Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
         September 27, 2010

Gatekeepers of the Naturalist "Mainstream"

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The absurd games played by the false opposites of the naturalist left (see the appendix below for yet another reminder as to why I use this term repeatedly) and the naturalist right distract millions upon millions of ordinary Americans every two years. Americans remain concerned chiefly about their economic well-being above all else.

As the currently reigning caesar, Barackus Obamus Ignoramus, has disappointed even some of those who bought his egomaniacal hype about his having the "audacity of hope" and refused to see him for the consummate statist and self-absorbed statist that he is, many voters are now looking to those in the false opposite of the "right" to restore their economic prosperity.

Most of these voters do not realize that their economic prosperity has been undermined over the decades by the promotion of grave sins under cover of law and all throughout what passes for "popular culture" in the name of "civil liberty. Indeed, most of these voters would go MEGO ("mine eyes glaze over) if they were told that their economic prosperity has been further undermined by the greed of multinational corporations which, having no loyalty to any nation or even to their own employees (no matter how long and hard they may have toiled for these corporations), have outsourced American jobs and that the Federal government of the Untied States of America has squandered America's national treasure, perhaps irretrievably, on profligate domestic spending and the prosecution of needless foreign wars that have not made this country one bit more secure than it was before Tuesday, September 11, 2001. Some, perhaps a majority, do understand the role that Wall Street financiers and the financial markets have played in creating a deep recession that still has national unemployment rates hovering at just below ten percent (figures in the various states such as Nevada, Michigan, California, and Florida are over ten percent; see Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary).

What I wrote on November 5, 2008, the day after then United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Illinois) defeated United States Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona) to be assured of a majority of the electoral college votes that were cast by the electors in the fifty state capitals and the District of Columbia on Monday, December 15, 2008, is as relevant now in 2010 as it was six hundred ninety-two days ago:

It's all about the money. Two-thirds of voters surveyed in exit polls taken across the United States of America yesterday said that their top priority in engaging in the naturalistic fraud of our Judeo-Masonic electoral system said that they based their vote on economic concerns, especially in light of the crashes in the credit market that paralyzed Wall Street and other such financial markets around the world in September of this year. Money, money, money. Most voters in the United States of America are motivated almost exclusively by economic self-interest, believing that the government has some role to play in assuring them of their material well-being.

The leaders of both of the major naturalist organized crime families in the United States of America, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, believe that one of the principal purposes of the civil government is to assure citizens of their material well-being. Leaders of the false naturalist opposite of the "left," the Democrat Party, believe in the provision of such material well-being by means of the confiscatory taxing and regulatory powers of the Federal government of the United States of America. Leaders of the false naturalist opposite of the "right," the Republican Party, believe in the provision of such material well-being by means of the private market place, although they are more than open to policies of corporate socialism (fascism) to give the "invisible hand" a little push now and again.

Alas, the principal purpose of civil government is not to assure its citizens of a particular standard of material well-being. Although the Catholic Church is not at all indifferent to the temporal welfare of her children, she condemns the pursuit of material well-being as the defining purpose of human existence and as the central activity of the civil state. The Catholic Church promotes the temporal welfare of human beings in light of their Last End, the possession of the glories of the Beatific Vision of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven, stressing the fact that the principal purpose of the civil government is to help to foster those conditions in society wherein citizens can better sanctify and thus save their immortal souls as her members. Pope Saint Pius X noted this quite explicitly in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.

Most Americans care first and foremost about their money so that they may enjoy their "bread and circuses." Most Americans want to waste their lives watching television. They want their sports, professional and collegiate. They want their movies. They want their "rock" "music." They want their leisure time. They want their immodest attire. Being a-ideological and thus very pragmatic, most Americans do not care how they get their material goodies. They just want them. If it's going to be given to them by a capitalist tinged with a bit of corporate socialism, well, that's just fine. But if it's going to be given to them by a Marxist, well, that's also just fine. The "bottom line" materially and hedonistically is the "bottom line" in American life. The material "bottom line" is the "engine" that drives American life and the absolute, insane farce of its electoral politics.

Such is the enduring legacy of the Protestant Revolt., which overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King and gave us a world that is in the grip of the devil's lies, starting with the lie of the "sovereignty of the people." To overthrow the Social Reign of Christ the King is to give us the reign of the devil in the name of "the people," who are told to march to the polls to perform their "civic duty" year after year as evils advance exponentially no matter who is elected.

When a citizenry is obsessed with material well-being as the ultimate end of human existence, however, all sight is lost of First and Last Things as ever the economic order is perverted and made unjust as a result of the fission between Church and State. (Figures of Antichrist.)


It's the same now in 2010 as it was in 2008. The only difference is that voters are upset with the failed statist policies of Barack Hussein Obama rather than being upset with the failed statist policies of George Walker Bush. Very few voters and even few career politicians who have made their livelihood almost exclusively by drinking from the public trough understand that a nation that kills over four thousand innocent human beings a day under cover of the civil by surgical means--and thousands more each day by chemical means--will never know "prosperity" at home or "security" from terrorists and/or foreign nations. Why should those who hate the policies of the government of the United States of America have any more regard for our lives than we do for our own innocent preborn?

How sad it is that most voters in the United States of America and almost every professional career politician and naturalist gatekeeper in the "mainstream" media would find the following citation of the late Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, cited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, to be out of the "mainstream," if not utter madness and an example of religious "fanaticism:"

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)


Do you think that the Republican Party's "A Pledge to America," which makes but a passing reference to abortion. Even that passing reference, however, is meaningless as the Pledge's promise to "end all Federal funding of abortion and to codify the Hyde Amendment" overlooks the inconvenient truth that the Hyde Amendment which was first passed by Congress in 1976 prevent the use of medicaid funds to kill preborn child except in cases where it was alleged that a mother's life was endangered, has always permitted the direct intentional killing of some children and has since 1993 permitted the use of Medicaid funds to pay for the direct, intentional killing of preborn babies in the two other so-called "hard" cases. The Hyde Amendment is fraudulent. It is not "pro-life" as the civil law may never permit the direct, intentional killing of any human being, no less with taxpayer dollars. How can the Republican Party's "A Pledge to America" claim to seek the ending of all Federal funding of abortion while codifying the Hyde Amendment that permits such funding? Is this part of the Republican Party's homage to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity."

Furthermore, of course, the Republican Party's "A Pledge to America" contains various promises to scale back the growth of the Federal government and to repeal ObamaCare that have almost zero chance of becoming law. Why? Well, even if Republicans manage to win a majority of seats in the United States Senate, something that appears at this writing to be unlikely but not altogether impossible, and a majority of seats in the United States House of Representatives in thirty-six days from now, something that appears to be very likely, they will lack veto-proof majority in the Senate (sixty-seven seats) and the House (two hundred ninety seats). Republicans will further lack even a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (sixty seats) in the event they are able to wrest control away from the Democrats. Thus it is that the Republican Party's "A Pledge to America," which puts the economic cart before the moral horse, is nothing other than political theater for "independent" or "swing" voters and "red meat" for die-hard Republican partisans who never learn that the only result of pitting naturalists against naturalists is more naturalism.

The Republican Party's "A Pledge to America" is something of a concession on the part of the professional politicians of the naturalist "right" that the Tax Enough Already (TEA) Party movement is for real and has become a force at the grassroots levels within its own ranks at the state and local level. TEA Party endorsed candidates have scored impressive victories over "mainstream," careerist Republicans in Kentucky, Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, and New York, among other places.

This has frustrated party professionals, especially at the state and local level, as the "clubhouse" mentality of career politicians at the subnational level is such that outsiders who are not willing to pay their dues (and I am mean, quite literally, to pay their financial dues in their local Republican political committee) must be shunned and excoriated. As one who was involved in such clubhouse meetings between 1968 and 1972 in Oyster Bay, New York, I can attest to the simple fact, my good and nearly invisible readers (as nearly invisible as have been the envelopes in our post office box in the past four weeks), these professional politicians consider themselves to be the "gatekeepers" of electoral politics. Unless who possesses a persona that is considered"mainstream" by these party leaders and possesses and is ready to spend his own personal fortune to finance a campaign without having first risen through the party ranks, poor schleps who dare to challenge the party's "anointed ones" are considered, at least in the minds of these party hacks, some of the worst threats to "free" government that can be found on the face of the earth.

Indeed, career Republican leaders in New York are in great turmoil over the defeat of their party-endorsed candidate for Governor of the State of New York, former United States Representative Rick Lazio, a pro-abortion Catholic who ran a hopelessly pathetic, inept, lame and all-around incompetent campaign for a seat in the United States Senate against the then First Lady of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York interloper and carpetbagger, by a tough-talking, take-no-prisoners businessman from Buffalo, New York, named Carl Paladino. These careerists are in virtual apoplexy over the defeat of Lazio, who has done nothing even on a naturalistic level to inspire affection and loyalty from anyone other than the hacks themselves.

Congressional Republican party leaders, however, desiring to capitalize on the mood of the country to win a majority of seats in both Houses of Congress, have had to make their peace, at least of sorts, with the TEA Party phenomenon and "A Pledge to America is supposed to accomplish that while appealing also to "independent" voters who are not concerned about "social issues." It is their hope that then political realities of the moment will not dawn on voters as they, the Republican Congressional leaders, seek to tap into the TEA Party movement for support without alienating those "swing" voters who had swung from the "conservative" statist George Walker Bush in 2000 and 2004 to the "post-partisan" statist Barack Hussein Obama, who is every bit a vicious Chicago hack politician who hates criticism and has a massive ego and sense of personal entitlement, in 2008 will swing back in their direction once again.

Recognizing that the feckless Republicans may indeed score big victories on Capitol Hill in Washington, District of Columbia, and in state houses across the nation in spite of themselves because of the dire economic straits that the nation finds itself in, the professional career politicians in the organized crime family of naturalism known as the Democratic Party know that the tea leaves, if you will, are not boding good signs for them at this time, thirty-six days before the off-year elections on the Commemoration of All Souls, Tuesday, November 2, 2010. The only thing that many of them can do at this point is to try to dig up "dirt" on their opponents in the hopes that the voters will respond to their "winning it ugly" strategy. A word or two about this "winning it ugly" strategy might be in order.

Yes, the man who won the Republican Primary for Governor of the State of New York, Carl Paladino, is very flawed. Although he is sixty-four years of age and should, as a Catholic, know better as to do such things is, objectively speaking, mortally sinful, Paladino has sent out e-mails containing racially offensive "jokes" and has sent out e-mails with outright pornography. It also turns out that Paladino has been no model family man as he has a ten year-old daughter with a woman who is not his wife. This is the kind of dirt that the Democrats in New York are going to use to make Paladino, who appears to be far behind the Democratic Party nominee, the pro-abortion Catholic named Andrew Cuomo, the son of the three-term Governor of New York, Mario Matthew Cuomo, against whose lieutenant governor running mate, then United States Representative Stanley Lundine, I ran in 1986 on the Right to Life Party line, in most polls (although one recent poll showed him trailing Cuomo the Lesser by six points) appear incapable of governing the State of New York.

What? After Elliot Spitzer (see Darkened Souls Can Be Made White As Snow)? After David Paterson (see Little Caesars All (Pizza! Pizza!))? Carl Paladino will fit right into the milieu of New York State politics.

One Democratic Party spin-doctor, Susan Estrich, who served Michael "M-1" Dukakis's campaign manager in 1987 and 1988 after the then Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was forced to dismiss campaign manager John Sasso (following the revelation that he had orchestrated an attack advertisement against United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), that featured split-screen images of Biden and the then leader of the Labour Party of the United Kingdom, the Marxist named Neil Kinnock, delivered identical speeches, proving that Biden had plagiarized the Kinnock speech almost word for word--don't you just love these little asides that I can't use in a classroom as I have no classroom in which to use them?), has asked Who Is Carl Paladino? in order to raise a concern over Paladino's "qualifications" to run the machinery of the government of the State of New York if he got elected.

What? After Elliot Spitzer, who used the New York State Police to spy on then Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, Joseph Bruno (R-Rensselaer) and engaged in his other well publicized criminal activities that forced him to resign his office?

What? After David Paterson, a pro-abortion Catholic who has admitted that both he and his wife have violated the Sixth Commandments during their marriage and has used the New York State Police to cover for his chief of staff, David Johnson, after he had beaten up his girlfriend and has been found to have given false statements under oath about seeking to procure free tickets to attend a World Series game last year at the home of the incarnation of all evil in the sports world, Yankee Stadium?

What? After Rudolph William Giuliani, a pro-abortion Catholic who was a serial philanderer while Mayor of the City of New York?

What? Carl Paladino lacks the "qualifications" to run the State of New York? Who is Susan Estrich trying to fool?

Mind you, I am not indemnifying Carl Paladino's reprehensible e-mails or his personal behavior. Two wrongs never make a right. Of course not. Mr. Paladino supports the direct, intentional killing of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered, making him simply less pro-abortion than those who support surgical baby-killing in all circumstances without any conditions or qualifications. He would not get my vote if I still lived in my native state and believed that voting served a useful purpose to advance the common temporal good (my views--and they are only that, my views--have been expressed on this matter a number of times on this site; readers are free to make their own judgments).

My point, however, is this: the gatekeepers of the naturalist"left" in the Democratic Party, the very same people who have indemnified the irresponsible sociopathic behavior of former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, who continues to be a "hit" on the Democratic Party campaign and fund-raising circuits despite his own many scandals, and former Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. and the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy, among so many others, are among the most vociferous in their denunciations of the naturalists of the "right" in the Republican Party who have done some egregious things in their own lives. It is truly a statement that Alton Sharpton, the man who perpetrated the Tawana Brawley hoax and incited a riot that resulted in the death of a storekeeper (see The Democrats' David Duke and Vile shakedowns, bigoted incitements, and police-bashing antics), is considered to be a "mainstream" figure in American politics while Carl Paladino is considered to be on the "fringe." It matters not to any of the Democratic "gatekeepers" that the divorced Andrew Cuomo is living with a divorcee named Susan Lee, who plans to move into the Executive Mansion if Cuomo is elected or that the Vice President of the United States of America is a plagiarist. That's acceptable.

The gatekeepers of the naturalist "left" also believe it was acceptable for Barack Hussein Obama to have used cocaine when he was in college. Who cares about breaking the laws of the United States of America? What's the big deal, huh? Who cares if some of Obama's appointees have problems with the Internal Revenue Service, including the foul-mouthed Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner? Ah, the gatekeepers of the naturalist "left" must focus on Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell and whoever else they believe stands in the way of implementing their statist plans for the "better" world. Bad behavior on the part of those they support is acceptable.

Who says so? The "gatekeepers," that's who.Who appoints them? Themselves and those who control the media. Gee, I wonder who they are. (Hint: most of them deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ with a demonic fury. Just a little hint, mind you.)

Do not believe, however, that the incredible hubris and hypocrisy of the naturalists of the "left" redeems the naturalists of the "right," most of whom are clueless about First and Last Things. What have I written so many times in the past? Naturalists against naturalists results in, guess what, more naturalism.

To wit, Christine O'Donnell, the woman who defeated the alleged Republican "shoo-in," United States Representative Michael Castle, in the Republican Primary for the United States Senate seat that was vacated by the plagiarist and pro-abort Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., on September 14, 2010, has been acquiescing to the advice given her by her naturalist aides to "cool it" on the social issues. Miss O'Donnell has said that her positions on such things as sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and evolutionism are her "private" views that would not influence her actions as a member of the United States Senate. How is this any different from the "I'm personally opposed to abortion but" line that so many baptized Catholics of both organized crime families of naturalism have taken to get themselves elected and to maintain themselves in office thereafter? It isn't.

Please consult Pope Leo XIII's Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue.


The madness engendered by naturalism, which is but the stepchild of the Protestant Revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church, has produced "gatekeepers" of the "left" and the "right" who are equally adept--or so they believe--in screening out people who suffer from the exact same kind of madness that they do, the madness that believes that the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of Our Lady and His Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven are matters of complete indifference to personal and social order. Those who believe this are indeed mad, and sanity, my friends, cannot be restored on the basis of madness.

What do we do? Well, I can only make a recommendation to spend more time in prayer, if at all possible, before the Most Blessed Sacrament, to pray more Rosaries, to do more fasting, to accept with serenity and joy and gratitude all of the sufferings of the present moment, seeking to offer up to the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary whatever merit we might earn by the patient endurance of these sufferings.

We must recognize, of course, that our sins have contributed so very much to the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large, which is why we should appreciate the fact that every Rosary we pray helps to make reparation for our sins and helps to plant the seeds for the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message and the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Unlike the naturalists of the "left" and of the "right," we do not dismiss or minimize the gravity of our sins. No, we grieve for our sins and we detest our sins, each and every single one of them, as we give thanks to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for being Catholic and thus having access to His ineffable Mercy in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

The right ordering of the Catholic world during the era of Christendom was not wrought at the ballot box. It was wrought with the blood of the martyrs of Holy Mother Church. Why are we so afraid of suffering a bit of white martyrdom? We have the true Faith? We have the intercessory power of the Mother of God, who wants us to be champions of her Divine Son, Christ the King. Why are we so afraid of suffering a bit of white martyrdom from the likes of the petty caesars who serve as the gatekeepers of the madness we see in the false opposites of the naturalist "right" and the naturalist "left"?

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.


Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, 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.

Saints Cosmas and Damian, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


Why Do I Refer To The Naturalist "Left" and Naturalist "Right" As "False Opposites"?

Although I have explained the terms that I use on these site any number of times in various articles, I do know that human beings forget. Some people forget definitions and concepts. I have had the tendency in recent years to forget names of people who have crossed our lives only a time or two in our travels across the nation, something that I used to remember quite well decades ago. It's not decades "ago" any longer, I am afraid, which is how some e-mails fall between the cracks.

Thus it is that I thought it useful to rework an explanation of the "false opposites" of the "left" and "right" that I had included parenthetically in the first posting of this article as a more easily readable appendix.

I refer to the "false opposites" of the "left" and the "right" because, despite their differences over  the powers "government" over that of the "individual," both the "left" and the "right" reject Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order. The adherents of the "left" and the "right" believe that it is neither prudent or necessary to acknowledge that the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother has changed human history. Such adherents also reject any suggestions that both men and their nations must be subordinate to Christ the King and the authority of His true Church on all that pertains to the good of souls and that the civil government has an obligation to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End.

No matter the differences between "conservatives" and "liberals," my friends, they both have one mind and one heart in the belief that man does not need the teaching and sanctifying offices of the Catholic Church to guide them in their private and social lives. This is, of course, the triumph of the Judeo-Masonic spirit of naturalism that was dissected so well by Pope Leo XIII. It matters little as to who is or is not a formally enrolled member of the "lodges" when most Catholics and non-Catholics alike are infected with the ethos of naturalism.

Similarly, any civil leader who believes that can, either by himself or with others, pursue genuine order without the help of Our Lady and the use of her Most Holy Rosary is a fool. We must give public honor to Christ the King and to Mary our Immaculate Queen.

That's the point I try to make repeatedly on this site.

Viva Cristo Rey!

© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.