Repost: On why and how globalists, allied with communists, are fomenting federalist conflicts in America.
First published June 7, 2022. They aim to block American Christians and Constitutionalists from working together to protect individual human liberty to freely discern and work the will of God.
Full original post:
June 7, 2022 - On why and how globalists, allied with communists, are fomenting federalist conflicts in America. They aim to block American Christians and Constitutionalists from working together to protect individual human liberty to freely discern and work the will of God.
I was reminded of these issues by an essay that showed up today in my Gab feed by way of Robin Monotti:
Aug. 20, 2020 - No Christianity, no human rights, by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera
Most Americans take the existence of human rights for granted. We see them, to borrow a phrase, as “self-evident.” We can’t really imagine a world without them, or we look at places like China or North Korea with incredulity, as if it’s obvious that their way is clearly wrong. Instead, what these countries demonstrate is that there’s nothing “natural” about the idea of human rights. Rather they are the products of Judaeo-Christian beliefs about the intrinsic dignity of the human person.
Most countries don’t deny the idea of human rights outright. However, because they lack adequate moral grounding for them, human rights become a kind of buffet. Those in power pick the ones they like, for the groups they like, and ignore the rest. Again, to quote the report, “human rights are now misunderstood by many, manipulated by some, rejected by the world’s worst violators, and subject to ominous new threats.
The only secure basis for human rights, of course, is the Christian belief that humans are created in the image of God. Think about that line from our founding documents: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” But it’s not self-evident that we are equal, if we only consider the external attributes humans have. We don’t all share those attributes. We don’t all share the same height, or weight, or IQ, or hair color, or skin tone. Thus equality must be based on some universal human quality that is intrinsic to our humanity. Christianity offers this in the idea of the image of God.
Without the Christian idea of the imago Dei, “universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated” human rights simply wouldn’t exist..
Our first freedom, like the rights that depend on it, are grounded in a Christian view of what it means to be human. They cannot be sustained otherwise…
My June 7, 2022 post was a longer collage of links and reflections.
Below are a few of the bits and pieces relevant to the connections between Christianity and human rights — why Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other globalist politicians of go out of their way to condemn “baskets of deplorables” who “cling to guns and religion” — and how important it is for the globalist predators to cut us off from the moral foundations we’ve inherited from Christianity and the divinely-inspired US Constitution.
…My working hypothesis, strongly informed by Malachi Martin’s analysis in The Keys of This Blood (1990) is that the globalists captured the populist left by forming an alliance of convenience between transnational capital (the banksters) and Marxist social justice/secular materialist warriors, using money (George Soros et al funding the Black Lives Matter groups and color revolutions of the world) alongside ideological persuasion that their joint Enemy No. 1 is Christian Constitutionalists with a commitment to individual liberty and federalism as a means of securing it.
I think the Davos crowd captured the populist right in the same way — by coopting the 2009 Tea Party movement — at least until Trump came along.
The globalists did this for two main reasons.
They realized that the 2009 Tea Party movement and the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement were converging on a geopolitical analysis in which conservative Christian Constitutional populists angry at government overreach could join forces with progressive populists angry at the corporate predation by financial elites, to unite against the two-headed, single-beast of the Corporate-State jointly controlled by globalists and Marxists.
And they had the money to buy off the leaders of the key organizing groups.
Globalists, allied with communists, have been using the American administrative State as one major front in the war on humanity, as outlined in the American Domestic Bioterrorism Program overview post and related legal reporting.
They have a second major front.
They’re using the federal courts to erode Constitutional jurisprudence, individual rights and the federalist system: the system set up by the Founders to control tyranny.
Constitutional federalism — imperfect though it is, as a compromise between the elitist Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and the plain folk Jeffersonians — places real limits on centralized federal authority through the separation of powers among three co-equal legislative, judicial and executive branches; the Bill of Rights explicitly denying certain powers to the federal government; and the 10th Amendment reservation of all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government, to the states and to the People as individual human beings.
For communists following the ideological lead of Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci and their intellectual descendants, the individual exists for the benefit of the collective, and specifically for the people who occupy the top tier of the communist political organizations in each country.
For globalists, it’s the same story, except the individual exists for the benefit of the elite people who serve as stand-ins or placeholders for the idea of the collective as a whole.
In both cases, the purpose of the collective to which the individual is subordinate, is the promotion of this-world material wellbeing in terms of more goods and longer longevity for the primary beneficiaries: the political elites in the Party, or the financial elites within the global economic system.
From that viewpoint, any conflict or tension between the individual human being and the human society in which he lives, is resolved by destroying the individual and any governing principle — such as Constitutional rule of law — that protects the individual from society and from government.
For Christians and Constitutionalists, on the other hand, society exists for the benefit and wholesome moral development of individuals as created beings moving closer to our Creator God in this-life and this-world and — if we discern, pray, love and work well here — heaven for eternity.
From that viewpoint, any conflict between individual and society must be addressed by reforming or replacing disordered governments that disrupt wholesome moral development, to restore and strengthen the natural order that supports the individual’s approach to God.
Along these lines and particularly relevant to the Covid-19 context, Pope Pius XII addressed moral limits on what doctors may do to a patient, what a patient may allow doctors to do to his or her body and mind, and what experimenters may do to human subjects, in his 1952 speech On the Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment.
…A man cannot perform on himself or allow doctors to perform acts of a physical or somatic nature which doubtless relieve heavy physical or psychic burdens or infirmities, but which bring about at the same time permanent abolition or considerable and durable diminution of his freedom, that is, of his human personality in its typical and characteristic function.
Such an act degrades a man to the level of a being reacting only to acquired reflexes or to a living automation. The moral law does not allow such a reversal of values.
Pope Pius XII also addressed head-on the relationship between the individual and society in the medical treatment and experimentation context:
“Insofar as the moral justification of the experiments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordination of the individual to the community, of the individual’s welfare to the common welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to usefulness to society.
On the contrary, the community exists for man.”
Catholic writer Malachi Martin wrote a great deal about the deadening structuralism of mid-century modernity between 1939 and 1978, with American culture leading the way, in Three Popes and the Cardinal.
He published the book in 1972, writing about the men who launched, led and then began the implementation of the dramatic Vatican II transformation of the Roman Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Augustin Bea.
Early in the book, Martin describes history as an “unfolding drama whose plot has God as its playwright.” (p. 46)
He wrote that Christianity, somewhat settled after the persecutions of the second and third centuries, began to shape Mediterranean culture in profound, far-reaching ways.
Among other things, Christians transformed concepts of the person and the family:
“Persona, originally a mask worn by an actor, and then used to denote a character in a play, was used to describe one of the two fundamental Christian contributions to ancient thought. No ancient language has a word corresponding to our word person. The concept was alien both to Greco-Roman and to Semitic thought. Neither the Jewish Bible nor Greek philosophy nor Roman law ever conceived of a human being as a person in our modern sense. Judaism early adopted the Christian idea, as did the Roman lawgivers of the fifth and sixth centuries.”
The second fundamentally and peculiarly Christian contribution was the transmutation of the Roman word familia. In its Christian sense, it meant the nuclear family as we understand the term today: a man, his wife and their children. Again, neither in Greco-Roman nor in Christian Jewish thought was there ever a word for or a clear concept of the nuclear family. This was a Christian concept and it brought the Roman term familia to mean just that.” (p. 81)
Martin wrote, of the American Catholic layman post-Nagasaki and Hiroshima:
All felt increasingly the pressure of structuralism throughout their lives as citizens and as individuals. All experienced more and more the need…for compassion, for relief from the fear of being submerged as individuals, for a reassurance that, under further dissection at the hands of structuralist society and the impersonal reach of government, they would not cease to be the men they were or lose the hope of being the men they planned to be… (p. 154)
From 1945 onwards, the life of Western man was spent in the penumbra of fear that a nuclear war would end him completely; and his daily life was increasingly invaded by a structuralism which effectively blotted out any brilliance of the glory because of the intricate network of complex living systems to be coped with, if life was to continue.
Reminders that he should fear the power or admire the glory seemed, more and more, to be willful distractions from the job of mere survival, mere palliatives for his problem of remaining at least human. (p. 165)
Martin continued developing the idea of structuralism as a key driver of modern man’s moral and societal predicaments in another book: The Keys of This Blood, published in 1990 just after the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, and just before the formal adoption of the legal and financial instruments that created the European Union through the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, another step on the road to globalization.
Martin describes Pope John Paul II’s definition of the Christian meaning of human morality:
…the meaning and the drive and the power of morality cannot be eradicated in the lives of men and women. For human morality derives from one most basic fact: Because God created man in his own image and likeness by endowing him with an indestructible principle of being — a principle of being called a soul — in all that mankind does, the important dimension is spiritual, is a thing of man’s soul and its spiritual values…
What is morally good, says this Pope in one voice with all the popes who have preceded him, respects those laws of God about the family unity of mankind and about individual rights. What is morally bad breaks those laws, and is called sin. (pp. 156-157)
Martin then set the Christian concept of human morality within the emerging global geopolitical and georeligious/theopolitical context:
As Christians and Roman Catholics, [Pope John Paul II] insists, we not only can but must speak of ‘sinful structures’ when we find that such structures are created by men and women who are inspired uniquely by economic, financial, political or ideological gain. For in acting out of such motives alone, the builders of such structures violate at least the First Commandment, which forbids the worship of false gods.
When money, ideology, class or technological development dictates exclusively how we behave, then we are in effect worshipping idols, just as surely as if we were to set up a golden calf in the Sinai of our world, ascribe omnipotence to it, and give it our obeisance and adoration.
In that sort of situation, at least one and probably two sinful intentions are operative: an all-consuming desire for profit; and the thirst for power. In fact, as these human attitudes and propensities are built into the structures of our society, they are not merely operative; they quickly become absolutized. They dominate our thoughts, our intentions and our actions. They become the household gods on the mantels of our structures.
The structures themselves, therefore, are rooted in the personal sins linked to the choices and the concrete acts of the individuals to design and introduce those structures, consolidate them, promote them, build their lives on them, define success in their terms, and make those structures difficult to remove.
As such structures grow stronger and spread farther, they become the source of other personal sins. They influence the behavior of increasing numbers of individuals, leading them in turn to violate God’s moral law and thus to commit sin.
The originators of those structures have, in other words, introduced into the everyday world of men and women influences and obstacles that last far beyond the actions and brief life span of any individual. The structures are the vehicles of their sins, and can aptly and accurately be described as ‘sinful structures.’ (pp. 158-159)
Pope John Paul II, in Martin’s account of his worldview and work as of 1990, found widespread concurrence with his view that “this world system — this newly minted and all-encompassing interdependence that is coming into existence — includes economic, political, cultural and sectarian elements.”
Somewhat surprisingly, he also found widespread agreement with “what he is certain is the most basic fact of all: the fact that interdependence among nations must be based upon some common agreement as to moral good and moral evil in modern life. And further, that if such common agreement cannot be reached as a working basis of globalism, then all attempts at establishing a new world order will end only in disaster.” (p. 159)
Postscript, Dec. 25, 2022
I think Pope John Paul II did a lot of damage to the institutional Catholic Church during his papacy from 1978 to 2005 and Benedict XVI didn’t do much to restore order before his partial abdication in 2013, although the Summorum Pontificum in 2007 was a good move.
I think Jorge Bergoglio (pseudo-Pope Francis) is hell-bent on the total destruction of the ancient faith and the faithful; he works to position the Vatican institutions as a pseudo-religion in abject subordination to the Luciferians’ transhumanist materialism.
Nonetheless, because he was earlier in the destructive process that has unfolded since Vatican II, I think Pope John Paul II was still in position to make some valid points.