Catholic
 Apostolic
 & Roman
Christian Order
Read Christian Order
Contents
Editorials
Current
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1990s
Features
Main Page

 

November 2014

Sovereignty and Salvation

THE EDITOR

I. National Sovereignty

The onward march of the United Kingdom Independence Party has horrified the self-serving metropolitan elite, both secular and ecclesiastical. Desperate to stop a truthful debate about national sovereignty and uncontrolled mass immigration — a discussion kick-started by UKIP on behalf of millions — the Big Government/Big Media nexus has relentlessly misrepresented, smeared, ridiculed and demonised the new boys on the block. By magnifying their faults, fledgling blunders and foot-shooting eccentricities out of all proportion, it was arrogantly presumed their burgeoning popularity would quickly fade, in the manner of most third party attempts to dislodge incestuous two-party monopolies.

Predictably, after UKIP gave the major parties an unprecedented kicking at council and European elections in May, Anglican bishop Pete Broadbent of Willesden tweeted about "Nutty Nigel" (Farage, the UKIP leader). "There is no question," he blogged, "UKIP are vacuous. An annoying blot on the political landscape." And, of course, "racist" to boot for daring to insist that Britain regain total charge of its own borders, and institute a policy of controlled immigration: one tailored to benefit the nation, its citizens, legal immigrants, and genuine asylum seekers and refugees. The very idea! The bigots!

These charges serve only to smear and insult the nearly 40,000 UKIP membership, and more than four million voters who withstood the propaganda onslaught to occasion the political "earthquake" that elected around 400 UKIP councillors and 24 MEPs. Anglican blogger Cranmer responded:

The error he [Broadbent] makes with his crass UKIP assessment is typical of the CofE leadership. It comes straight from the pages of The Guardian via the BBC. There is a postmodern cultural political shift to which they appear oblivious. And, without any reasoning, or any particular Christian presuppositions at all, they write off UKIP with epithets of contempt.

[...] The United Kingdom Independence Party has only one objective — to effect the secession of the UK from the political construct known as the EU. There is not one bishop in the Church of England (or the Roman Catholic Church) who seems to agree with this. So, they aver, UKIP is vacuous, xenophobic, racist and, in the last analysis, anti-Christian.

[...] UKIP represent a threat to the liberal order: they are 'right-wing' and 'extremist'. Bishop Pete views UKIP not as a valid political player, but as an intruder, a meddler, a spoiler, a blot on the political playing field. UKIP are not engaged in legitimate politics; they are a sickness to be treated, and, should there be no cure, they must be euthanised.

... To Bishop Pete, both [the Le Pen Nationalists in France and UKIP in the UK] are xenophobic and racist, if not anti-Semitic and islamophobic. He has no grasp that the rise of both hinges more on the people's legitimate concerns with uncontrolled and uncontrollable immigration, an aloof European Union and an out-of-touch political elite.

UKIP have arisen because of a conspiracy of political uniformity among the 'main' parties on so many issues of policy. They were once outsiders and outliers; now they have become integral and mainstream. They are not a blot on the political landscape; they are part of that landscape because the insurrection and rebellion are deemed by millions of voters to be wholly necessary. The cry is for revolution and reformation. The sooner the aloof heads in the CofE recognise that, instead of hurling puerile insults and denigrating the mutineers, the better.

Criticism of mutineers is even more outrageous considering the enfeebled state of both major parties. Commentator Peter Hitchens for one recently asked:

Does the Tory Party still exist? Subscription income is now lower than UKIP’s. They haven’t published up-to-date membership figures. My information is that so many have quit in disgust at David Cameron’s liberalism that in many seats there will be no troops to fight the General Election [in 2015].

Good riddance. I could carve a better party out of a banana.

Patriotism and nationalism

As will become clear, this is not a party political announcement. Nonetheless, only cave-dwellers who missed the past twenty years — the cataclysmic rise of New Labour and its contagious legacy of moral, cultural, social, political, civil, educational, economic and financial corruption — would not delight in the rare emergence of a voting bloc to challenge the quisling Westminster duopoly in thrall to Brussels. After all, someone has to represent the majority desire, consistently voiced in polls, for a referendum on this vital matter of national self-determination.

That innate desire, the leitmotif of human history, is most readily ignited by physical invasion and occupation (cf. Cursed Victory [2014], Ahron Bregman's history of Israel and the Occupied Territories since 1967). Yet even mutually beneficial Acts of Union like those which constitute the United Kingdom cannot wholly extinguish the yearning to control one's national destiny without foreign interference. Notwithstanding cynical Blairite agendas that set the partial devolution of powers to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in motion, that debilitating process was easy to initiate and further precisely because patriotic sentiment and the ineradicable spirit of independence are so readily roused.

Obviously, where the principle of subsidiarity is abused or rank oppression prevails, this can work to a country's advantage. We need only think of St. Joan's divine mandate to kick the English out of France. Or the proud and protective Polish patriotism, fuelled by so many betrayals and such heroic suffering at foreign hands. Informed, like St. Joan, by a truly Catholic spirit, the present writer observed this pervasive and edifying national pride during a recent extended visit to Poland.

It was typified by three huge banners inscribed lengthways and respectively with "God", "Honour" and "Fatherland," set above the perimeter of the city centre of Białstok, near the Ukraine border (— on the other side of which the youth members of Svoboda, the ultra-fascist Ukraine party backed by the US and Germany, sport T-shirts screaming "Death to Poles": vast numbers of whom were massacred by Svoboda in cahoots with the Nazis during WWII).

Faith and patriotism also radiated from the impressive Torun HQ of Redemptorist Father Tadeusz Rydzyk's Radio Maria (mocked and despised by Poland's repackaged Communist elite; both for its Catholic independence and the patriotic hoi polloi who support it).

On the other hand, once patriotism is co-opted by cliques with a primary view to political power and control of the public money trough, anything is possible; even the dissolution of a centuries old Union with a common spiritual, cultural and political patrimony, which disproportionately favours and funds its minority members. Love of country then morphs into an exaggerated and ominous nationalism passed off as genuine patriotism.

Not that the thuggish Nationalists shouting down reasoned debate and intimidating pro-union opponents were representative of all Scots. Many doubtless had their own sincere reasons for thinking that the Nationalist option — Scotland as a Brusselian vassal state — was somehow better than the status quo they believe has failed them. Indeed there was nothing overly remarkable about the secessionist bandwagon north of the border. It simply reflects the historical ebb and flow of popular support for unions and alliances, which have tended to strengthen in bad times and weaken in peacetime. Concerted calls for Welsh and Scottish independence rose and fell either side of the two World Wars, for instance. Moreover, the very large minority vote for Scottish independence will remain a ticking bomb. One that will explode even sooner than anticipated if the last-minute promises afforded the Scots to 'remain' are not duly delivered by Westminster, thereby providing grist for the secessionist mill.

The United States of Europe

One way or the other, however, all patriotic or nationalistic roads, all the myriad separatist movements across Europe, return to the Germanic EU contrivance.

On the one hand, the likes of Scottish and Ukrainian nationalists seek a place at the EU's unaccountable, irreformable, bottomless trough. On the other, patriotic Poles are caught between economic and security imperatives, and the desire to avoid the sort of terminal spiritual and cultural damage done to Catholic Eire by European handouts. That Irish capitulation cum apostasy (conveniently rationalised thereafter by clerical sexual abuse scandals) is personified by the Polish prime minister who recently took the low road to Brussels, abandoning his post mid-term for more lucrative offerings.

For more pragmatic reasons, UKIP rightly insists that Britain must engineer an exit from Brussels via referendum if the dignity and sanity of self-determination is ever to be restored. In this regard, the particular absurdity of Scotland seeking to leave a British Union in which they control virtually all their own affairs, with a view to even deeper integration with an ever more centralised and corrupt European Union, was risible. It smacked of egoistic self-serving by messianic Nationalists without the least regard for economic and financial realities, Scottish sovereignty, or the fate of citizens, especially the most vulnerable. Had they displayed the courage of their convictions by seeking real independence — spurning both Unions: British and European — their Braveheart grandstanding may have evoked even grudging admiration from a British populace whose disaffection for the EU has only deepened in the aftermath of the continental catastrophe brought on by the single currency: a straightjacket even ex-Nationalist leader Alec Salmond sought to avoid.

The euro, of course, was doomed from the outset; being suicidally set in place before the common political state it required for survival. Forever denied or obfuscated, that euro-sustaining superstate was pursued by movers and shakers from the outset (cf. Pan Europa, Count Richard N. Coudenhove-Kalergi, 1923; "The United States of Europe," Winston Churchill, The Saturday Evening Post, 1930). Made perfectly clear in the Treaty of Rome and openly stated by many of its advocates, the European Economic Community and its successive appellations were mere transitions to the fascist entity the Nazis had envisaged (see "Strands of Evil," April 2013). Admirers of Jean Monnet, one of the Fathers of the EU who headed the Committee for the United States of Europe, have plainly stated:

Gradually, it was thought, the supranational authorities, supervised by the European Council of Ministers at Brussels and the Assembly in Strasbourg, would administer all the activities of the continent. A day would come when governments would be forced to admit that an integrated Europe was an accomplished fact, without their having a say in the establishment of its underlying principles. All they would have to do was to merge all these autonomous institutions into a single federal administration and then proclaim a United States of Europe. [Jean Monnet And The United States Of Europe, Merry and Serge Bromberger, New York, 1969, p. 123]

By the time the euro was introduced on 1 January 1999, the gloves were off and Monnet's vision was being openly lauded by the EU hierarchy. Down the years we have documented many of their proclamations. Suffice to recall the Financial Times interview of 6 April, 1999, in which the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, hailing the new euro, trumpeted the end of the independent nation state. His "real goal" as Commission president, he said, was to draw on "the consequences of the single currency and create a political Europe":

In the longer view, we ·have started a new chapter in the structure of Europe. The euro was not just a bankers' decision or a technical decision. It was a decision that completely changed the nature of the nation states. The pillars of the nation state are the sword (its armed forces) and the currency and we changed that. The euro decision changed the concept of the nation state and we have to go beyond that.

To hammer home his point Mr Prodi also wrote a book [An Idea about Europe], in which he argued that in order to create a "European soul" all babies born from 2000 would have joint citizenship — with their European status having priority — before eventually moving to a single Euro passport and abolition of all remaining border controls within the Union. (How current migration chaos speaks to the insanity of that proposal!). He also proposed the introduction of a harmonised education policy that would promote knowledge of EU institutions and history and help create a new "European ruling class." It already exists, of course, embodied by Prodi, his presidential predecessors, and reptilian successors Barroso and Juncker — a rarified and cosseted "class" that Nationalists everywhere aspire to join.  

Deceitful continuity

This flagrant and manifestly destructive goal — to eviscerate national sovereignty and identity; a recipe for endless separatist turmoil — should have dominated all discussion of the EU project from its inception. The ease with which it has been passed over for generations speaks, firstly, to wicked mutual backscratching and blackmail among the morally corrupt political elite from Washington to Berlin to London: a process that mirrors the well publicised cover-ups and sinecures routinely orchestrated by the British governing class to protect the numerous perverts and child abusers in their midst. Concomitantly, a largely complicit mainstream media has allowed governments of all stripes to lie, dissemble and stall as Brussels continues to absorb sovereign British powers.

Official documents reveal that Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath (1970-74), urged on by the europhilic Foreign Office, deliberately withheld Monnet's master plan from the electorate. Thus, kept in the dark, voters took their elected leaders at their word and robotically voted Britain into the EEC; portrayed and understood as a harmless free-trade bloc. "In fact," writes Simon Heffer, "as the Treaty of Rome that founded the Common Market pointed out, the goal was of an 'ever closer union' economically and, more crucially, politically. That last element was kept very quiet." And much else besides. "Having said that Britain would join only 'with the full-hearted consent of the British parliament and the people'," writes Heffer,

Heath pressed on with entry even though the enabling Bill passed its second reading by only eight votes in the Commons.

The people were never consulted. Heath didn't even tell his Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, that signing the Treaty of Brussels to secure our accession committed us one day to joining a single currency — Sir Alec forced Heath to admit this afterwards.

Heath also said that the common agricultural and fisheries polices would have no adverse effect on our farmers or fishermen. The consistent dwindling of our fleet since 1973 was a direct result of his policy and contrary to what he had promised. (1) [Daily Mail, 15/5/03]

Subsequently, under Harold Wilson (PM 1974-76):

Two pamphlets saying the deal [to enter the EEC] was brilliant were sent to every household at the June 1975 referendum. They also protested that there would be no further sacrifices of sovereignty. Again, such promises were in direct contravention of the Treaty of Rome.

The deceitful continuity owes much to faceless Whitehall mandarins. Possessed by Prodi-like yearnings, they have led the treacherous way. Slowly disabused of their debilitating "integration" agenda which she herself had long swallowed, Margaret Thatcher finally called them out: decrying their relentless and contemptuous drive to erase British sovereignty. In a letter to the Sunday Telegraph of July 1999, she slated the puerile and demonstrably false views of sixteen former diplomats that Britain could not prosper outside the single currency (— a view still held despite the euro having brought the EU to its knees, while Britain manage far better under sterling, and the Swiss and Norwegians prosper!). These Establishment clones represented a "continuous strand in the Foreign Office's institutional view of the world which believes that Britain's only way forward is to dissolve our national independence in the European Union," she wrote. "This attitude," she added in damning conclusion, "has been held by a handful of senior officials since the Fifties, without regard to the opinion of the electorate or of various Governments since then."

This subversive spirit quietly raged throughout the saturation coverage of the Scottish referendum: divided loyalties and Monnet's unmentionable objective still notable by their unspoken absence. The undeclared underbelly was laid bare by Edward Spalton of the cross-party Campaign for an Independent Britain, who commented after one Salmond TV appearance:

The skeleton at the feast or the elephant in the room on this occasion was our old friend the EU. The question asked about independence but that was never on offer as Mr Salmond was determined on EU membership. In 1971 the Foreign Office was well aware of what the EEC was intended to become and advised HMG as follows ( Document Ref FCO 30/1048).

"The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feelings of alienation from Government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes within member states and effective Community economic and social policies will be essential…. There would be a major responsibility on HM Government and ON ALL POLITICAL PARTIES (my emphasis) not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”.

This advice was followed to the letter by all parties in the [1975] referendum campaign which was therefore to decide whether the UK would be administered as one or two subject provinces of the EU – no more, no less.

Mr Salmond made his mark with his early campaigning on behalf of the fishermen of the East Coast of Scotland whose livelihoods had been deliberately sacrificed by the Westminster government as part of the price of joining the EEC/EU. Yet he campaigned in the referendum as the EU’s willing subject. Just across the North Sea lies Norway – outside the EU and with full sovereignty over its own waters and oil ( which the EU aspires to make a ” common resource”). Norway has exactly the same access to the EU’s Single Market as the UK as a member of the EEA ( European Economic Area). If the Yes [secessionist] campaign had campaigned on that platform, it would have been offering real independence – but it didn’t!

Hitting the buffers?

Little wonder the despised UKIP was warned off visiting Scotland by all parties; for fear of concentrating minds on the German (read EU) Elefant sitting quietly betwixt Messrs Darling and Salmond during their televised non-debates. And so the former proceeded comfortably to oppose the latter's gross fabrications (not least falsely claiming that London was about to privatise the NHS, while secretly planning £450million in NHS cuts if he won!) without any fuss or bother from their mutually beloved, if intimidating, pet. Even as he meandered up and down Scottish high streets, Brussels the Elephant remained invisible to Scots — distracted as they were by Mr Cameron's crocodile tears and emotional pleas not to enact a "painful divorce" that would "break this family apart." This from the man whose visceral Europhilia split the bedrock familial foundation of British life asunder by engineering sodomitical "marriage" onto the statute books! [see "'Gay Marriage': Cameron Bows to 'Europe'," April 2013]

Regardless of the country or context, false claims and promises spouted by political deceivers can only ever deliver pseudo-independence and false freedoms of the sort Westiminster champions at the behest of Brussels. Whether portraying subservience to foreign judicial fiat and micro-management as self-determination, or elevating sexual perversion to a liberating legal and social good, the corrupting "values" the elite share are greater than their ways and means of entrenching them. Accordingly, Scotland's fork-tongued First Minister also courted the homosexual vote.

In messianic terms, Mr Salmond announced that, unshackled, Scotland would not only cement perversion in a new constitution but assume the role of sodomitic envoy to the benighted nations. "With Independence," he proclaimed, "we will be able to enshrine LGBTI equality in a written constitution — ensuring our rights cannot be easily reversed by any government. With complete control over foreign policy and international development we will be able to make full use of diplomatic relations and actively promote LGBTI equality and human rights around the world."

Free at last! Free at last! Not.

Clearly, genuine independence of political thought and public policy was never on the Scottish cards. The end of government by PC diktat was about as likely as Mr Salmond and his statist comrades in Edinburgh, London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels foregoing monster salaries, or entreating Francis to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart.

Meantime, in the aftermath of the referendum and the further extravagant devolution promises made to appease the Scots, Mr Cameron maintains the line of the lying Establishment he personifies. This involves the hackneyed spinning of endless supposed concessions he will obtain from Brussels in order to avoid the actual solution: exit stage left. Amid so much Blair-like posturing, it is his illiberal crusades for sodomitical "marriage" and EU membership that most vindicate his self-designated title of "Heir to Blair." The self-mutilating punters, however, are finally sick and tired of being shut out and told what's good for them.

After all, it was Cameron's shamelessly broken election promise of a referendum on EU membership (one of the most egregious of all the many humiliations heaped upon naive Eurosceptics who have taken inveterate Europhiles at their word) that turbo-charged the rise of Mr Farage's UKIP in the first place. Yet he now expects voters to believe his latest half-hearted pledge to finally give them a say: on whether to end Britain's sovereign death by stealthy statutorial cuts.

A stinging response to Cameron's expectation duly arrived on 10 October, with Douglas Carswell's landslide by-election victory in Clacton, becoming UKIP's first elected MP. On the same day, the party almost toppled Labour from two other seats.

"We've seen once again the scale of the disillusionment with Westminster politics, disillusionment that has been building for a long time," said Labour's ludicrous and incompetent leader Ed Miliband, an iconic symbol of that popular disgust. 

Barring implosion (ever on the cards), the sky is now the limit for Mr Farage and his party. But we should temper our delight at this prospect. After the frisson, the reality check: UKIP is no panacea. Far from it. For all his blokey commonsense, ability to convey majority concerns, and lampooning of political correctness, Mr Farage sees no problem with homo "marriage." He told PinkNews in March that he would not seek to overturn it. Subsequently, as if to underline his broadmindedness, he attended a soiree with Elton John and his 'husband'; leading "gay" activists with pay-as-you-go (surrogate) baby boys. 

And there's the rub: will UKIP, too, hit the PC buffers? Will it abandon the NATURAL ORDER on which national rehab depends? Before it answers those questions, it needs to answer another one: how can Britain extricate itself from its mutable mores — the cause of its intractable socio-political and cultural woes — without immutable moral benchmarks essential to framing public policy around the intact, natural family: which alone ensures national stability, coherence, cohesion, health, and true/organic patriotism? Online newsletter Le Tocsin recently raised the same red flag. During a BBC interview conducted by Jeremy Paxman, editor Graham Moorehouse relates that

Nigel Farage was defending his party, UKIP, from the charge that it was filled with “nutcases”, a collective noun that in liberal speak includes everyone who has not embraced all the latest secular liberal dogmas.

The particular “nutcase” [Paxman] had in mind was Roger Helmer who twelve years ago had said that some people find homosexuality “viscerally repulsive”: a statement of the obvious about as controversial as a declaration that grass is green.

Listening to Farage’s wretched apologies for Helmer’s comments reminded one of the grovelling confessions rung from the accused during Stalin’s show trials of the 1930s.

[...] Would it not be tragically ironic if Nigel Farage, having spent the best years of his life fighting to free us from an unelected Brussels bureaucracy, should then by sycophantically paying homage at the shrine of political correctness, play no small part in enslaving us to the ideology of an unelected intolerant cultural elite — the very same political class that constructed the EU behemoth in the first place?

II. Our Heavenly Sovereign

Irony and tragedy indeed. "The People's Army is on the march....," declared Mr Carswell. In context, a very good and necessary, not to say long overdue turn of events. And yet the same Godless Army handed over governance to the incomparably vicious and dissolute New Labour spin machine — whose spinner-in-chief actually boasted "we don't do God" — on three consecutive occasions! These Pavlovian People, whose god is their belly, turn politics into a purely pragmatic process forever leading them to ultimate ruin. For democracy simply cannot function consistently for the common good without a Godly (Virtuous) People. "Our [US] Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," stated John Adams. While Thomas Jefferson insisted:

No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education in what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.

Notwithstanding the problematic Deistic beliefs of many of America's Founding Fathers, the long-term consequences of which are addressed in the Rao essay herein, their recognition of the natural law and the necessity of its religious expression to a sustainable democracy, stands in stark contrast to contemporary political discourse. Unlike Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, Salmond and Farage, Jefferson worked on the principle that "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." Hence his response to homosexual tyranny, which he believed should be treated as rape. Whatever their economic and patriotic strengths, modern-day leaders who reject such natural law logic (i.e. the God-given natural order of things), are facilitators of vice and so destroyers of the very liberty they seek.

"Structures of sin"

In that light, the UKIP phenomenon, here as elsewhere, is a welcome yet superficial response. Forever mired in the overriding and absolute Western concern with economic issues, by which 'the pursuit of liberty and happiness' is foolishly measured, it merely swaps European positive-law for British positive-law: all the while ignoring the natural and divine laws that address rampant corruption and the PC/human rights nexus at their materialistic roots.

In other words, though vital, regaining British sovereignty in and of itself is not the answer to our endless problems. It provides the democratic possibility to help solve them. But uninformed by the tenets of the one true religion — and if catastrophic Anglicanism has taught us anything it's the necessity of a Divinely guaranteed papal/magisterial arbiter of doctrinal and moral absolutes — self-determination can hedge in but never immobilise the PC juggernaut laying waste to faith, morals and liberty (in that order).

Mercilesss bulldozers like the Kentucky Human Rights Commission, which recently ordered a Christian owned screen-printing company to print the pro-homosexual T-shirts it had conscientiously refused to make for a "gay pride" event two years ago. Or Houston City Council, which last month issued subpoenas demanding five pastors hand over their sermon notes, emails, instant messages and text messages concerning "equal rights, civil rights, homosexuality, or gender identity." Tweeted Houston's Mayor: "If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game."

Quintessentially fascist, this burgeoning mindset is held by the very freedom-touting secessionists who are implementing a law which assigns every child in Scotland from birth to age eighteen a "named person," selected by the government, whose job it is to "promote, support, or safeguard the wellbeing" of the child.

Morally corrupted and welfare dependent, there is no mass outpouring of righteous denunciations over such totalitarian proposals, on either side of the border. The Union might be saved, for now. But a nation of self-flagellators who seek well-being without virtue or responsibility cannot legitimately complain about anything: whether endemic mendacity and self-serving, ongoing epic waste of hard-earned tax contributions, the break-up of a successful political union, or the loss of sovereignty.

Nor can they complain about an oppressive nanny state that simply mirrors its EU master. An intrusive, hectoring nanny who admits to leaving 43% of her children unable to read, write and count efficiently after eleven years of full time education. But that's OK, says nanny, since they did learn how to put a condom on a banana — which they then ate in order to reach her "5-a-day" target of fruit and veg.   

Jefferson's contemporary Samuel Adams said it all:

Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.

What is obviously true for the supernatural life of the soul and salvation spills over to the natural plane, where virtue ennobles individual character and lifts society as a whole. An American civic organisation put it well:

Virtuous principles eschew prejudice and discrimination, confirming that “all men are created equal.” Virtue encompasses characteristics of goodwill, patience, tolerance, kindness, respect, humility, gratitude, courage, honor, industry, honesty, chastity and fidelity. These precepts serve as the cornerstones for both individual and societal governance.

UKIP patriots take note. And consider, too, the faith-based patriotism of Polish organisations which share your righteous opposition to Brussels, but not the compromising libertarianism which allows space for depravity in the public square. The appropriately named Sobieski Institute of Warsaw, for instance, which declares:

Our values are: a sovereign republic, strong and limited government, the balance of liberty and civic responsibility, economic freedom, social order based on the natural law. In our activities we try to maintain intellectual courage, criticism, humility and respect for wisdom and goodness.

The Institute doubtless takes the dismantling of the "structures of sin," denounced by their celebrated compatriot John Paul II, as the self-evident starting point of freedom and any revival of Western civilisation. "Far from facilitating the moral life, society today multiplies the conditions contrary to its blossoming," wrote the late pontiff, who also knew a thing or two about politics:

I have wished to introduce this type of analysis above all in order to point out the true nature of the evil which faces us with respect to the development of peoples: it is a question of a moral evil, the fruit of many sins which lead to "structures of sin." To diagnose the evil in this way is to identify precisely, on the level of human conduct, the path to be followed in order to overcome it. [Sollicitudo rei socialis, 1987, para.  37]

Salvific sovereignty

Hopefully UKIP's electoral successes will continue to dislodge the sneering Establishment; to challenge the systemic rot. But Mr Farage and his crew, like their American counterparts in the Tea Party and all emerging third parties in the West, would do well to study the above encyclical, directed to believers and non-believers alike, as an introduction to Catholic social doctrine. Rooted in divine and natural law, that teaching sets forth the essential requirements for real and enduring freedom; the obstacles to which "are not only economic," but above all moral and spiritual. Intrigued by this sophisticated and comprehensive body of thought, they will surely progress to the pre-Conciliar social encyclicals which did not baulk at ecumenically incorrect and 'divisive' statements of Catholic truth, and discover therein the final solution: the bedrock doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ; the Redeemer of the world who embraces all men:

His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ. [Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum, 1899]

Since sovereign nations are constituted by souls made in the image and likeness of God, this Sovereign Rule of power and grace is eminently logical. Preaching on Psalm 4, “The light of thy countenance has been imprinted upon us,” the great Doctor the Church, St Anthony of Padua, explained how the natural law came to be imprinted on all hearts and minds:

Lord, the light of your countenance, that is to say the light of your grace that sets your image within us and makes us become like you, has been imprinted upon us, that is to say imprinted in our rational faculty, which is the highest power of our soul and receives this light as wax receives the mark of a seal. God's countenance is our reason because, just as we recognise someone by his face, so we recognise God through the mirror of reason. However, this reason has been deformed by human sin since sin sets us against God. The grace of Christ has put our reason right. Hence, the apostle Paul says to the Ephesians: “Be renewed in your minds” (4,23). The light in question in this psalm is thus the grace that restores God's image imprinted in our nature...

The whole Trinity has marked mankind with its likeness. With the memory it resembles the Father; with the understanding it resembles the Son; by love it resembles the Holy Spirit... From the beginning of creation man was made “in the image and likeness of God” (Gn 1,26). The image in his understanding of truth, the likeness in his love of virtue. The light of God's countenance is thus the grace that justifies us and brings to light once again our created image. This light constitutes man's whole good, his true good; it sets its mark on him just as the emperor's image marked the coin. That is why the Lord adds: “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” It was as if he said: Just as you repay Caesar with his image so repay God with your soul, beautified and marked by the light of his countenance.

Hence it was both reasonable and just for Pius XI to declare in Quas Primas (1925), that "When once men recognise, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony."

Convergent pontiff

This salvific sovereignty is the goal. In order to reach it, however, a myopic post-Christian society which measures liberty in terms of economic health and 'live and let live' morality may well require a biblical cataclysm in order to start again from scratch. Especially now that we have a pope who has provided his Top Ten Secrets for Happiness without once mentioning Jesus Christ! (— yet without Whom, St Paul insists, despite every appearance of happiness and every success, we are "nothing"  [1Cor. 13:1-2]).

A pontiff who recently removed the a divinis suspension of unrepentant 81-year-old Marxist-Sandinista priest Miguel d'Escoto Brockman, who then promptly repeated and amplified on Nicaraguan television the original scandalous statements for which John Paul II imposed the penalty in the first place. While professing joy at the lifting of his suspension, allowing him once again to offer Mass, he praised Fidel Castro as "the greatest Latin-American of all time," chosen by God to convey the message of the Holy Spirit in Latin America, presenting the Social Kingship of Christ as a revolutionary class struggle. (See pp. 58-62). 

A pope who, in 1999, as Archbishop Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, accepted honorary membership of Rotary: the so-called White Masons [see Jan. 2014, pp. 41-42], of whom Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions International, wrote in "Rotary's Dance with Death" (2007):

It would be impossible for any person with an intact conscience to turn a blind eye to Rotary's ungodly associations and population control programs. One may offer up any excuse or justification he or she desires, but there is no way that anyone who truly cares about human life, born and preborn, could be associated with Rotary International.

Collaborationist CINOs

The worldly Francis mirrors his worldly brethren: the Synod rebels burning incense to the Lords of the World as I write. Just as most of our secularised British prelates. Like the New Labour project they eagerly supported, they (and so vast numbers of their flock) no longer "do God" — preferring a social gospel that apes the Gospel of Christ after the blasphemous fashion of Fr Miguel D'Escoto Brockman. Their periodic episcopal quibbles with governments of the day (on economic or moral issues) are risible, since they themselves are now an integral part of  the out-of-touch elite (cf. "Lawyers, Guns and Money," Oct. 1999; "Our Blairite Bishops," Oct. 2000; "Blairism and the Church Convergent," Jan. 2007). Hence their distaste for political interlopers like UKIP, and their complicity in the EU agenda concisely articulated by Fr Michel Schooyans in The Gospel Before World Disorder (1997):

With the complicity of numerous Europeans, Europe is the victim of an unprecedented project of ideological colonisation. It is subject to a process of deprogramming-reprogramming aimed at making it accept a package, a parcel bomb, comprising a New Moral Code, a New Legal Order, a New World Order.

It is nothing less than a neo-pagan deconstruction of the civilisation so painfully constructed by our heroic Catholic forebears (cf. The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity 400-1000 AD, Christopher Dawson, Sheed & Ward, 1932). And yet, even bishops who comprehend and deplore it cannot resist hoisting their complicit colours up the political mast, thereby nudging the unholy process along. Typically, having once delivered a bellicose "Non possumus!" to Mr Cameron over EU-orchestrated "gay marriage," Archbishop Tartaglia of Glasgow saw no contradiction in paying tribute to defeated Europhile Salmond as he departed the Scottish scene. "With good reason," he gushed on behalf of the Scottish hierarchy, "you have been described as one of the most able and influential political leaders that Scotland and the United Kingdom has ever produced." Wobbly at his convergent knees (out of gratitude for a few political bones tossed to the local Church over the years), His Grace happily ignored Mr Salmond's spurious and thuggish campaign, and the profoundly negative consequences of his underlying desire to make Scotland a regional outpost of a foreign empire. Instead, effectively giving his thumbs up to all of that, he hailed "a wonderful champion and ambassador for Scotland," offering a collective episcopal "hope that your political successors will be inspired by your example."

Excessive, sycophantic, humiliating.... Truly, the Lodge should save its energy and forget its 'separation of Church and State' obsession. What's to separate? Our convergent shepherds have never been more united in secular mind and purpose! Never more committed to the humanistic agenda dictated by the Masons. Not all, of course. Benedict XVI for one sensed the anti-Catholic "invisible hand" of the Lodge at work in Brussels, fearing the ever-greater control "of Freemasonry on ... the centres of power of the European Union" (see Oct. 2011, p. 7). Very clearly, the honorary White Mason-Rotarian who replaced him has no such fear!

Compromised and compromising, the Petrine Rebuke of Matthew 16:23 echoes through St Martha's House and all the windswept dioceses of the dying West — "He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do'."

This humanist outlook suits the EU which wants all its client Churches to provide "A Soul for Europe." A corporatist organisation that works through other corporate groups, if it can capture the political leadership of a Church to advance its project, it need not bother the individual members of that denomination which it subverts. As appendages of the state, national Protestant churches readily acquiesce. So winning over the one true Church was always the challenge; all that really mattered. Last February, Dr Anthony Coughlan of the Irish National Platform explained very simply how they did it:

Sometime in the 1990s the Committee of Catholic Hierarchies of the European Community/Union was established — known by its French intitials as COMICE. It had a full-time office in Brussels, whose full-time secretary was  for years  Monsignor Noel Traynor, who was promoted to the Bishopric of  Down and Connor — i.e. Belfast — a few years ago. The current  Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, is also a strong Europhile.

Traditionally, each Bishop was, as the old saying put it, Pope in his own diocese. Each one did his own thing, so to speak. But in recent decades Bishops speak on political issues through committees of their respective  national Hierarchies. So that when it comes to an EU issue, they ask themselves: what does our European or International Affairs Committee  or sub-committee think. These sub-committees of half a dozen or so people are usually strongly Europhile, having been wined and dined for years in Brussels and gone to symposiums on such matters as "Christianity and the EU" etc.  in castles in Germany and so on.

These sub-committees sometimes include lay people who are Eurofanatics. For example the European Affairs sub-committee which advised the Irish Catholic Hierarchy on its 2001 statement on the  Nice Treaty included among its members a former Irish EU Commissioner (Richard Burke), plus a woman  (Kahn-Carroll) who worked full-time in the EU Office in Dublin.

In sum: "Get behind me Satan!" has lost its fearsome resonance for CINO Collaborators proudly thinking "not as God does, but as human beings do."

Restoration through understanding

Stripped of shepherds and hamstrung with hirelings, we look to erudite laymen like Professor John Rao to provide expert analyses of our dire predicament. His following essay repays repeated reading and reflection. Not least because he underlines the difference between pseudo-order and the real thing: Christian order! — the one authentic panacea (now falsely sought in seductive libertarian ethics with shifting moral foundations).

There can be no Catholic restoration without information, education and formation, with a view to evangelical action in its myriad forms. Dr Rao aids this process by peeling back the formative layers of American democracy to reveal the dangerous idol it has become, and the damage it has done to the Church. 

Unravelling all manner of contradictory roots, he explains, for example, how notions of "freedom" and "order" based upon the peculiar and often quite contradictory Calvinist, moderate Enlightenment, and materialist Whig elements have worked to form and mutually influence a "pluralistic"/pragmatic American culture. Replicated worldwide (and mirrored in pastoral theology which seeks a practical/positivistic compromise with sin), this pragmatism fuels the sort of nanny-statism we cited earlier.

This real tyranny is dangerously close to breaking the seal of the Confessional, with jail time waiting those priests who resist. On 4 April 2014, a decision by Louisiana’s Supreme Court intends to compel parish priest Fr. Jeff Bayhi to testify under oath in court whether or not he heard in 2008 the confessions of a 14-year-old girl, which purportedly included information on sexual abuse she was then suffering at the hands of a now-deceased fellow parishioner, "and, if so, what the contents of any such confessions were."

Tradition, Family and Property [TFP] report that the Louisiana decision is not an isolated threat. The seal of confession has come under fire in recent years from legislative bills introduced in Louisiana, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Maryland, Connecticut, and improper court action in Oregon. It has also been threatened in Australia and Ireland. Yet whereas TFP described these persecutory rulings as "simply cynical," Dr Rao's analysis affords us a broader perspective and deeper understanding of its logicality and  inevitability. Since we have embraced the "pluralist" strategy of our enemies, he argues, we cannot be surprised at the fearful outcome for both faith and freedom.

Similarly, while TFP merely anticipates that if and when "the Church loses her freedom, She will effectively become and instrument of the State," Dr Rao insists that we have already been slavishly instrumentalised, to a degree even informed orthodox Catholics still do not appreciate. This is due to adopting the pluralistic "Americanist" heresy embraced by the Modernist hardcore and their "moderate" neo-Modernist brethren (such as Benedict XVI, who exalted US democracy).

The incense of a "pure fast"

Effectively, Dr Rao explains both why and how very far we have drifted from Cardinal Newman's understanding of the Church: which he viewed as holy precisely because she puts "eternity before time," seeing the world as "dust and ashes" compared to "the value of one single soul." I doubt that even many of our better bishops, the ones who oppose Kasper, truly believe that! And how many of the rest accept Newman's view that the Church offers supernatural certainty about revelation as an objective fact — something not found in any religion based on private judgment? If the Church has temporarily lost its transformative apostolic power — the salt and light by which She slowly and painfully converted and civilised Europe — it is due to these de-supernaturalised/hyper-pastoralised hearts and minds full of secular notions like "gradualism"; by which process our papal 'change agent' seems to think he will inevitably wear down resistance to his corrosive neo-Modernist programme.

We should not lose heart, however. As low as we have sunk, the faithful children of Holy Mother Church will never be denied their evangelical birthright (witness the masonic exasperation with unbowed and unbeaten Catholics reported on pages 45-6!). We face the same idolatry, albeit in sophisticated EU guise, that confronted the likes of St. Boniface. What seemed socially and politically insurmountable then was finally surmounted and gloriously transformed over centuries. And so, in time, it will be again. For despite the support of the civil power, heresies and the hostile political landscapes they shape keep breaking apart and losing their vitality, but the Church remains internally coherent and fully alive after two millennia. So notes Dr Anne Gardiner in her review of Fr Stanley's Jaki's Newman to Converts [St. Austin Review, May/June 2014], in which Blessed Newman's voluminous letters to prospective converts are analysed. She writes that "Newman did not regard the tares among the wheat as detracting from the Church's sanctity any more than the Apostles did": 

Newman said that even if the Church had some stench within it, like Noah's Ark, it was far better to enter in than to remain outside in the Deluge. Far from beating his breast over the tares, Newman sounded positively "triumphalist" when he exulted over the Church's contributions to the world by "its principles, its structure, its large teachings, its consistence, its mode of acting, its vigour, its high courage, its grandeur in history, its saints.

So let us thank God for the Church: this great and Holy Mother! Resolving to overcome the neo-Modernist "stench," ever more pungent under this scandalous papacy, with the incense of our fidelity and good works, perseverance and purity of heart! Let us emulate the repentant children of Nineveh, who "turned from their evil way and the wickedness of their works." It was this "pure fast" of abstention from wickedness, not their sackcloth and ashes, that especially pleased Almighty God, so that "he turned from them his anger and did not destroy them." Only the same humbling of ourselves will release the chains of impiety and untie the bonds of deception currently poisoning faith and politics.

Marian victory 

Above all, let us learn from the Poles. The antithesis of Douglas Carswell's "People’s Army," their Marian-inspired, Rosary-led crusade regained Polish sovereignty and freedom against crushing totalitarian odds. Refusing to curse the political darkness, they  became filial beacons of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of the Church, finally realising the prophetic words of Cardinal Wyszynski.

Forged during his early childhood in the little village of Zuzela (where I recently visited his family home, school and parish church), "The Primate's faith was so strong," recalls a commentator, "that he claimed at the end of the fifties, that if Poland becomes truly Christian, Communism will fall with no resort to violence. Poland, and not Russia, would be the reckoning ground of Communism." Says another: "Historians puzzle over how Poland has retained the phenomenon of freedom gained via the Church. Whenever Wyszynski had to answer this question, he would direct the attention of journalists towards the Holiest Mother. The victory was hers, he said, as Poland had been consecrated to Mary, Mother of the Church." 

A true patriot for whom Faith, Family and Fatherland were inextricable — "Know that I love Poland more than I love my own heart," he assured the people on radio before his dramatic arrest — he was abandoned by his wavering fellow bishops, and tossed into prison. He promptly scratched out a Way of the Cross on the walls, walked it, and devoted himself entirely to Mary.

The lessons of the Polish miracle prophesied and led by Wyszynski have never been more applicable. (2)One hundred years after the great conflagration that awaited Benedict XV, we have arrived at the threshold of an even worse tragedy. For if Western conniving in the Ukraine and Muslim mayhem in the Middle East are stirrings of a Third World War, the Synodical Sellout by a powerful clique has finally opened neo-conservative eyes to the truly Diabolic War raging within the Church. Forewarned by Our Lady of Fatima as the consequence of sin, she confirmed the coming chastisement at Akita, Japan, on 13 October 1973:

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres... churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. .... Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved.

If we are living that hellish reality, it is due to not living Our Lady's heavenly solution. To save ourselves, to restore the Church, to face down the EU Leviathan and all New World Order projects that deny Christ — engineering legal "structures of sin" that foster individual sins; leading souls and entire nations to Hell — we need men of supernatural faith and courage. Men like Wyszynski: who lead from the front; who form holy priests and people in their own Marian image; who place Our Lady and all the vital components of her Fatima message front and centre of Church life. Popes and prelates, in other words, who think like Our Sovereign Lord thinks about sovereignty and salvation.

Oremus.

 

FOOTNOTES

(1) How to account for such monumental skulduggery and betrayal? Blackmail by pro-EU intelligence agencies like the German BND cannot be discounted. Said by a former prominent Tory homosexual, Brian Coleman, to have been warned by police in the 50s to stop 'cottaging' — looking for homo sex in public places — Heath was also accused before his death of abusing boys supplied to him by Jimmy Saville. This latter allegation has been amplified more recently by barrister (and national security consultant) Michael Shrimpton, amid ever more shocking revelations of child abuse/murder conspiracies in the highest places.  

(2) They can be found on the moving and powerful Polish documentary Tajemnica Tajemnic ("Secret of Secrets", 2013). Opening with the soft mutter of a child praying the rosary, it features historic footage and instructive commentaries with English subtitles. It can be viewed in full here.

 

 

Back to Top | Editorials 2014