Listen to the Inconsequential Sounds of Naturalism
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Human beings are easily distracted. We tend to be distracted in our prayers as the demons do everything they can to prevent us from praying with fervor and devotion, especially as we are praying Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary.
The inability of people to focus on serious prayer, including mental prayer, is attributable, at least in large part, to the "busyness" of the Protestant and Novus Ordo service and its demand for the "full, active and conscious participation" of the faithful in the liturgy, meaning that the spirit of silence and recollection found the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was conductive to full interior participation in the unbloody re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins produced Catholics whose prayers at Holy Mass were incomplete, passive and unconscious. Lost in this mythology is the simple fact that illiterate Catholics throughout the centuries had a precise and reverent understanding that Holy Mass is indeed the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary as treated Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence with respect and awe. Can this be said about the effects of the Novus Ordo service upon many Catholics who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism?
Indeed, it is the particular nature of Americans to be "doers" rather than "thinkers." Most Americans, including the lion's share of Catholics who live in the United States of America, tend to eschew reading, especially if it requires one to think about what one is reading. What used to be called "dime novels" and other trash reading, including that found in many tabloid newspapers, provides a ready sort of "junk food" for the mind. Without reading, say, genuine histories of the Catholic Church and its influence in the development of Christendom that is called today by the generic term of "Western civilization," many Americans have been taught to believe in distorted versions of history that have been the bane of the form of Protestant and Masonic secular indoctrination called "public schools."
Our statist masters and minders and keepers and brainwashers have used sophisticated psychological devices to break down the inherent ability of the human being to think rationally and coherently. As has been noted in several other commentaries on this site, television programming has engendered a passivity that leads so many people to accept uncritically whatever disinformation is presented to them as it saves them from thinking and studying and researching, no less giving any thought to family prayer as their "god" speaks to them from their living room "tabernacle," the television screen. This has all increased exponentially as a result of the "remote control" device, the proliferation of channels that are broadcast from Hell by way of cable or satellite companies and the rise of the internet on which one can waste his time all day long "surfing" and "surfing" without giving a single, solitary thought to doing real spiritual reading or to praying more Rosaries.
Although the rhetoric of most American politicians in the Nineteenth Century was pure naturalistic hogwash and just outright bombast, city folk and townsfolk would turn out for a political stem winder that might last up to three hours. Such naturalistic hogwash and bombast was a form of "entertainment," if you will, prior to the days of silent films and radio and television itself. Americans in the Nineteenth Century had the attention span to listen to those three hour stem winders. Those days are gone as even many of the naturalists in both of the two major organized crime families of naturalism, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, cannot deliver any coherent set of remarks that are not carefully prepared in advance or scrolled before their eyes on the ubiquitous TelePrompTer.
The devil has used all of this, of course, to stir up emotions at the times when our naturalists vie with each other for votes in the biennial or quadrennial farces called elections. Grave sounding naturalists who fill the airwaves and the internet with their self-promoting, self-important naturalistic hogwash and bombast that "this is the most important election of our lifetime." Why is it that every election is called the "most important election of our lifetime"? Does anyone recognize this to be hyperbole and bombast of the highest order?
Permit me a chance to try to prove this point.
For those of who who are New Yorkers and who are old enough to remember the 1962 elections, can any of you remember a single, solitary issue during the gubernatorial that year between incumbent Governor William Averell Harriman and his challenger, the tycoon named Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller?
This question is for any of you in the country who are old enough to remember the 1962 elections: What were the big issues dividing Republicans and Democrats in the off-year Congressional elections in 1962? Come one, tell me one. Just one (without looking up on the internet, that is).
What were the really big issues that divided Republicans and Democrats in the 1978, 1982, and 1990 off-year Congressional elections?
Sure, there are exceptions to this. Most anyone old enough to remember the 1974 elections can remember that the Democrats won handily around the nation because of the resignation of President Richard Milhous Nixon. The 1994 elections are remembered by many people for the Republicans issuing their "Contract With America." What about 1998 and 2002 and 2006??
Memories fade over the course of time. Those who think naturalistically and who do not understand that the entire structure of the modern civil state is built on the house of sand constructed by the evils of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of Judeo-Masonry will have a veritable "Pavlov's Reaction" to the sound of the "election bell," responding to fund-raising appeals and to petition drives that wind up empowering the naturalists more and more.
Michael Barone, an astute political analyst, wrote a column recently in which he discussed the simple fact that although the political climate seems to favor the naturalists of the Republican Party this year as there is quite a bit of resentment concerning Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus amongst a restive electorate, the Republicans seem to be devoid of any "agenda" to promote as a real alternative to the reigning caesar's statist policies:
Republicans are starting to think about how to answer the Robert Redford question.
You know the scene. In the 1972 movie "The Candidate," the Redford character, having won the election, turns to his political consultant and asks, "What do I do now?"
Many Republicans fear they will look as clueless as Redford. They entered this campaign cycle with little hope of winning congressional majorities. Now they have a good chance to do so in the House and an outside chance in the Senate.
Some cynical Republicans say candidates should just harp on their opposition to the policies of the Obama Democrats and figure out what to do if they're in the majority when they get there. Others say they should present public policy alternatives.
Some young House Republicans have put out a call for voters to e-mail their ideas. And House Republican leaders say they'll put together something in the nature of a 1994-style Contract with America over the August recess.
That's a good idea. Politicians like to win elections. But if they re not in the business in order to shape public policy, why are they there at all?
Let's put this in some historic perspective.
Liberal historians like to depict the past 100 years as a story of step-by-step progress from small government to big government, a progress they see as both inevitable and desirable.
But another way to look at it is to note that after each spasm of big government legislation, there has been a strong voter backlash. That was the case in the big Republican victory in the 1946 off-year elections right after World War II. And in the 1966 elections, about which I wrote last week, after the passage of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
It happened again with Ronald Reagan's 44-state landslide in 1980, when Republicans won a Senate majority for the first time in 28 years. And again in 1994, after the Clinton tax increases and health care plan, when Republicans won both houses in Congress for the first time in 40 years.
Polls tell us it could happen again this November.
The question is what winning Republicans did with their victories. The answers vary.
After 1946, Republicans passed a big tax cut, ended wartime wage and price controls and limited the powers of labor unions. These were enduring public policy successes.
After 1966, Republicans didn't achieve much. Richard Nixon, elected president in 1968, continued the anti-poverty program, instituted wage and price controls, created the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, established racial quotas and preferences and proposed a guaranteed annual income -- not a conservative success story.
After 1980, Ronald Reagan got Congress to pass major tax cuts and some spending cuts, continued the deregulation begun in the Ford and Carter years and pursued a defense buildup that produced a peaceful victory in the Cold War.
And after 1994, congressional Republicans froze spending and produced balanced budgets, passed market-oriented health measures and passed education accountability legislation. Things got patchy toward the end of the 12 years of Republican majorities, but there's a lot to say for their record as a whole.
There are some obvious targets for Republicans if they win big this year. Democrats have jacked up domestic spending sharply; some reversal should be possible. The many glitches in Obamacare, some apparent now and others as yet undiscovered, could form a basis for derailment if not repeal.
Giveaways to labor unions, like the $26 billion package for the teacher unions that the House is to be summoned back from its recess to pass, presumably will be off the table.
Larger issues need to be addressed. We're overdue for a simplifying tax reform. And there is the looming crisis in entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
There is an assumption in the political world that spending cuts will be unpopular: Americans, it is said, are ideologically conservative but operationally liberal.
But there is some evidence that voters will back governors who cut spending, such as Mitch Daniels, re-elected while Barack Obama was carrying Indiana in 2008, and Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie, elected in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009 and now enjoying good job ratings.
One reason is that as candidates, they let voters know what they would do. There are risks in taking stands. But there are also risks in looking as clueless as Robert Redford. (Republicans Ask 'What Do I Do Now?')
This is all reminiscent of a passage I read in a book about Midwest Politics that was written by political scientist Dr. John Fenton in 1966. The passage referred to a speech given prior to the beginning of the general election campaign in 1962 by the then chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, Ray Bliss. What follows is a paraphrase as I don't have that book in my possession now. However, it is pretty close to being almost entirely verbatim as the quote struck me even as a twenty-one year old graduate student taking a graduate course in political parties at the University of Notre Dame in the Spring 1973 Semester:
"Men, I don't care what you say during your campaigns. Talk about anything you want. Anything at all. Just leave issues out of your campaigns."
Although there are certainly notable exceptions among the naturalists, most of those who campaign for public office really are devoid of any coherent philosophy even on a naturalistic level. This is truer among careerist Republicans than it is among careerist Democrats as many of the latter are professional "leftists" and "statist" of the first order. Even most, although not all, of the careerist Democrats who are committed to some level of statism in principle (as opposed to the Republicans who say that they are opposed to statism in principle but whose spending on pork barrel projects and legislative earmarks that provide special tax exemptions for certain kinds of projects reveal them as statists in their own right who are quite willing to "bribe" the "people" with their own taxpayer dollars) even they are concerned first and foremost with their political careers, especially in they serve politically competitive districts where they stand a chance to lose in an election year tsunami. Only those who are from politically "safe" districts will adhere to their statism without fail time and time again.
Those who do not see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith will always fall for the diabolical traps posed by the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right" (see the appendix for that thumbnail definition of these false opposites that I have provided several times recently). Even many Catholics are bamboozled by the rhetoric of the naturalists and the seeming "urgency" of one election cycle after another without realizing that their naturalist heroes will only govern so as to win the next cycle of elections without living up, at least in most instances, to their own naturalistic rhetoric and without, of course, doing anything to even remotely attempt to restore full legal protection to the innocent preborn without any exception or qualification whatsoever.
Time and time again, however, Catholics who fallen into this trap express bewilderment when their naturalist heroes fail to measure up to what was expected of them. Those who run the LifeSiteNews.com are aghast that columnist Ann Coulter, who does not dress entirely according to Our Lady's Fatima Dress Code, shall we say, is speaking at a conference run by something called "GoProud" those steeped in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and that Rush Limbaugh has endorsed "civil unions" yet again for those steeped in such perversion and the apostate Catholic turned Mormon named Glenn Beck has endorsed "marriages" among those steeped in perversion (see First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck ... What’s Happening?).
"What's happening," is course, the logical degeneration of a world that is founded on the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity that were ushered in as a result of the Protestant Revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church. This is no mystery all. Why should Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh understand that the words contained in Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, that pertained to "civil unions" among those engaged in natural vice apply just as much to those who want legal recognition accorded to their perseverance in lives of unnatural vice and that Pope Pius XI's words bind their own consciences entirely?
Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.
Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatize by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples.
Alas, so many Catholics steeped in the errors of naturalism and the pluralism that it exalts cannot see that naturalism has prevailed because their conciliar "popes" have made their "peace" with the principles of that "new era that was inaugurated in 1789." The conciliar "popes" do not want the confession ally Catholic state as the bulwark against the advance of evil, admitting that such a state is never, given the fallen nature of the human being and his inclination to commit and then to persevere in a life of sin, a guarantor of social order, only the necessary precondition for it. The conciliar "popes" have taught the well-meaning Catholics who run Lifesite News (as well as other Catholic pro-life activists who are of yet attached to the conciliar structures) that it is neither necessary or advisable to restore the Social Reign of Christ the King, that it is "enough" for Catholics to have a "place at the table" in the "public square" alongside other "believers."
Thus it is that these well-meaning Catholics listen to the inconsequential sounds of naturalism as they listen also to the apostate sounds of concilairism without for one moment even bothering to consider that these words of Pope Saint Pius X, published one hundred years ago yesterday, August 15, 1910, the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady body and soul into Heaven, bind their consciences entirely:
This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Nothing short of Catholicism will suffice. It is Catholicism and nothing else.
Well, the hour is late. All I can do to urge my readers is to stop listening to the naturalist mania of talk radio and seeking to project into the minds of apostates and other naturalists an "understanding" of the issues of the day that simply is not there as it is necessary to be in possession of the true Faith to see the problems of the world clearly and then to speak up in defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the necessity of seeking the conversion of men and their nations to the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no personal salvation and outside of which there can be no true social order.
Continue to pray your Rosaries. Offer your prayers and fasting and sacrifices and mortifications and humiliations to Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Immaculate Queen. And say a Hail Mary for me, if you care to do, that my medical procedure today will proceed smoothly and that we can have something of a diagnosis as to the source of my recent physical difficulties that have reduced the number of articles on this site. All is accepted with joy and gratitude as coming from the hand of God Himself. All is given back to Him through that same Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Thank you for your prayers.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
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.
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!