Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
April 22, 2013


One Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-One Days

by Thomas A. Droleskey

One thousand four hundred eighty-one days.

One thousand four hundred eighty-one days.

One thousand four hundred eighty-one days.

One thousand four hundred eighty-one days.

One thousand four hundred eighty-one days.

Longtime readers of this site will remember that I kept track of the number of days that had passed from the time that the conciliar "archbishop" of Freiburg, German, Robert Zollitsch, denied on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross to make expiation for our sins.

How long has it been now, you ask?

Well, all together, ladies and gentlemen.

It has been one thousand four hundred eighty-one days since Zollitsch's interview aired on Holy Saturday in 2009.

It has been one thousand four hundred eighty-one days of silence from the recently retired conciliar Petrine Minister, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and the currently presiding Petrine Minister, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, concerning Zollitsch's blasphemous heresy.

Yes, Robert Zollitsch, the chairman of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in the Federal Republic of Germany, has gone without any kind of "papal" reprimand and continues in perfectly good standing in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism since the following remarks, summarized below in a Gloria TV news report, were made:

What will happen, pray tell, to the Chairman of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in the Federal Republic of Germany, Robert Zollitsch, the "archbishop" of Freiburg, who has denied that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died to make expiation for our sins?

The Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference and archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, believes that Christ’s crucifixion is just a psychological support for those who suffer.

On Holy Saturday, the archbishop denied the Expiatory Death of Christ in an interview with the German TV station 'Hessischer Rundfunk'.

Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had needed a sacrificial offering or something like a scapegoat" - the archbishop said.

According to him the dying Christ simply expressed "solidarity" with the suffering of the people even to death.

This way, Christ showed, the archbishop said, that even suffering and pain have been taken up by God.

According to Zollitsch "this is the great perspective, the tremendous solidarity," that Christ went so far that he suffered all "with" me.

The journalist asked Zollitsch: "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"

To this question Zollitsch replied with a clear "no".

He stated that God has given "his own son in solidarity with us unto his last agony” to show that: You mean so much to me that I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation."

The archbishop seems to row back a tiny way when he says that one’s own sins were responsible that Christ "has become so involved with me". But he does not elaborate farther.

"Christ has become involved with me out of solidarity – out of free will" – the archbishop repeated in the interview.

According to Zollitsch Christ has "participated in carrying my debt, including the evil I have caused, in order to take this up into the world of God and hence to show also to me the way out of sin, guilt and from death to life."  (Gloria.tv: Chairman of German Bishops’ Conference denies Christ's Expiatory Death)


This is pure heresy, no matter Zollitsch's illogical effort at "damage control" near the end of the interview.

God had no need for a "sacrificial scapegoat"?

Pure heresy.

Who says?

Well, let's just consider the Council of Trent for a brief moment:

Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,--that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,--declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of [Page 154] Egypt, He instituted the new Passover, (to wit) Himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through (the ministry of) priests, in memory of His own passage from this world unto the Father, when by the effusion of His own blood He redeemed us, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his kingdom. And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness, or malice of those that offer (it); which the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place, clean to his name, which was to be great amongst the Gentiles; and which the apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, has not obscurely indicated, when he says, that they who are defiled by the participation of the table of devils, cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord; by the table, meaning in both places the altar. This, in fine, is that oblation which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices, during the period of nature, and of the law; in as much as it comprises all the good things signified by those sacrifices, as being the consummation and perfection of them all. (The Twenty-Second Session, September 17, 1562.)

Not exactly the same "belief system" as that possessed by Robert Zollitsch, who is a heretic and a blasphemer.

Unmolested by the previous and current Petrine Minister, Zollitsch is at it again, calling for more "reform," including the institution of deaconesses:

Archbishop of Freiburg Robert Zollitsch, who chairs the German Bishops' Conference, called for the change at the end of a four-day meeting to discuss possible reforms.

The conference, the first of its kind, invited 300 Roman Catholic experts to propose reforms. Zollitsch's comments echo year-long calls from the Central Committee of German Catholics to permit women to become deacons. On Sunday, Zollitsch said that aim was no longer a 'taboo.'

Zollitsch said the Catholic Church could only regain credibility and strength by committing to reform. He described an "atmosphere of openness and freedom" at the conference.

Deacons assist priests during church services and can perform baptisms and marriages outside of mass. Their primary role however is to serve the needy in their community and their duties are considered secular rather than pastoral.

Another proposal to emerge from the conference was to extend the rights of remarried divorcees to sit on church bodies such as parish councils. Conference members also discussed the possibility of granting them the right to receive Holy Communion and attend confession.

"It's important to me that, without undermining the sanctity of marriage, these men and women are taken seriously within the church and feel respected and at home," said Zollitsch. At present the reforms remain speculative and there is no proposed time-frame for their implementation. The position of divorcees remains highly controversial within the Church.

The conference also touched on the difficulty, particularly in eastern Germany, of recruiting people to work for Catholic institutions such as hospitals and kindergarten. At present the Church can only employ Roman Catholics. However Zollitsch called for work permits to be extended to non-Catholics and to those with "different lifestyles." This would technically apply to homosexual people too. However Church labour reforms are unlikely to be introduced in the next three years.

While reform might be slow to come, the sentiments expressed at the conference are a signal to many that change is on the way. "I have never experienced a process of strategy development as transparent as this one," said Thomas Berg, of the Baden-Württemberg Leadership Academy, who attended the conference. (Women Catholic Deacons No Longer Taboo.)


There is only one thing that is "taboo" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism: the Sacred Deposit of Faith as It has been handed down to us by the Apostles and taught infallibly by Holy Mother Church under the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, from Pentecost Sunday to the present day.

It must be remembered that liberalism, born principally, although not exclusively, from the so-called "philosophy" of John Locke in An  Essay on Human Understanding and the Second Treatise on Civil Government, teaches that men can, unaided by the teaching or the supernatural helps of Holy Mother Church, "solve" human problems by their own unaided powers.

Liberals and their mutant descendants in the false opposite of the "left" contend that human beings can devise various structures to address social problems without understanding that such problems exist because of the sins of men. It is thus unnecessary for men to reform their lives by cooperating with the graces graces won for them on the wood of the Holy Cross by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He offered Himself up to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father for our sins. If the structures devised by men fail to produce the desired results, all one needs to do is to have the consent of a majority to proceed with structural reforms, each of which winds up worsening social problems as the structures reject the fact that Original Sin is the remote cause and that Actual Sin is the proximate cause of all human problems.

Thus it is that Modernists such as Zollitsch and his collegial first among equals south of him in the Vatican, Bergoglio/Francis, are never satisfied with their "reforms" and much clamor for more as the boundaries of what constitutes "full, active and conscious" participation in the life of their counterfeit church expand the more that sin proliferates in the world as a result of the sacramentally barren liturgical rites they employ to convey the falsehoods of their synthetic faith.

Why shouldn't there be deaconesses in the counterfeit church of conciliarism?

After all, women can distribute what purports to be Holy Communion with their own unconsecrated hands. They can serve at the altar as the extension of the hands of the presbyter. They can serve as lectorettes and leaders of song right from what Catholics would call the sanctuary of a church. They can even recite or improvise various "prayers of the faithful" at the lectern after the Credo during the weekend liturgy.

Deaconesses just are not that big of a step forward for the conciliar revolutionaries, concerned as they are about "empowering" groups they believe have been "disenfranchised" and "repressed" by that "old church" of "triumphalism."

Why not hire those who are engaged in unrepentant sins, whether natural or unnatural, in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments?

Why not grant them those engaged in perverse acts against nature "civil union" status?

What's the big deal?

Robert Zollitsch is a "mainstream" conciliar revolutionary.

So is "Father" Federico Lombardi, who is alleged to have to said the following six days ago, that is on Wednesday, April 24, 2013, the Octave Day of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph in Paschaltide and the Commemoration of Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen, at the headquarters of the Association of the Foreign Press in Rome in Rome:


"[I]t is a good thing for the child to know that he has a father and a mother"; [it must be] "made clear that matrimony between a man and a woman is a specific and fundamental institution in the history of mankind. This does not prevent that other forms of union between two persons may be recognized". (Layman Lombardi, Holy See spokesman, defends legal recognition of non-marital "unions" of two persons?)

Although I have gone to the original source of this report on Rorate Caeli and done a "Google Translate" of its text, I am unsure as to the reliability of the translation provided to me on that service, believing for the moment that those who pose on the Rorate Caeli site know how to translate from Italian into English better than the "Google" translate page, especially since many of those who post on that site are quite fluent in the Italian language. It is, though, prudent to exercise some caution here and to qualify the quotation above by referring to Lombardi's remarks as being given putatively.

IF Lombardi said what was quoted above, though, then it is clear that this was no "off the cuff" statement as it is in perfect conciliar harmony with the belief of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis (see Francis And Other Judases Abound In Holy Week, Francis And The Commissars and Rocketing To The Very Depths Of Hell), and it is in perfect harmony with what other conciliar "bishops," including "Archbishop" Vincenzo Paglia, president of the "Pontifical" Council for the Family, have said in recent weeks. Lombardi's remarks, if reported accurately, is quickly becoming "mainstream" conciliarspeak. And such must always be the path in a false church were the mantra of "reform," not fidelity to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, is the principal guiding force.

Layman Federico Lombardi is clueless about the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.

Remember, Lombardi said in 2009, just around the same time that Robert Zollitsch was mouthing his own heresy, that so-called "therapeutic abortions" were morally permissible:


Veteran Vatican reporter Sandro Magister reported the following news regarding the thinking of Benedict XVI on the matter. On March 21, the director of the Holy See press office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, clearly stated that Benedict XVI's few lines against abortion on his recent trip to Cameroon and Angola had nothing to do with the case of the Brazilian girl. (6)

“Regarding this case,” Lombardi affirmed, “the considerations of Archbishop Rino Fisichella apply when he lamented in L'Osservatore Romano the hasty declaration of excommunication by the Archbishop of Recife. No extreme case should obscure the true meaning of the remarks by the Holy Father, who was referring to something very different. [...] The pope absolutely was not talking about therapeutic abortion, and did not say that this must always be rejected." (7)

With this statement it would seem the word from Rome has been given. In the question of excommunications, they are absolutely no longer allowed. In the matter of abortion, we have a virtual approval of "therapeutic abortion."  (The Holy See Abandons its Pro-Life Position. See also So Long to the Fifth Commandment.)

Lombardi had to issue a "clarification" as to what was considered to be a "therapeutic" abortion, indicating that he, Lombardi, did not understand or accept the fact that there is no such thing as a "therapeutic" abortion. He may have to issue yet another of his now-famous "clarifications." Time will tell.

If Lombardi was, though, calling for "civil union" status for those engaged in actions, whether natural or unnatural, in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, it is useful, at least prospectively, to call to mind once again that such a position is condemned:


50. How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

51. 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.

52. Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized 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. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

The revolutionaries of the counterfeit church of conciliarism simply make it up as they go along, projecting onto God whatever comes into their minds as being conformable with His Sacred Deposit Faith, thereby once again proving themselves to be nothing other than Modernist agnostics and rationalists whose methodology was described and dissected so well by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him. Hence they delete from His real history and transfer to faith all the allegories found in His discourses. We may peradventure inquire on what principle they make these divisions? Their reply is that they argue from the character of the man, from his condition of life, from his education, from the complexus of the circumstances under which the facts took place; in short, if We understand them aright, on a principle which in the last analysis is merely subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles which they hold but which they profess to ignore, they proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real history, was not God and never did anything divine, and that as man He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which He lived, consider that He ought to have said or done. . . .

If we pass on from the moral to the intellectual causes of Modernism, the first and the chief which presents itself is ignorance. Yes, these very Modernists who seek to be esteemed as Doctors of the Church, who speak so loftily of modern philosophy and show such contempt for scholasticism, have embraced the one with all its false glamour, precisely because their ignorance of the other has left them without the means of being able to recognize confusion of thought and to refute sophistry. Their whole system, containing as it does errors so many and so great, has been born of the union between faith and false philosophy.

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that their passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Yes, Robert Zollitsch and Federico Lombardi, you stand condemned. So does your boss, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. So does your false religion that blasphemes the true God of Divine Revelation, derides the traditions of the Catholic Church and invents novelties ad infinitum, ad nauseam in order to overthrow the legitimate traditions of Holy Mother Church. We must have nothing to do with such apostates and their false church.

It's been one thousand four hundred eighty-one days since Robert Zollitsch's infamous blasphemy of Our Lord's Sacrifice of Himself on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. He is still ticking. We will be saying the same about Federico Lombardi's putative support for "civil unions" one thousand four hundred eighty-one days from now as the counterfeit church of conciliarism is in the throes of celebrating the quincentennial of Martin Luther's Protestant Revolution that is the foundation of much of their leaders' believes and pastoral practices? Time well tell. Time will tell.

God will not be mocked, however. We must defend His greater honor and majesty and glory, as Saint Alphonsus de Liguori made clear:

As we turn to Our Lady by means of her Most Holy Rosary during this Fourth Week after Easter, we must intensify our intentions to live as penitentially as did the Third Order Dominican whose holy life of complete surrender to her Espoused, Christ the King, we celebrate liturgically today.

We are not blameless for the state of the Church Militant on earth and thus of the world-at-large. Indeed, our sins make us very guilty, which is why we must live penitentially and withdraw more and more from a world gone mad, entrusting all to the throne of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Queen.

What are we waiting for? Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


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 Catharine of Siena, T.O.P., pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


A Summary of the Liberalism of John Locke

The father of the ideology of liberalism, John Locke, a Presbyterian who wrote to justify the overthrow of King James II, a Catholic, by the Parliament in the so-called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, believed, essentially, that social problems could be ameliorated if a majority of reasonable men gathered together to discuss their situation. The discussion among these "reasonable men" would lead to an agreement, sanctioned by the approval of the majority amongst themselves, on the creation of structures which designed to improve the existing situation. If those structures did not ameliorate the problems or resulted in a worsening of social conditions then some subsequent majority of "reasonable men" would be able to tear up the "contract" that had bound them before, devising yet further structures designed to do what the previous structures could not accomplish.

Unfortunately for Locke, you see, social problems cannot be ameliorated merely by the creation of structures devised by "reasonable men" and sanctioned by the majority. All problems in the world, both individual and social, have their remote causes in Original Sin and their proximate causes in the Actual Sins of men. There is no once-and-for-all method or structure by which, for example, "peace" will be provided in the world by the creation of international organizations or building up or the drafting of treaties. There is no once-and-for-all method or structure by which, for example, "crime" will be lessened in a nation by the creation of various programs designed to address the "environmental" conditions that are said to breed it.

The only way in which social conditions can be ameliorated is by the daily reformation of individual lives in cooperation with the graces won for men by the shedding of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and administered into their souls by the working of the Holy Ghost in the sacraments entrusted to the true Church founded by Our Lord upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. And to the extent that social structures can be effective in addressing specific problems at specific times in specific places those who create and administer them must recognize their absolute dependence upon God's graces and that there is no secular, non-denominational or inter-denominational way to provide for social order. Social order and peace among nations depend entirely upon the subordination of the life of every person and the activities of every nation to the Social Reign of Christ the King as it is exercised by the Catholic Church.

The modern state is founded on the specific and categorical rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King as it is exercised by the Catholic Church. There is thus the need for modern man for find sterile ideologies or philosophies to substitute for the true Faith so as to guide "him" in the course of daily life. The failure of the social structures fashioned after the Lockean model to effect an amelioration of the problems they were intended to address does nothing to deter "true believers" from continuing to persist in the blindness that led them to reject the true Faith and to trust in their own cooked-up schemes.

No, the "true believers" in liberalism or conservatism or capitalism or socialism or communism or fascism or Nazism or utilitarianism or pragmatism or positivism (or any and all other brands of secular "isms") must spend their entire lives searching for a "better way" to realize the goals of their particular ideology or philosophy or economic system. It cannot possibly be, they have convinced themselves, that their initial premises were wrong from the outset. No, the problem must be in the implementation of their ideas, not in the false nature of the ideas upon which they have based all of their truly delusional hopes.

The Lockean construct for the resolution of social problems is but one part of the Revolution, as it was termed by Popes Pius IX and Saint Pius X, against the Faith. The Lockean construct preceded the rise of contemporary Freemasonry in England by twenty-nine years, fitting in nicely with the Judeo-Masonic desire to obliterate the necessity of subordinating all things in personal and social life to the reality of the Incarnation by stressing the conviction that the "universal brotherhood of men" can put aside "denominational differences" to pursue the "common good."

Locke's belief that men can resolve their social problems by the creation of structures, in essence the self-redemptive heresy of semi-Pelagianism, also dovetailed into the Judeo-Masonic belief that men can pursue "civic virtue" on their own without belief in, access to or cooperation with sanctifying grace. These false beliefs lead men and their societies into complete and utter chaos, which is the goal of the chief revolutionary, the devil himself, who desires the minds of men to be locked up by the blindness engendered by their narcissism and pride.

The Lockean construct leads to many mutations, all of which have one common theme: the ability of man to better his lot in life on his own without subordinating himself to the Deposit of Faith that the God-Man has entrusted to His true Church.

In the United States, for example, the Lockean construct has produced a situation where men liberalism had to give way to socialism. The failure of incremental, structural "reforms" to improve social conditions led to an increase in the size and the power of government at all levels (state, local, national) and a reduction in the legitimate natural law rights of citizens to be free from the tyranny of governmental leaders possessed of the nation that secular salvation comes from the state.

Thus, the New Freedom of Woodrow Wilson was actually a descent into statism, expedited by the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (and by many of the policies of his immediate predecessor, Herbert Clark Hoover; some New Dealers have admitted that the policies of their mentor's administration were in many instances merely a re-packaging of Hoover's own statist programs), and expanded by Lyndon Baines Johnson's "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" programs. The attempts to "engineer" the better society through government programs has reached such a stage that even thought itself is being punished at the state law (and laws are pending on the national level to make criticism of the behavior of certain people a "hate" crime). A land born in the delusional belief that man can ever be "free" without Our Lord and His Holy Church produces all to logically and inexorably a new caste of slaves, most of who are so diverted by bread and circuses that they protest nary a bit as their legitimate freedoms and property are taken away from them bit by bit under one pretext or another.

Elsewhere, however, the Lockean construct leads to a degree of violent frustration. That is, the failure of structural reforms to, say, "end" poverty or to "end" wars convinced a number of visionaries that violent, bloody revolutions were necessary to overthrow the remaining vestiges of Catholicism in order to replace it all at once with a man-made paradigm for peace and justice on earth. The French Revolutionaries, the Mexican Revolutionaries, the plotters of the Italian Risorgimento, the Bolshevik and Maoist Revolutionaries--and scores upon scores of others--believed that their revolutions would bring about a new age for mankind. The failure of even those "once-and-for-all" revolutions, however, to produce their expected results led to attempts to revitalize the revolutionary zeal, a "reform of the reform," if you will. And thus it will ever be with minds are all locked up in the demonically inspired delusions of Modernity. (Minds Locked Up.)


© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.