Masonic right as mouthed the slogans of “the people’s will” that he had learned so well from the pamphleteers who evangelized in behalf of the false principles of the French Revolution. His policies of social engineering have been followed by most of his successors in the American presidency, including the three immediate past presidents and the current occupant of the White House. When in doubt, “engineer” the world to suit one’s ideological purposes. This is what Andrew Jackson believed.

Abraham Lincoln was just as much as social engineer as had been Andrew Jackson, personally authorizing rank terrorism to imposed upon civilians in the states of the Confederacy. Particularly stark is the stain on American history that occurred in Cold Harbor, Virginia, in 1864. Here is a very moving account, written by Mr. Michael Reardon, a pioneering traditional Catholic whom I am privileged to count as a friend:

In the month of June 1864, General [Ulysses S.] Grant’s army came on the premises (at Old Cold Harbor) and swept it clean of everything in the way of supplies for man or beast.” So spoke my great-great aunt, an eyewitness.

During the first 12 days of June, we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Cold Harbor (May 31-June 12, 1864), the main assault of which took place at early dawn on June 3, 1864, a contest in which 7,000 Union soldiers were mortally wounded in some 20 minutes of fighting on a site later referred to by a Union general who fought there as “the Golgotha of American history.”

The sound of that assault was described by inhabitants of Richmond 12 miles away as that of a “volcanic eruption.” All told, the number of Americans killed and wounded at Cold Harbor was, by conservative estimates, some 13,000, with the vast majority Union. It is believed that estimates of casualties were deceivingly kept lower than the reality by the [President Abraham] Lincoln Administration due to the then upcoming presidential election.

Grant reportedly told his staff on the evening of June 3, ”I regret this assault more than any one I have ever ordered. … No advantage has have been gained sufficient to justify the heavy losses suffered,” sentiments that he would later express in his memoirs.

Battle commenced from Cold Harbor property

The battle received its name from the property at Old Cold Harbor, which at the time consisted of a farm of 182 acres, a corn house, a wagon house, a stable, a general use house, (structures with some 6,500 square feet of ground space) and a dwelling house that also served as a hotel/tavern: Burnett’s Inn.

The property sat at a crossroads where five roads met, and still do.

The triangular property known today as Ellerson’s Garage was a part of the property, with the main body of land located diagonally (southeast) across the road from it, at what is today Rock Hill Road and Cold Harbor Road.

Property owned by Burnett family

When the [Civil] War commenced in 1861, the property, recorded simply as “The Cold Harbor Property” at Hanover Courthouse, was owned by my great-great-grandfather, Isaac Burnett, 58, and his wife, the former Sarah Hughes, 51, who resided there with their 13 children, nine daughters and four sons, one of whom, George, my great-grandfather, served the Confederacy for two and a half years, was wounded, finally surrendering with the 24th Virginia Cavalry and Lee at Appomattox. (His daughter, Lena, my grandmother, was born in the tavern in 1879.)

Burnetts in uniform

George Burnett and three of his first cousins, John, James and William Burnett, were all members of Company B, 24th Virginia Cavalry.

Company B was the prime unit that hunted down and killed Union Col. Ulric Dahlgren within hours after Dahlgren’s unsuccessful raid on Richmond in March 1864.

According to the book 24th Virginia Cavalry, by Darryl Holland, “This company was famous for being instrumental in the ambush that stopped the notorious Dahlgren Raid in March 1864, Company B being the largest body of organized Confederate troops in the field during the incident.”

Papers found on Dahlgren’s body, with their contents widely published in newspapers, showed that the purpose of the raid was the killing of Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet, and that revelation is believed by historians to have set in motion events that led to the assassination of Lincoln a year later. Thus that action of Company B might have altered history significantly.

These three cousins of George lived less than two miles from Cold Harbor in a house that still stands in what is today the Pine Knoll subdivision, on 609 acres owned by their father, Richard Burnett, a Methodist minister. (James and John are today buried on the property.)

Among this unit’s many engagements with the enemy was that at Cold Harbor, where 16-year-old John snuck through enemy lines at night to visit his family, returning to his unit before daylight.

The unit also was present when the great Jeb Stuart fell at Yellow Tavern. (Also serving with Company B were George’s future brothers-in-law, my great-great-uncles, David and Benjamin Barker.)

The Burnett ancestry

Isaac Burnett, the owner of the Cold Harbor property, was a direct descendent of John Burnett, a wealthy Scottish merchant who in 1638 received a Charter from Charles I, the King of England, Scotland, that declared “John Burnett of Aberdeen the sole merchant of our Kingdom of Scotland that hath supplied the plantations of Virginia and become our tenant there…”

John Burnett, in turn, was a direct descendent of Alexander Burnett, born in 1275, an early 14th century ally of King Robert the Bruce of Scotland in his war against the English and who was handsomely rewarded, along with his descendents, with noble title and land.

The ancestral home of the Burnetts is Crathes Castle in Aberdeen, Scotland, a structure that took 40 years to build.

Devastation at the hands of the Union army

In the spring of 1862, the Union Army under Gen. George McClellan camped on the Cold Harbor property for six weeks and cleaned it of all its supplies of food and livestock, leaving the family only its dwelling house, four empty buildings, fences and timber.

Gen. Grant, however, would not be so generous.

In the words of Martha Burnett McGhee, Isaac’s 21-year-old daughter at the time of the Battle: “In the month of June 1864, Gen. Grant’s army came on the property and swept it clean in the way of supplies for man or beast.”

Among the items taken by the two armies were 152 acres of corn, oats and potatoes, 87 hogs, many slaughtered on the property, nine milk cows, one mule, three yearlings, 50 fowl and the substantial contents of the storage houses in hundreds of bushels of grain, eight tons of hay, hundreds of pounds of bacon, flour, etc.

The Union army’s horses and cattle were set free to graze on those crops in cultivation and the fields were “fed off as clean as a floor,” according to Martha Burnett McGhee.

As a point of interest, Martha Burnett observed a Union soldier take a large glass bowl from the tavern and hide it in a haystack. She went out in the night and hid it in another haystack. That bowl remains in the family today, owned by a cousin, also a descendent of George Burnett.

In addition, Grant’s army cut and removed all 40 acres of timber on the property (which would have supplied at least 30 cords of wood per acre according to Isaac’s son, Richard.) All of the property’s fences were taken (more than 4,000 panels.)

The stable, corn house, wagon house and general use house were all dismantled by his army and taken away, leaving only the tavern, four rooms of which were used as a Union hospital and much damaged.

In the words of June Banks Evans, from her book, “Men of Metadequin,” which is a historical account of the early families of Hanover County: “After the Battle of Cold Harbor, the lives of these families were in shambles — the churches had been closed, their ministers serving as army chaplains; the raiding Federal troops had carried off livestock, horses and food supplies; some sons and fathers had gone to war, never to return; and the farmlands, once so productive, were reverting to scrubby, untilled fields.”

Claims brought by the Burnett family against the U.S. Government, and which were placed before the U.S. Congress as late as 1905, were denied in the hostile atmosphere that existed against the South in the post-war years.

Tribute from a former enemy

There was no greater soldier fighting for the North than Medal of Honor recipient Joshua Chamberlain.

As general in charge of the surrender at Appomattox, he ordered a salute of arms to the surrendering Confederate army.

Years later, looking back to Appomattox, Chamberlain described the Confederate soldier as “the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and suffering, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve, standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, memories that bound us together as no other bond.”

If a former enemy felt bound in spirit with the Confederate soldier due to the heroic virtue the latter displayed, should we who have the blood of Confederate soldiers running through our veins and who walk the same grounds that they walked not display a measure of that same virtue in defense of the heritage they so gallantly fought and died for? (Michael Reardon, Cold Harbor: ‘The Golgotha of American history’.)

The issue in the War between the States was not slavery, which would have died out as institution on its own. The issue in the War between the States was state sovereignty, which the United States of America upholds in other nations under certain sets of circumstances while at other times, such as in Ukraine at the present time, protests that no such sovereignty exists for those who ally with the “wrong” side.

Moreover, the Union Army’s seizure of property and the devastation of the lives of the families that lived in Cold Harbor, Virginia, one hundred fifty years ago come May 31, 2014, the Feast of the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was very similar to what transpired thirty-four years later in The Philippines and Operation Keelhaul, which was directed by none other than then General Dwight David Eisenhower after World War II in 1945:

“You may not be aware of it, but Dwight D. Eisenhower was responsible for implementing the very evil repatriation of millions of Eastern European refugees (many of whom were Catholic) who had fled from the communist take over. This evil was code named Operation Keelhaul. Many people actually committed suicide rather than to be forced back to their homeland under Satanic communist rule. The entire Yalta Conference was also part of this whole diabolical plot to further the Judeo-Masonic destruction of Christianity and bring about the reign of antichrist.” (Comment provided by Mr. Dennis Bilodeau, a reader of this site, in 2012.)

There is simply no moral high ground on which the United States of America, which permits the chemical and surgical assassination of nearly four thousand innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs every day and untold numbers of people in hospitals by means of starvation and dehydration or by vivisection for their body members even though they are not dead, to stand to denounce Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine as he is merely doing what comes naturally to a Russian nationalist: to protect the people of his nationality for his own domestic political purposes in the Russian Federation and to show the West that Russia will not dance to the tune of its bankers.

Whither the Catholics of Ukraine

Only about a third of the country of Ukraine is Christian. Of that percentage, only fifteen percent are Catholics, who constitute about six percent of the total population in Ukraine. Nearly sixty-six percent of Christians in Ukraine belong to one of three different sets of the Orthodox.

Still and all, the Russian Orthodox leadership, with which Vladmir Putin has allied himself, has long been upset about the presence of any form of Catholicism in the Ukraine, no less of the Latin elements that remain among Roman Rite Catholics in the country. The Russian Orthodox have never gotten over the inroads made by Catholicism in Ukraine during the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth  from 1569 to 1795. Much like their counterparts in “ecumenical dialogue” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, the Russian Orthodox hierarchy, staring with Patriarch Krill himself, desire to eradicate true Catholicism, although the Russians want to do so not for the sake of conciliarism but to make Ukraine “pure” for Russian Orthodoxy without the “corrupting” influence of what is seen as the “Roman religion.”

A report in late-2009 explained Russian patriarch’s “concerns” about Catholic churches in the Ukraine that were seized by the Soviets after World War II and then given to their own control in repayment for their “cooperation” with the KGB. Many of these churches were taken back by Catholics after the apparent fall of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. Although Russian Orthodox officials have said that they not seeking the return of the churches, they do want some accommodation to be made to provide “worship space” for the Orthodox in the Ukraine. Would Jorge Mario Bergoglio be willing to offer the return of a few Catholic churches to make possible a meeting with Patriarch Kiirill I and a show of “communion from the heart.” You betcha:

Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, would be willing to meet Pope Benedict after disputes with Catholics in Ukraine are resolved, Archbishop Hilarion, the Church’s external relations head, has said.  A meeting with the pope would begin to heal the 1,000 year-old-rift between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity, which split in 1054 amid disputes over doctrine and papal authority that remain unresolved.

“This is not an issue of when the meeting will take place, but what will be discussed,” Hilarion told journalists on Tuesday.  He said the patriarch of the 165-million-strong Russian Orthodox Church, whose believers include the majority of Russia’s population as well as millions in neighbouring ex-Soviet countries Ukraine and Belarus, wanted a conflict in western Ukraine over church property to be resolved first.

“The situation in western Ukraine is the primary reason for the blocking of the meeting,” he said.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Eastern Rite Catholics who owe their allegiance to Rome took back some churches that had been confiscated by communist authorities after World War Two and given to the Orthodox.  The Russian Orthodox Church does not demand the churches are returned but wants the Vatican to take “concrete measures” towards improving the situation, Hilarion said, such as helping Orthodox followers who have only Catholic churches nearby.

“As soon as there are positive dynamics (from the Vatican) towards resolving this issue, then we can return to the issue of the pope and patriarch meeting,” Hilarion said.

He did not specify if the patriarch wanted help given only to members of the Russian Orthodox Church or to an independent Orthodox church formed in Ukraine in the 1990s, which rejects Russia’s top clergy despite Kirill’s appeals for unity.

Last year’s election of Kirill brought fresh hope that a historic meeting between pope and patriarch could take place. Relations between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church were discussed last month when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev briefly met the pope.

Hilarion said the Eastern Rite Catholics took more than 500 churches from the Russian Orthodox, who are the largest autocephalic church amongst the world’s 220 million Orthodox Christians.  Until 1946, the churches belonged to the Eastern Rite Catholics, a sizeable minority in western Ukraine who endured hardship under Moscow’s rule until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“We do not argue the fact that these temples belonged to them before 1946 but we categorically disagree with the methods which (they) used to get them back,” Hilarion said.

The dispute over the church buildings is just one sticking point in relations between the Russian church and the Vatican. The Russian church has accused Rome of trying to poach converts following the fall of communism, something the Vatican denies.

Kirill’s predecessor, Patriarch Alexiy, who spearheaded the revival of his church after decades of communist persecution, treated rival religions and churches with suspicion. John Paul hailed from Poland, a traditional enemy of Russia, and his fight against Soviet Communism was interpreted by the Orthodox Church as a crusade against Russia.  German-born Pope Benedict, a theological conservative, is viewed by Orthodox hierarchs as a more welcome partner than his predecessor John Paul II. (Ukraine dispute blocks Vatican, Russian Orthodox meeting – Hilarion.)

It is a mystery why Patriarch Kirill I has been concerned about agents of the counterfeit church of conciliarism seeking to “poach converts” from Orthodoxy as such work, which is, of course, nothing other than the work of the Apostles and was what prompted Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych to give up up his life the hands of the Orthodox on November 12, 1623, in what is now the country of Belarus, which borders the Ukraine. The counterfeit church of conciliarism’s agents have agreed some time ago to refrain from such apostolic work:

22) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop. (Full Text of the Balamand Statement.)

No need to worry, Patriarch Kirill. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II,Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Walter “Cardinal” Kasper and Kurt “Cardinal” Koch have been way, way ahead of you. Bergoglio will knuckle under to whatever demands Kirill makes of him just as much as leaders of Western nations have to issue empty threats and meaningless economic sanctions as the ally of Russian Orthodoxy, Vladimir Putin, busies himself with the dismemberment of Ukraine before he makes direct commands on the provisional government in Kiev for “greater cooperation.”

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894, begged the Orthodox to do what the conciliarists believe is “offensive:” to convert unconditionally to the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, and to be as duly submissive to the authority of legitimate Roman Pontiffs as had been their forebears in the First Millennium, thus demolishing the sophistic attempts by the conciliar “popes,” including “Saint John Paul,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio Francis, to contend that the the bishops in the East had not been submissive to the Roman Pontiffs in the First Millennium:

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.  We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.  Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood.  The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known.  Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, “in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report”; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began.  Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.

We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling.  To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.

Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: “What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified?  What will our defense be in the  eyes of posterity?  Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren.”

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches.  It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.  On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God’s bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.  May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: “Make the schisms of the Churches cease,” and “Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki’s Tumultuous Times.)

The fact that the conciliarists reaffirm the Orthodox in their heretical beliefs and do not exhort them to convert to the true Faith is yet another proof that the “spirit” guiding them comes from Hell as the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, is immutable. Those who say otherwise stand condemned by the infallible of Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council (see the material included in Around and Around They Go.)

Catholics, both those who belong to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which has undergone its own “de-Latinization” program in recent decades as part of the “springtime” of the “Second” Vatican Council, and those who belong to the Roman Rite should be preprared to suffer, perhaps as much as have the Catholics in Iraq and Syria. and Egypt. There can be no room in the New World Order of the Judeo-Masonic West and the Russian nationalism for even the heretical conciliar version of Catholicism, which is seen as an enemy of “human rights” in the West and of “true patriotism” in Russia.

No Peace Without Christ the King

Human nature is flawed as a result of Original Sin. The souls of men are wounded further by the effects of their Actual Sins, which is why we must seek to recover by penance what we have lost by sin. There will always be conflicts in the world even if it is God’s Holy Will for the Social Reign of Christ the King to be restored prior to the Second Coming of Our King on the Last Day.

Indeed, Pope Pius XII, writing in his first encyclical letter, Summi Pontificatucs, October 10, 1939, explained that Europe was frequently torn by wars even when there its kingdoms recognized the true Faith. Pope Pius XII also noted, however, the difference between then and now and his own time was that conflicts last longer, are more deadly and more intractable precisely because men have turned away from Christ the King, choosing to persist in their sins:

28. The present age, Venerable Brethren, by adding new errors to the doctrinal aberrations of the past, has pushed these to extremes which lead inevitably to a drift towards chaos. Before all else, it is certain that the radical and ultimate cause of the evils which We deplore in modern society is the denial and rejection of a universal norm of morality as well for individual and social life as for international relations; We mean the disregard, so common nowadays, and the forgetfulness of the natural law itself, which has its foundation in God, Almighty Creator and Father of all, supreme and absolute Lawgiver, all-wise and just Judge of human actions. When God is hated, every basis of morality is undermined; the voice of conscience is stilled or at any rate grows very faint, that voice which teaches even to the illiterate and to uncivilized tribes what is good and what is bad, what lawful, what forbidden, and makes men feel themselves responsible for their actions to a Supreme Judge.

29. The denial of the fundamentals of morality had its origin, in Europe, in the abandonment of that Christian teaching of which the Chair of Peter is the depository and exponent. That teaching had once given spiritual cohesion to a Europe which, educated, ennobled and civilized by the Cross, had reached such a degree of civil progress as to become the teacher of other peoples, of other continents. But, cut off from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, not a few separated brethren have gone so far as to overthrow the central dogma of Christianity, the Divinity of the Savior, and have hastened thereby the progress of spiritual decay.

30. The Holy Gospel narrates that when Jesus was crucified “there was darkness over the whole earth” (Matthew xxvii. 45); a terrifying symbol of what happened and what still happens spiritually wherever incredulity, blind and proud of itself, has succeeded in excluding Christ from modern life, especially from public life, and has undermined faith in God as well as faith in Christ. The consequence is that the moral values by which in other times public and private conduct was gauged have fallen into disuse; and the much vaunted civilization of society, which has made ever more rapid progress, withdrawing man, the family and the State from the beneficent and regenerating effects of the idea of God and the teaching of the Church, has caused to reappear, in regions in which for many centuries shone the splendors of Christian civilization, in a manner ever clearer, ever more distinct, ever more distressing, the signs of a corrupt and corrupting paganism: “There was darkness when they crucified Jesus” (Roman Breviary, Good Friday, Response Five).

31. Many perhaps, while abandoning the teaching of Christ, were not fully conscious of being led astray by a mirage of glittering phrases, which proclaimed such estrangement as an escape from the slavery in which they were before held; nor did they then foresee the bitter consequences of bartering the truth that sets free, for error which enslaves. They did not realize that, in renouncing the infinitely wise and paternal laws of God, and the unifying and elevating doctrines of Christ’s love, they were resigning themselves to the whim of a poor, fickle human wisdom; they spoke of progress, when they were going back; of being raised, when they groveled; of arriving at man’s estate, when they stooped to servility. They did not perceive the inability of all human effort to replace the law of Christ by anything equal to it; “they became vain in their thoughts” (Romans i. 21).

32. With the weakening of faith in God and in Jesus Christ, and the darkening in men’s minds of the light of moral principles, there disappeared the indispensable foundation of the stability and quiet of that internal and external, private and public order, which alone can support and safeguard the prosperity of States.

33. It is true that even when Europe had a cohesion of brotherhood through identical ideals gathered from Christian preaching, she was not free from divisions, convulsions and wars which laid her waste; but perhaps they never felt the intense pessimism of today as to the possibility of settling them, for they had then an effective moral sense of the just and of the unjust, of the lawful and of the unlawful, which, by restraining outbreaks of passion, left the way open to an honorable settlement. In Our days, on the contrary, dissensions come not only from the surge of rebellious passion, but also from a deep spiritual crisis which has overthrown the sound principles of private and public morality. (Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939.)

Our true popes were as one in reminding Catholics that Protestant Revolution led to the subsequent rise and triumph of naturalism, thereby hasting the decay of men and their nations to the point of barbarism and beyond.

Pope Pius XII’s predecessor, Pope Pius XI, used his own first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, to remind the world that there is simply no peace, either in the souls of men or in the world where the persistence in sin is glorified as a “human right:”

13. It is most sad to see how this revolutionary spirit has penetrated into that sanctuary of peace and love, the family, the original nucleus of human society. In the family these evil seeds of dissension, which were sown long ago, have recently been spread about more and more by the fact of the absence of fathers and sons from the family fireside during the War and by the greatly increased freedom in matters of morality which followed on it as one of its effects. Frequently we behold sons alienated from their fathers, brothers quarreling with brothers, masters with servants, servants with masters. Too often likewise have we seen both the sanctity of the marriage tie and the duties to God and to humankind, which this tie imposes upon men, forgotten.

14. Just as the smallest part of the body feels the effect of an illness which is ravaging the whole body or one of its vital organs, so the evils now besetting society and the family afflict even individuals. In particular, We cannot but lament the morbid restlessness which has spread among people of every age and condition in life, the general spirit of insubordination and the refusal to live up to one’s obligations which has become so widespread as almost to appear the customary mode of living. We lament, too, the destruction of purity among women and young girls as is evidenced by the increasing immodesty of their dress and conversation and by their participation in shameful dances, which sins are made the more heinous by the vaunting in the faces of people less fortunate than themselves their luxurious mode of life. Finally, We cannot but grieve over the great increase in the number of what might be called social misfits who almost inevitably end by joining the ranks of those malcontents who continually agitate against all order, be it public or private.

15. It is surprising, then, that we should no longer possess that security of life in which we can place our trust and that there remains only the most terrible uncertainty, and from hour to hour added fears for the future? Instead of regular daily work there is idleness and unemployment. That blessed tranquillity which is the effect of an orderly existence and in which the essence of peace is to be found no longer exists, and, in its place, the restless spirit of revolt reigns. As a consequence industry suffers, commerce is crippled, the cultivation of literature and the arts becomes more and more difficult, and what is worse than all, Christian civilization itself is irreparably damaged thereby. In the face of our much praised progress, we behold with sorrow society lapsing back slowly but surely into a state of barbarism.

16. We wish to record, in addition to the evils already mentioned, other evils which beset society and which occupy a place of prime importance but whose very existence escapes the ordinary observer, the sensual man — he who, as the Apostle says, does not perceive “the things that are of the Spirit of God” (I Cor. ii, 14), yet which cannot but be judged the greatest and most destructive scourges of the social order of today. We refer specifically to those evils which transcend the material or natural sphere and lie within the supernatural and religious order properly so-called; in other words, those evils which affect the spiritual life of souls. These evils are all the more to be deplored since they injure souls whose value is infinitely greater than that of any merely material object. . . .

28. These words of the Holy Bible have been fulfilled and are now at this very moment being fulfilled before our very eyes. Because men have forsaken God and Jesus Christ, they have sunk to the depths of evil. They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. It was a quite general desire that both our laws and our governments should exist without recognizing God or Jesus Christ, on the theory that all authority comes from men, not from God. Because of such an assumption, these theorists fell very short of being able to bestow upon law not only those sanctions which it must possess but also that secure basis for the supreme criterion of justice which even a pagan philosopher like Cicero saw clearly could not be derived except from the divine law.

Authority itself lost its hold upon mankind, for it had lost that sound and unquestionable justification for its right to command on the one hand and to be obeyed on the other. Society, quite logically and inevitably, was shaken to its very depths and even threatened with destruction, since there was left to it no longer a stable foundation, everything having been reduced to a series of conflicts, to the domination of the majority, or to the supremacy of special interests.

29. Again, legislation was passed which did not recognize that either God or Jesus Christ had any rights over marriage — an erroneous view which debased matrimony to the level of a mere civil contract, despite the fact that Jesus Himself had called it a “great sacrament” (Ephesians v, 32) and had made it the holy and sanctifying symbol of that indissoluble union which binds Him to His Church. The high ideals and pure sentiments with which the Church has always surrounded the idea of the family, the germ of all social life, these were lowered, were unappreciated, or became confused in the minds of many. As a consequence, the correct ideals of family government, and with them those of family peace, were destroyed; the stability and unity of the family itself were menaced and undermined, and, worst of all, the very sanctuary of the home was more and more frequently profaned by acts of sinful lust and soul-destroying egotism — all of which could not but result in poisoning and drying up the very sources of domestic and social life.

30. Added to all this, God and Jesus Christ, as well as His doctrines, were banished from the school. As a sad but inevitable consequence, the school became not only secular and non-religious but openly atheistical and anti-religious. In such circumstances it was easy to persuade poor ignorant children that neither God nor religion are of any importance as far as their daily lives are concerned. God’s name, moreover, was scarcely ever mentioned in such schools unless it were perchance to blaspheme Him or to ridicule His Church. Thus, the school forcibly deprived of the right to teach anything about God or His law could not but fail in its efforts to really educate, that is, to lead children to the practice of virtue, for the school lacked the fundamental principles which underlie the possession of a knowledge of God and the means necessary to strengthen the will in its efforts toward good and in its avoidance of sin. Gone, too, was all possibility of ever laying a solid groundwork for peace, order, and prosperity, either in the family or in social relations. Thus the principles based on the spiritualistic philosophy of Christianity having been obscured or destroyed in the minds of many, a triumphant materialism served to prepare mankind for the propaganda of anarchy and of social hatred which was let loose on such a great scale. . . .

47. It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

48. It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, “the Kingdom of Christ.” For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one’s life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

49. It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ — “the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.” It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ’s kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

This is pretty clear.

Despite all of the blathering about “inter-religious dialogue” as the means to “peace” in the world that we have heard from the conciliar “popes” from the time of the “election” of “Saint John XXIII” on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, the Social Reign of Christ the King is the necessary precondition, although never an infallible guarantor, of a just social order founded upon a due concern for the eternal good souls.

The entire world, including the people in Ukraine, Syria, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Red China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Libya, Egypt, is suffering because of the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity, which have metastasized so rapidly in the past fifty-five years now because of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “official reconciliation” with those errors.

To Our Lady of Fatima and Saint Joseph

As noted before, we are suffering the consequences of the failure of Pope Pius XI, who may not have been aware of Our Lady’s request for the collegial consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart, Pope Pius XII, caught in the throes of the Cold War in the immediate aftermath of World War II, to consecrate Russia with all of world’s true bishops to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The errors of Russia have indeed spread throughout the world, including here in the United States of America, and remain influential in Russia and its neighbors. Indeed, we must never forget that “Saint John XXIII” promised silence about Communism at the “Second” Vatican Council in exchange for the presence of Russian Orthodox “observers” at this milestone event in the history of heresy (see The Council of Metz).

We must also remember that Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, appeared with Our Lady during the Miracle of the Sun on October 13, 1917, in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal. Saint Joseph’s protection is essential to keep us from the blight of the twin, interrelated errors of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

There is only one path to peace, the true peace of Christ the King, and that is the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. May the Rosaries we pray every day help to plant the seeds for the restoration of Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint John Baptist de la Salle, pray for us.

This entry was posted in The Follies of Naturalism by Thomas Droleskey. Bookmark the permalink.

About Thomas Droleskey

Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey is a Catholic writer and speaker . He is the publisher-editor of Christ or, a site that has featured over 900 articles since the beginning of 2006, many dealing with his embrace of sedevacantism. Hundreds of his articles appeared in The Wanderer, the oldest weekly national Catholic newspaper, between 1992 and 2000. He was a contributor to The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture between 2001 and 2003. Droleskey's articles have appeared in the American Life League's Celebrate Life magazine. He also contributed articles to The Remnant and for Catholic Family News. His articles also appeared for two years in The Four Marks. Dr. Droleskey was an adjunct professor of political science at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University between January of 1991 and July of 2003, reprising his association there for a winter intersession course, which was taught between December 28, 2006, and January 11, 2007. He had taught political science around the nation since January of 1974, receiving numerous awards for excellence in teaching. Many of his students have converted to the Catholic Faith. Formerly a pro-life activist, Droleskey was the candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986. He was the party's candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay in 1997, and he challenged then Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato for the party's senatorial nomination in 1998, receiving over 37% of the primary vote. Droleskey has campaigned for pro-life candidates around the country. He is now retired from all involvement in partisan politics, concentrating instead on the promotion of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. Dr. Droleskey has lectured extensively around the nation for the past twenty years, driving nearly 1,000,000 miles in the last twenty-five years of his lecturing around the nation. His thirty-six hour lecture program, Living in the Shadow of the Cross, has been given in twenty different venues across the United States. Another lecture program, "To be Catholic from the Womb to the Tomb," was given in eleven different places across the nation. His work is dedicated to the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Droleskey is devoted to the establishment of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the Queenship of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. His first book, Christ in the Voting Booth, was published by Hope of Saint Monica, Inc., 1998. His second book, There Is No Cure for this Condition, was published by Chartres Communications in 2001. G.I.R.M. Warfare (The Traditional Latin Mass versus the General Instruction to the Roman Missal) was published in 2004; Restoring Christ as the King of All Nations, Droleskey's compendium of fifty-three articles about the immutable doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, was published in June of 2005. Three e-books, There Is No Shortcut to Cure This Condition, Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Contributed to the Rise of Conciliarism and Meeting the Mets: A Quirky History of a Quirky Team, have been published in the past four years. The latter book, for which this particular Word Press site was created initially in 2012, is also available in a paperback format. Droleskey served for some years on the Board of Advisers of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. He has served on the boards of the National Association of Private and Independent Catholic Schools and on the board of 100% Pro-Life Pac. He is listed in the 2001-2002 edition of the Marquis Who's Who in America. Droleskey, who was born on November 24, 1951, is married to the former Sharon Collins. Their first child, Lucy Mary Norma, was born in Sioux City, Iowa, on March 27, 2002. A native of Long Island, Droleskey and his family now live in the United States of America.