Corrupting the Christian Culture of the West – Cultural Marxism Exposed…

Fr. Stephen DeLallo, Chaplain, delivered the following very informative address to the Third Order Conference, Society of St. Pius X, Post Falls, Idaho, U.S.A., on Oct. 5, 2017. By kind permission, we publish the text of his excellent talk here.  It is lengthy, but well worth reading…

THEME: WHAT IS CULTURAL MARXISM?   

When we think of Communism, we normally think of the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848), and the Communist Regime of Lenin and Stalin established in Russia with the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution—which resorts to the most violent methods to obtain its goal, i.e., terror, torture, and merciless murder.

However, the “Communism” operating in the Western World today is not the militant Marxism of Lenin and Stalin, but rather the “Cultural Marxism” of the Frankfurt School.  
1.Cultural Marxism is the Communist method of subversion promoted (independently) by Antonio Gramsci of Italy (1891-1937) and Georg Lukacs of Hungary (1885-1971), who taught that the main obstacle to worldwide Communist victory is the Christian culture of the Western World.

Consequently, they taught that, rather than trying to use military and violent means to conquer nations, Marxists must work to corrupt and de-Christianize western culture, beginning with the Christian family, and then progressing through churches and schools by means of the education system, i.e., literature, science, art, music and movies, the Internet, civic organizations and, of course, by propaganda and disinformation through the public media (e.g., ‘fake news’).

While in prison (1926-35) under Mussolini’s reign, Gramsci wrote nine volumes of his “prison notebooks,” i.e., his observations about history, sociology, Marxist theory, and, most importantly, Marxist strategy.

In these writings, he claimed that Christianity had corrupted the working class and the West would have to be de-Christianised by a “long march through the culture,” starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and the presentation—and revision—of history.

Critical Theory / Political Correctness:

2. The Frankfurt School promoted Critical Theory and Political Correctness. Critical Theory is the frequent negative criticism of all Western culture, including Christianity, Capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, morality, tradition, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism and conservatism. Proponents of Critical Theory say that those raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism or free markets are more disposed to authoritarianism and racism, and thus need psychological help.

By continual negative criticism, and the frequent broadcasting of the moral and political corruption in the West, especially in America, Marxists hope to reach their ultimate goal of convincing the world that Christian culture (Catholicism) is the cause of the corruption of the Western World. Then, by manipulating social disorder and unrest, they hope to replace Christian Society with their New World Order of atheistic Communism / Socialism.

Political Correctness is the policy of avoiding any language or actions that appear to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against.

In practice, Political Correctness refers to the civic duty to respect and be sensitive to the moral beliefs of all fellow citizens, Christian or non-Christian, including their right to choose alternative lifestyles (e.g., gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.). Thus, everyone must accept the policy of ‘diversity’ in the workplace, in the military, in public institutions, etc.

3. The problem with Marx’s theory of Class Struggle: Marx’s theory of ‘class struggle’ between the working class (proletariat) and ruling class (bourgeoisie) is founded on the inherent conflict between the owners of capitalist businesses and their employees. Marx and Engels taught that capitalists must work to increase their profits to avoid being put out of business by their competitors; and the way to do this is by lowering the wages and health benefits of the workers. As a consequence, the workers are obliged to fight for just wages and benefits so that they and their families can survive.

According to Marx’s plan of ‘class struggle’ (or ‘class war’), the workers (working class) were supposed to unite and revolt against the capitalists (ruling class) in opposition to the grave injustices and miserable working conditions caused by the capitalist system. After their victory, they would be given a prominent place in the governing body, where they would find material prosperity and happiness.

However, in the Western World, the working class could not be incited to revolt, mainly because the ruling class, e.g., business owners of the capitalist system, compensated workers by giving them the right to make money, own property and find happiness in a free country. Consequently, workers were generally inclined to love their country and to respect and obey their government / rulers.

The Frankfurt School was frustrated with the working class’s refusal to engage in revolt, so they found other subversive agents to create a spirit of political unrest and revolt: ‘gay rights’ groups, anti-capitalists, anti-globalists, anti-war ‘peace’ activists, black extremists (e.g., ‘Black Lives Matter’), white supremacists, neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, radical feminists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, etc.

4. Marxist Sensitivity Training: One of the main goals of Cultural Marxism is to re-place Christian principles with socialist and humanist ideas. Sensitivity Training is a communist technique designed to convince people, especially the youth, that they are the main authority in their own lives, and that they should use their own conscience to decide what is right and wrong in any given situation (situation ethics). Thus: “I have my morals, you have yours, and one is as valid as the other. So, who am I to judge your morals. And you cannot judge mine.”

Through Sensitivity Training, Christian moral values are undermined and replaced with subjective, humanist values (values clarification), which in turn leads to changes in a person’s behavior (behavior modification).

a. Subjective Morality: True moral values are based on objective morality, i.e., the teaching of the Catholic Church and Divine Revelation. Sensitivity Training, however, is based on subjective morality, i.e., the liberal error of freedom of conscience, which bases moral judgment on one’s personal ideas or feelings about right and wrong, e.g., “How do ‘you’ feel about this?” or “What do ‘you’ think about this?”

Subjective morality is based on humanist psychology, which teaches that the most important source of authority is within oneself and one’s own conscience, and that a person should appeal solely to his conscience in deciding what is good or evil.

As Archbishop Lefebvre explains in his book, They Have Uncrowned Him, p.15: “In subjectivism, it is the reason that constructs the truth: we have the submission of the object to the subject. The subject becomes the center of all things. Things are no longer what they are, but what I think. In such a case, man disposes of truth according to his own taste. This error will be called Idealism in its philosophical aspect, and Liberalism in its moral, social, political and religious aspect.”

b. Sensitivity Training Targets the Christian family: Sensitivity Training in education is an effective technique used by Marxists (and Modernists) to attack the Christian family. For example, in classes of literature and poetry, Marxists (and Modernists) can introduce literature that portrays indecency, impurity and other moral depravity. In this way, they can undermine and corrupt the Christian moral values students learned from their parents and church in their youth.

By means of Sensitivity Training, young people are conditioned: (1) to distrust and re-ject the traditional (Catholic) moral values they learned from their parents in the home; (2) to place trust in their teachers rather than in their parents; and (3) to seek freedom and independence from their parents’ authority and counsel.

* Note: Sensitivity Training also exists in Freemasonry, which seeks “to systematically develop freedom of thought and conscience in school children, and protect them, so far is possible, against all disturbing influences of the Church, and even their own parents, by compulsion if necessary.” (See the Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. 1913, pp. 782-83).

c. Three Steps in Sensitivity Training: In practice, we can see three main steps [of] Sensitivity Training in schools:

(1) direct students to get in touch with their own feelings about moral or doctrinal questions, e.g., “How do ‘you’ feel about this?” or “What do ‘you’ think about this?” This will condition students to use their own feelings and ideas, rather than the traditional teaching of their parents—and Church teaching—to determine what is morally right or wrong.

(2) desensitize students to indecency and impurity: (a) by slowly familiarizing them with literature, books and movies that contain indecency, obscenity and vulgarity, and (b) by the occasional use of off-color or impure jokes in the classroom. As a result, indecency and impurity won’t seem so bad—or perhaps not sinful at all.

(3) direct teachers to establish a friendly rapport with the students so that they will develop a strong sense of loyalty and trust towards their teacher, thus defending his personal character and teaching methods—even to the point of opposing their parents.

d. Sensitivity Training in Church and School: At the time of Vatican II, two renowned psychologists, Dr. William Coulson and Dr. Carl Rogers, introduced humanist psychology and sensitivity into many Catholic schools and Religious Communities in America. In a 1993 Interview, Coulson said: “We corrupted a whole raft of Religious Orders on the west coast in the ‘60s by getting the nuns and priests to talk about their distress… We did similar programs for the Jesuits, for the Franciscans, for the Sisters of Providence of Charity, and for the Mercy Sisters. We did dozens of Catholic religious organizations.” (This Interview is found on the EWTN Website).

e. Russian Marxists: Sex Education and Literature: Marxists in Russia advocate ‘sex education’ through literature. The Russian Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Pavel Astakhov, who reports directly to President Vladimir Putin, stated in his Sept. 2013 interview with Rossiya 24 TV News: “The best sex education there is, in fact, is Russian literature and literature in general. Children should read more. Everything is there, all about love and about relationships between sexes.” Some recommended titles are: Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, 1877; The Abyss by Leonid Andreyev, 1901; and Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, 1955.

f. Sensitivity Training in the Military: In his article, Leadership and Ethics Training at the U.S. Naval Academy, June 20, 1999, retired Naval Commander, Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.) says:

“While conducting research into the history, personalities, and techniques of ‘Sensitivity Training,’ I have found convincing evidence that the U.S. Naval Academy has been indoctrinating a future generation of naval officers in a ‘political correctness’—actually a ‘cultural Marxism.’ And all of this is being conducted under the ‘cover’ of a ‘leadership and ethics’ program that has the blessing of high-ranking Navy Flag officers and other honorable and well-intentioned naval officers, active duty and retired…

“If you don’t go along with this training, peer pressure will be brought to bear to embarrass you, intimidate you, frighten you, and if still unrepentant, you will be expelled for ‘unclean thoughts.’ Indeed, the whole process is a method of purging the Officer Corps of the U.S. Navy of any who would oppose the inculcation of ‘cultural Marxism’ into their psyche.”

5. Marxist Deception and Disinformation:

a. Marxists use various ‘Fronts’: It is a well-known tactic of Marxists to use other people or organizations as a front for their communist agenda. They especially try to use Catholics, since they are able to introduce Marxist ideas into Catholic circles. Perhaps those who are being used by communists don’t realize they are participating in a Marxist agenda. Communists, however, refer to their unwitting instruments as useful idiots. But, Communists should also realize that they themselves are being used, i.e., as foolish instruments in the hands of the devil.

Pope Pius XI says: “Under various names which do not suggest Communism, they establish organizations and periodicals with the sole purpose of carrying their ideas into quarters otherwise inaccessible. They try perfidiously to worm their way even into professedly Catholic and religious organizations. Again, without receding an inch from their subversive principles, they invite Catholics to collaborate with them in the realm of so-called humanitarianism and charity; and at times even make proposals that are in perfect harmony with the Christian spirit and the doctrine of the Church.” (See Divini Redemptoris, Mar. 19, 1937).

b. Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika Deception: We should also call to mind the programs of Perestroika and Glasnost instituted in Russia by Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s. Perestroika, i.e., “restructuring,” refers to communist Russia’s long-range plan to lead the West into a false security, by pretending to transform the Soviet economy into a decentralized, capitalist-style economy, and to democratize the communist party organization, thus enabling future communist aggression against unsuspecting nations. This tactic is known as the perestroika deception.

Glasnost, i.e., “openness,” refers to the new policy of openness and freedom in public discussions about socio-political problems within the Soviet Union. Thus, it is permitted to speak about the brutality of the Stalin era and the corruption of the Brezhnev era. Soviet leaders show more friendliness both to the media and to foreign leaders in order to ease political tensions between East and West. However, this “glasnost policy” is simply a deceptive ploy on Moscow’s part to implement the ongoing perestroika deception.

In the Fatima Crusader Magazine, Winter 1995, Issue 48, we read: “The Perestroika and Glasnost initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev is not the conversion of the Soviet Union as is naively proclaimed by many Churchmen in high places, and even by the majority of Fatima Apostolates. The so-called “conversion” of Russia is nothing more than the implementation of a kinder and gentler Marxism/Leninism, one more acceptable to the West, according to the strategy of the Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, who died just before World War II.”

Lastly, let’s recall the chilling words of the Marxist Dimitri Manuilski of the Lenin School of Political Warfare in 1933: “War to the hilt between Communism and Capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in thirty to forty years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So, we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist.”

c. In the 45 Communist Goals for America (in the 1963 U.S. Congressional Record), we can see some examples of Cultural Marxism:

Goal #23: “Control art critics and directors of art museums: ‘Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art’.”

Goal #25: “Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.”

Goal #26: “Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural, healthy.”

Goal #41: “Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.”

6. Marxist – Christian dialogue:

Cultural Marxism seeks a dialogue between Marxists and Christians, especially with Catholic intellectuals, in order to insert Marxist philosophy into the Christian religion. Once Marxist thinking replaces clear Christian thinking, cultural Marxism can succeed in changing the Church’s supernatural ministry into natural works of social justice and charity. As Marxists say: “Once religion is deprived of its supernatural content, it will be replaced by political consciousness.”

This is why a great number of clergy in the Catholic Church today seem to be more concerned with civil rights and ‘social justice’ than about instructing the faithful about sin, death, heaven and hell, and saving their soul.

This also explains why most works of Catholic Action we see today are confined to the socio-political domain, e.g., civic duties and natural humanitarian aid, thereby neglecting the supernatural needs of the soul.

Communism—like Freemasonry—teaches that members of all religions, including Catholics, should set aside their differences and work together in providing humanitarian aid for the poor, needy and homeless, but they must not talk about faith, religion, prayer, etc., because of separation of Church and State. Thus, everyone works on behalf of humanity, and for the universal brotherhood of man, rather than for Christ and the Catholic Church.

Concerning this error, Archbishop Lefebvre says in his book, They Have Uncrowned Him, pp. 112-113: “It is this false reasoning that has been given to the missionaries: ‘But no, do not preach Jesus Christ right away to these poor natives who, above all, are dying of hunger! First, give them something to eat, then tools; next, teach them to work, instruct them in the alphabet, in hygiene…and contraception, why not? But do not speak to them of God: their stomachs are empty!’…

“But I will say this: it is precisely because they are poor and deprived of the goods of the earth that they are extraordinarily open to the Kingdom of Heaven, to ‘Seek first the kingdom of heaven;’ [open] to the good Lord who loves them and has suffered for them, so that they can take part, by their miseries, in His redeeming sufferings. If, on the contrary, you pretend to place yourself onto their level, you will only wind up making them cry out about injustice and inflaming hatred in them. But if you bring God to them, you lift them up, you raise them, you genuinely enrich them.”

7. Notable persons / movements that promoted Marxist ideology:

a. Bella Dodd (1904-1969) was a member of the Communist Party of America in the 1930s and 1940s who later became a vocal anti-communist. After her defection from the Communist Party in 1949, and conversion to the Catholic Church, she testified that one of her jobs, as a Communist agent, was to encourage young radicals to enter Catholic Seminaries.

In Fatima Perspective 235, Christopher Ferrara relates Dodd’s testimony: “‘In the 1930s, we put 1,100 men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within… Right now, they are in the highest places in the Church, where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism.’ She also said that these changes would be so drastic that ‘you will not recognize the Catholic Church’.”

b. Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was born in Chicago of Russian Jewish immigrants. He worked closely with communists and admired their platform, although he himself was never a member of the Communist party. His involvement with communists was so close that he said that the Communist platform “stood for all the right things.” (See the Lepanto Institute website).

Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, which espouses Marxist class warfare and revolution, was dedicated to Lucifer. In his dedication, he says: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement of the very first radical who rebelled against the establishment, and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom: Lucifer.” [Emphasis added].

Alinsky teaches: “The end justifies almost any means. Moral rationalization is indispensable at times of action, whether to justify the selection or the use of ends and means.”

Alinsky’s community organizers use Marxist techniques that call for someone or some group to be cast as an “enemy” who must be isolated and demonized. They are taught to treat people not as individuals but as symbols. The Catholic faith, in contrast, teaches the importance of “solidarity” and respect for the individual.

Alinsky wrote: “The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new.” Thus, instead of reforming an organization, “organizers” should disrupt existing order and practice, then reorganize things according to their own goals: a Marxist tactic to create problems then provide their solutions: ‘two steps forward, one step backwards’.

* Note: President Obama was a trained organizer in the Alinsky method, and Hillary Clinton is also a disciple who wrote her Wellesley College thesis on him. She corresponded with him and met him on several occasions before his death in 1972. She also claimed that Alinsky didn’t go far enough.

c. Dorothy Day (1897-1980) was born in Brooklyn, NY. She was an anarchist, social activist and agitator who openly professed Communism from 1917 until 1927. After her “conversion” to the Catholic Church in 1927, she remained a radical activist and agitator, and still used communist tactics. She promoted social activism through her paper The Catholic Worker which she began publishing in 1933 to support her Catholic Worker Movement. Patriotic Americans referred to her as Moscow Mary.

Dorothy Day’s Marxist spirit of subversion showed itself in many ways: she was anti-capitalist and promoted the socialist “Third way” economic theory of Distributism. She was arrested for civil disobedience several times, e.g., in 1955, 1957, and in 1973 – at 75 years old. She opposed the US involvement in WW2, telling Americans to tear down patriotic posters and put away their flags. She refused to support Franco in Spain’s war against Communism. She praised Fidel Castro’s “promise of social justice,” saying: “Far better to revolt violently than to do nothing about the poor destitute.” She said that Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse-Tung “were animated by the love of brother, and this we must believe, even though their ends meant the seizure of power, and the building of mighty armies, the compulsion of concentration camps, the forced labor and torture and killing of tens of thousands, even millions.”

d. ‘Third Way’ movements: These economic movements claim that it is possible to take a middle position, i.e., “Third Way,” between the evils of Communism and Capitalism, called Distributism. The International Third Position (ITP) in England in the 1990s is one example of these movements.

(The ITP changed its name to England First in 2001, and has since become a part of the European National Front with the Spanish Falange, Italian Forza Nuova, Romanian Noua Dreaptă, Polish National Revival of Poland, and others).

The ITP’s program was to establish a “third way” or “third position,” “opposed to both Capitalism and Communism,” and to overthrow the current system through a violent “National Revolution” by the “Political Soldier,” in coordination with other nationalists throughout the world (see 10th point in the ITP Handbook). These nationalists included Colonel Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

A senior member of the ITP visited Libya in 1988 and Iraq in 1990, at the request of the respective governments on both occasions. On his return from Libya, he and another confrere—who was the head of the British National Party (BNP), stocked large quantities of Gaddafi’s manifesto, called The Green Book, since it also promoted a “Third Position” theory.

The Green Book was first published in 1975. It was intended to be read by all people. It is also said to have been inspired in part by The Little Red Book—the quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung (see Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao, by Martin Cohen, page 206).

In this book, Gaddafi says: “The Third Theory offers an alternative to capitalist materialism and communist atheism and calls for the return of mankind to the Kingdom of God… Society must be reorganized in every country of the world in accordance with the will of God and the precepts of His Prophets,” i.e., the propagation of Islam.

Bill Clinton was an early adherent of the “Third Way.” In a September 21, 1998 speech at New York University, Clinton said: “I’m grateful that the Third Way seems to be taking hold around the world.” Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder promoted Clinton’s crusade for “a new economic order that is neither Capitalist nor Communist, but something in between.”

* Some Catholics also actively promoted the “Third Way” movement of Distributism, such as Dorothy Day (mentioned above) and Eric Gill—who also produced very impure, erotic and blasphemous art concerning Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and various saints.

Unfortunately, distributists don’t understand that an anti-capitalist economic movement is not the basis of social reform, and that such movements will only be manipulated by the anti-capitalist forces of Marxism to foment socio-political unrest and agitation.

According to Church teaching, the basis of all social reform is the moral law, and the restoration of religious principles to their place of honor in society: The Reign of Christ the King.

Besides, Capitalism is not condemned by the Catholic Church. In his encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno , May 15, 1931, Pius XI says: “Free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life…” It must be “subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle…social justice and social charity.”

Also, Archbishop Lefebvre in his Pastoral Letter, The Condemnation of Communism, Jan. 25, 1951, p. 26, says: “The role of civil power is, therefore, to assist and to encourage free enterprise, to promote its creation and development.”

8. Marxism and the Promise of Utopia / Paradise of Man

a. Atheistic Communism claims that its goal is to relieve the suffering of the poor and needy, and to establish a kind of paradise on earth where all men can find material prosperity and happiness. By implementing their principles, communists claim to be inaugurating a new era and a new civilization, e.g., New World Order.

Communists declare that “God” is man’s enemy, because He has forbidden man to indulge in the many pleasures he wants. These “prohibitions,” or “laws of God,” are contained in the Ten Commandments and in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is God, therefore, and Jesus Christ Who have destroyed man’s happiness. Atheistic Communism, therefore, strives to throw off the authority of God, of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, and make man a god unto himself.

b. The desire for an earthly paradise is not new, and it did not begin with Communism. This desire has existed throughout human history, and has been exploited by the Devil to lead souls into hell by worldliness and materialism. Thus, in the third Temptation of Christ, when showing Our Lord all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, Satan said to him: “All these will I give thee, if falling down, thou wilt adore me.”

* Other examples of man’s quest for an Earthly Paradise:

(1) the Tower of Babel: In Gen. 11:4: “And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.”

(2) the Scientific Revolution of the 16th – 17th centuries: Francis Bacon (1561–1626), the so-called father of the philosophy of Empiricism, said that by collecting all the observable facts of nature, philosophers and scientists could discover the hidden laws of the universe and make huge advancements in science, leading to a new world of culture and leisure for mankind.

(3) the Royal Society of London, which was established in London in 1660 for the promotion of natural knowledge, discovery and invention, continued the naturalist program of Francis Bacon to harness the powers of nature to construct an earthly paradise for man.

(4) the secret society of Freemasonry, with its battle cry of “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality,” was established in 1717 with the Grand Lodge of London, and was inspired by the Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. Like the Royal Society, its goal is the establishment of a Universal Social Republic of material prosperity for the Brotherhood of Man.

9. Ultimate cause of Communism:

a. Marx’s class struggle: As we saw above, Marx’s theory of “class struggle” (or “class war”) between the working class (proletariat) and ruling class (bourgeoisie) is founded on the inherent conflict between the owners of capitalist businesses and their employees.

b. Calvinist work ethic: The foundations of unrestricted capitalism and economic globalism were actually laid by the materialism of the Calvinist work ethic, especially since the Industrial Revolution.

In Calvinism, riches and material prosperity are a sign of divine election, and predestination to heaven. Calvinists, therefore, would welcome the advent of the unlimited competition, unscrupulous underselling and feverish advertising that we see in the world today.

As a result of this Calvinist spirit, work has become rational and systematic. The motive of moderation and enjoyment in work has been broken down, and now there is a certain tyranny of work over men. It was this economic error that has led to so much injustice and suffering for the working class for more than 300 years, and the Marxist Revolution was a response to the unrestricted capitalism of the Calvinist work ethic.

However, Marxist Communism is not only a revolutionary movement against the injustices and abuses of unrestricted capitalism. It is also, and more importantly, a worldwide revolution against God, Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and all Christian Social Order.

c. Abandonment of the Catholic Faith: Our Lady told the children at Fatima in 1917 that Russia would be the instrument of God’s punishment if people do not amend their ways (and if the Pope does not consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary). Thus, the scourge of Communism will continue until the people of the world turn back to God, and work to re-establish Christian Social Order based on the Reign of Christ the King.

In A Bishop Speaks, pp. 70-71, by Archbishop Lefebvre, we read: “St. Pius X says: A Christian civilization has existed; we no longer have to invent one. It has existed: we have only to bring it back to life. We must not hesitate to rebuild society on Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other foundation for our morals, our personal life, our family life, our public life…

“However, we must build in a spirit of faith upheld by prayer. We must not be content with half-measures and ourselves take refuge in compromise. If we do not build on the rock of Catholicity, with our Lord Jesus Christ as the cornerstone, we shall begin to shuffle and find ourselves, with Liberalism and Neo-Modernism, at the gates of Communism.”   

10. Conclusion: Our Lady of Fatima said: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph!” These words give us great confidence to persevere in our prayers and remain faithful to our duties in our state of life according to God’s will. However, if we desire to help in establishing the social reign of Christ the King, we must be sure that Christ is King in our own lives and families first. Then, with Christ the King and Mary our Queen, the Angels and Saints in Heaven will be with us in our battle against the Powers of Darkness.

Comments invited… 

Political Correctness: Mission Impossible?

Click on image to read entire report.
“There was one performance this year that stunned me,” [said Meryl Streep] without naming Mr Trump.
“It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. There was nothing good about it. But it was effective, and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth.”

“It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back.”It kind of broke my heart when I saw it. I still can’t get it out of my head because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life.”

Streep was referring to a rally in South Carolina in November 2015 when Mr Trump jerked his arms in front of his body as he made fun of Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times journalist who has a congenital joint condition.  Source 

Comment: 

I’m puzzled.

Although I think Donald Trump was wrong to mimic the disabled journalist as he did, until the furore broke around the story, I thought I was in a minority.  Let me explain…

The “experts” have been arguing for years now, that disabled children, and children with learning difficulties, are better served by attending mainstream schools. They – and disabled adults – want to be, and ought to be, treated the same as everyone else. Don’t patronise them, we’re told. Nobody protects the able-bodied from impersonators and me, moi, myself and I get the mickey taken regularly on the basis that we’re all hard of hearing.  In my workplace, colleagues in corridors would stop me dead in my tracks to mouth words, no sound, pretending to speak to me and I, mad fool that I am, not seeing the opportunities to file discrimination lawsuits, would laugh at their antics. 

Most of us think nothing of mimicking others, or laughing when others are mimicked and so – correct me if I’m wrong here – according to the PC logic, there ought not to be any special consideration given to the disabled. That’s, I repeat, according to the Theory of Political Correctness. 

I wasn’t impressed at all with Donald Trump’s impersonation of the journalist – not at all.  It was in very poor taste and not remotely funny;  a mimic is meant to entertain and that one manifestly didn’t cut the mustard.  I do the odd bit of mimicking myself and I think – in all humility – that I’d be in line for a Hollywood award ahead of Trump based on his very unfunny mimic of the New York Times journalist. 

So, this discussion isn’t about whether or not Donald Trump was right to mimic the journalist – I’m sure we all agree it will not go down in history as his most glorious hour.  So, (although we’re not daft – we know that this incident has been dredged up from 2015 and is being hyped to death because the allegedly liberal elite are fizzing that Hillary lost to Trump) the core question at the heart of this thread is this: is it possible for any of us to ever keep on the right side of the new – and getting newer by the nano-second – PC rules?