Eleison Comments

Doug Casey is a highly successful investor in the USA with many years’ experience of making money behind him. He has not only a knowledge of finance, which keeps his feet on the ground, but also a certain all-round culture which he must owe to some education in the humanities. In what he writes, he barely mentions religion, but he does combine the best money-men’s realism with knowledge of human nature. He is by no means infallible, but his world-views are interesting. Here is one of them, adapted and summarised from last July 7, entitled “Why most people outsource their thinking to the “Experts.”

Thanks to the internet and modern technology, people now have easy access to a mass of information on almost any topic, yet they seem to be doing less critical thinking than ever. This is surely because technology, such as the internet, is intrinsically mechanical and entirely predictable, whereas human beings are not machines but spiritual beings with a free-will, not predictable but requiring wisdom for its handling. To that free-will technology is entirely alien, but whereas wisdom requires personal thought which can entail painful effort, the solutions of Google are as effortless as they are instantaneous. That is why, if thinking for myself costs too much effort, I may well turn to my inhuman computer for an answer.

But in the place of a wisdom which sifts, a computer can offer me only a mass of unsifted information, at which point, be it a question of finance, economics, politics or many another domain, I am liable to call for “experts” to tell me what to think. However, most experts today have had only a narrow technical formation and not yesterday’s broad human education. So instead of a philosopher’s bird’s eye-view of my problem, I meet with a technician’s worm’s eye-view. And the more and more the data necessary to run a society of today become technical and complicated, the fewer and fewer become the philosophers, in the true sense of the word, and the more and more credentials from modern “universities” become useless. A “college degree” often means today merely taking on in youth a debt barely payable for the rest of my days, in exchange for no better than a camouflage of my mediocrity. In search of genuine solutions, I may then turn to celebrities, because I assume that famous people know something, but while they are good-looking and present well, in reality they know little to nothing. Back to the fabrication of “experts.”

The Covid-nonsense only accelerated these trends. Throughout the hysteria most people believed like robots the “health experts,” and they attacked the wise men who used their minds to bring forth logical information and data which challenged the established narrative. So the media and the Establishment selected a set of credentialed health experts, promoted them, and told the public that they know what they’re talking about, e.g. Anthony Fauci, who is now elevated from nowhere to near-dictatorial control. On the contrary, people that have written numerous peer-reviewed papers and done serious lab work, count for nothing because they disagree with Czar Fauci. Thus “health experts” now rank amongst our rulers, because telling people that they’re going to die, to their loved ones’ peril, is a powerful motivator to get them to do as they’re told.

This is all leading towards a many-tentacled police state. The people who run the State have control of the money supply, the economy, the education system, the media and the medical system. The same rulers have long since emasculated true religion. It is being replaced by updated versions of Marxism (which was always a secular religion, even though it claimed to be “scientific”), like Greenism and Wokeism (both, substitute religions). Our rulers have mounted a war on many fronts – they will blame the collapse of the economy on Covid, and as the depression drags on, they will blame it also on global warming. Covid and Global Warming are two cosmic lies designed to dodge the blame for the coming chaos, and to establish the globalists’ worldwide tyranny. So much for the “experts”!

Kyrie eleison.

These “Comments” refer frequently to an imminent Chastisement, even a “rain of fire,” which an angry God will inflict upon a sinful mankind. Yet Catholics have always learned from the Church of the extreme mercy of Almighty God, the supreme mercifulness of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. See for instance the marvellous revelations of His mercy made to Sister Josefa Menendez in a French convent in the 1920’s, and described in her book “The Way of Divine Love.” Tell the world, said Our Lord to the Sister, that I long to forgive anybody any sin they ever committed, if only they will turn to me with trust in my mercy. At one point she found His mercy so extreme that He had to say to her, “Yes, Sister, write down what I just said to you, write it down!” The question can then arise, how can such a merciful God think of inflicting on mankind a “rain of fire” such as Our Lady warned us of at Akita in Japan in 1973?

For Catholic liberals who have lost their grip on the great truths of their Faith, the problem is insoluble. For them, if God exists He is such a soft old sugar-daddy (pardon me, divine Lord!) that He could never punish anybody for anything, so that if Hell exists then it is virtually empty, except perhaps for Cain and Judas Iscariot (and Adolf Hitler). On the other hand, for Catholics who still treasure their penny catechism with its ancient truths, the solution is obvious – let me just live in accordance with those ancient truths, and I will see why it is entirely normal for a merciful God to punish sinful men, even severely.

For instance, God exists and from Him all of us human beings come, by His individual creation of our spiritual souls giving life to our material bodies. and to Him at death we are all meant to go, to His glorious Heaven by having believed in Him, loved, served and obeyed Him for the duration of our brief lives on earth. Nor is that unreasonable or unjust on His part, given the variety of gifts that He showers upon us during our brief life. But immediately after it begins eternal life, lasting for ever in Heaven or Hell, depending on what use we have made of His gifts.

So if we loved God here below, we enjoy everlasting bliss with Him in His Heaven. If we defied God here below, we endure everlasting torture without Him, in the Hell He created for obstinate sinners and fallen angels (Mt. XXV, 41). Either way, in Heaven or in Hell, the next life after death for every single man who lived, lasts for ever and ever. Therefore men’s life on earth, even if it lasts 80 or 100 years, is as brief as a breath of wind, whereas his life after death is as eternal, in a certain way, as God Himself. Then in which life is it more important to be happy? Clearly, in the next life. Did not Augustine pray, “Lord, punish me as much as You like in this life, just so long as You do not have to punish me in the next!”?

The problem is that by the fault of Adam and Eve from the very beginning of the human race, temptations in this life to defy God, notably those of pride and sensuality, can be so enticing that men rather more easily choose the way to Hell than the way to Heaven (Mt. VII, 13–14). Then what does God need to do to help men nevertheless to choose Heaven, as His love wants them all without exception to do (I Tim. II, 4)? He has the power to force them all to choose His way, but that would destroy the whole purpose of creating them, because then His Heaven would be filled, in effect, with robots. Then what God prefers to do is to make known to the natural conscience of all men His ten Commandments, and if men still touch forbidden fruit, so to punish them in one way or another that they will again choose Heaven.

But can the heaviest punishments in this life compare with the tortures of eternal Hell? Not remotely! Then how cruel are the cruellest punishments in this life, if only they help to keep me on the right way to enjoy eternal life? If only I choose to endure them in the right way, understanding that they come from the love of God, then they are not essentially cruel at all.

Kyrie eleison.

Besides the balance between liberalism and sedevacantism (cf. these “Comments” last week), there is another angle from which to come at the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre’s resisting “to their face” Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II, and that is how exceptional he was at that time in seeing how necessary for the Church such resistance was. When in 1974 he made his November Declaration which was like the Charter of the Traditional movement to come, and when in 1975 he was punished for it with the official “suspension” of his Society of St Pius X, and in 1976 with his personal suspension from all activity as a bishop by Rome, the great majority of his colleagues in the episcopacy sided with Rome, and many of them put continual pressure on him to give way to Paul VI, and to cease “disobeying.”

All the way until the consecration of four bishops in 1988 for Catholic Tradition he hoped to be able to put together a little group of four or five Traditional bishops which he knew would seriously obstruct the neo-modernists’ on-going dissolution of the Church, but although he visited many, he never found any who would join him in his public stand against the Roman dissolvers. Only in 1981 did a colleague at last stand with him in public, and that was only because Bishop de Castro Mayer, having just reached the age of 75, had had to resign as diocesan bishop of Campos, Brazil. However, he did stay faithfully at the Archbishop’s side, in public, notably at the ceremony of consecration of bishops in 1988, a gesture hugely appreciated by the Archbishop, because it proved that the Archbishop was not alone in judging that the crisis of the Church justified such drastic action as episcopal consecrations without Papal approval.

And the two clear-sighted bishops stayed together until both died within a month of each other in 1991. However, neither was followed for long after his death by his own followers, which highlights just how exceptional the clear sight of the two of them had been. In Brazil the group of Campos priests were soon splitting Bishop de Castro Mayer in two: the obedient Pastor prior to his rebellion “against Rome,” and the “disobedient Rebel.” And declaring that their loyalty was to “Castro I,” they scuttled collectively back under the skirts of Rome. As for the worldwide Society that the Archbishop had left behind him, within a few years its leaders were making private contact with representatives of the official Church in organised talks of GREC, and within a few more years the Society’s Superior was announcing in public that only the final seal was lacking to an official agreement between the Society and Rome. To the Society leaders’ credit, the agreement has never happened yet, but to their discredit, that has not been for lack of trying.

But how dare one so sharply discredit the Society’s leaders for their noble efforts to regain their rightful status as a Society recognised within the official Church? Answer, by the fruits of those same efforts. Is there any comparison between the fruits of the Society when, behind the Archbishop, it was sharply repudiating contact with the traitors to the Faith in Rome, and ever since when, behind his successors, it has been seen to be trying to come to an understanding with them? Granted, it is not as though the Society has been bearing no fruit after it began treating these Romans as though they are Catholic, but in the ever worsening – and not easing! – crisis of the Church, how much more real fruit the Society could have borne if only souls had not been put off by a mixed message: “Yes, of course the Romans are bad, but they cannot be all that bad! They will give us recognition if only we do no treat them too badly!”

No, they really are that bad. They are primarily responsible for the destruction of the Church, on which hangs the salvation or damnation of millions and millions of souls. And they are still at it, clearly, with the latest Motu Proprio of Pope Francis. Nor have they ever not been at it, for the last 60 years. So how did the Archbishop see that so clearly and neither his colleagues nor his successors? By the strength and purity of his faith.

Kyrie eleison

And what do these “Comments” have to say about Pope Francis’ latest smashing scandal, namely his Motu Proprio “Traditionis Custodes” in which he does all he can to extinguish the age-old Traditional rite of Mass in Latin, and to make sure that it will disappear for ever from celebrations of Mass? First and foremost these “Comments” would give glory to God for having given us as model, to guide us through this end of world crisis of the Church, Archbishop Lefebvre. He ended his days supposedly “excommunicated” by the mainstream churchmen. Nor has he been faithfully followed by the leading churchmen of the Society of St Pius X, which he himself formed. But the historic record of what he did and said is there, and its wisdom for the Church’s future becomes more clear with each day that passes.

That record tells us exactly how he would have reacted to Traditionis Custodes. On the one hand he would have once more wholly rejected the false doctrine of Vatican II, which is behind the Novus Ordo Mass and which to this day strives to abolish all trace of the old Tridentine rite of Mass which has proved since 1969 to be the indestructible competitor of Pope Paul’s New Mass, risking to live on long after the New Mass is in the dustbins of history. On the other hand even with the agonising problem for Catholics set by Popes fighting against Catholic Tradition more bitterly than ever, like Francis in this Motu Proprio, it seems highly unlikely that the Archbishop would have declared that Pope Francis was not Pope. Rather, for the sake of the Church’s structure he would have insisted on respect and courtesy towards all the apparent Popes of Vatican II, leaving to the official Church alone in a more tranquil future time to decide what status to attribute to these Vicars of Christ who had so little understanding of Catholic Tradition.

This balance of the Archbishop between condemning the Conciliar Popes’ doctrine but respecting their office has come to be known as “Recognise and Resist” – recognise their office, resist their doctrine. But as a policy for Catholics to follow, it comes into heavy criticism from both sides. Liberals will say, if you rightly recognise the office, then you have no right to resist its commands. Anti-liberal “sedevacantists” will turn that position around, saying, if you rightly resist the office’s false commands, then you cannot still be recognising the office issuing those commands, i.e. you cannot both recognise and resist, it must be one or the other. No, said the Archbishop, I reject the teacher’s teaching but not necessarily his office. Catholic Popes hating Tradition are a mystery for a future age of the Church to solve, if it will and can. And in this position the Archbishop has been followed ever since by many Catholics, not because of his official authority of which he had little to none, but because, confronted by the same problems in the Church, they had by themselves come to the same conclusions as he had, and therefore followed him, thus making him the trail-blazer of balance and sanity in the Church’s on-going crisis.

And so what was it that enabled the Archbishop to keep his balance and serenity when in the wake of the Council so many believing Catholics either lost their faith or despaired of the Church? Undoubtedly it was his unshakable faith in a God and a Truth both far above all human changes or influences or politics or whatever, a God and a Truth enshrined in Catholic Tradition for the benefit of humans, but not in any intrinsic way subject to humans or dependent on humans. Here are the heights on which he lived in spirit and from which he descended into daily life, neither admitting undue change in the things of God, nor demanding too much perfection in the things of men. Liberals are mad to be wanting to adapt God’s one true Church to our age of godlessness, while Catholics are mistaken if they doubt God’s Providence in His management of His Church.

So Pope Francis is mad, but Jesus Christ is with His Church until world’s end. He said so Himself – Mt. XXVIII, 20.

Kyrie eleison.

Readers may remember from these “Comments” last week the article of a British patriot, Dennis Whiting, in which he denounced the British Government for organising lies in order to run the country, especially but not only, in connection with the Covid nonsense. To call it “Covid nonsense” is not of course to deny any reality to the Covid virus (although it has never yet been properly isolated). It is to say that the Covid phenomenon, when presented to us as a medical problem by our politicians and media, makes no sense. It is only when it is taken as a major political instrument for the enslaving of mankind that it makes perfect sense, and then one sees that it comes not just from our puppet politicians and media, but from their far more sinister puppet-masters, the Judeo-Masonic power that has created the modern world to fight against God. Along these lines runs the promised second half of Whiting’s article –

Managing the “pandemic,” it seems, has taken over Britain and most of the world. However, Covid-19 is a nasty new species of influenza but it is not a pandemic. There are no bodies on the street. Funeral directors are not working overtime. Overall annual death rates have not risen significantly, if at all. Over 99% of those who catch the disease survive and the average age of death for those for whom it proves fatal is 82.

Mass vaccination, the supposed remedy for the crisis, is not a true remedy but rather a huge crime. People are being treated as guinea pigs to try out experimental “vaccines” that have adverse symptoms on a horrific scale. Lock-downs are designed not to curb the “pandemic” but to destroy small businesses and make the whole of society dependent upon big government and billionaires.

What is happening today has not sprung out of nowhere. The plan for global governance has been maturing for more than a century. After World War 1, the locus moved from the British Empire to the USA. Financiers in New York supported both the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Hitler, with the intention of creating war and disruption which could only be resolved by the formation of a one-world government.

Machinery is now at work to divide and disrupt society. Those whose aim is to “build back better” want to knock everything flat first. The attack by neo-Marxists and neo-Cons in the West on Christian belief and practice has been unrelenting. Their aim is to create a new kind of human being and they need to obliterate the old-fashioned benchmarks for how we should behave. ( no less! Emphases from E.C.)

10. We all have to do what we can to resist this New World Order that is threatening to sweep us into slavery. Hamlet – that Everyman figure created by Shakespeare at the dawn of the modern age – was not keen to rise to the challenge, but he knew that he could not shirk it:

The time is out of joint. O cursed spite,
That ever I was born to set it right. (Hamlet, end of Act 1)

When Whiting writes of the Covid phenomenon as “a huge crime” with “adverse symptoms on a horrific scale,” he is by no means exaggerating, as a mass of material on the Internet attests, for instance the admirable work being done by the German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich and his team. He is optimistic, but it is to be feared God’s punishment must run its course, otherwise we shall only return to our godless vomit.

Kyrie eleison.

(No couplet from E.C. – it cannot compete with Shakespeare)

Without a true God or His personal judgement at death to fear, what is there to stop rulers or ruling elites from exploiting their privileged rank for their own benefit and not that of the people they rule? A modern politician answers to nobody except the media. The media answer to very few people who do not belong to a race lusting for world domination by means of installing their New World Order. But this NWO can only be installed secretly because it will eliminate the last vestiges of Christendom, including all the liberties that derived from Christendom – it is not freedom that gives truth, because of original sin. It is truth that gives freedom (Jn. VIII, 32), it was Christian truth that gave the West its political freedoms, and life, whereas the NWO plans to kill off billions of the world’s populations (just as the Covid “vaccines” are starting to do).

Therefore, the world’s present godless rulers are bound to pretend they are promoting the peoples’ life and liberty when they are in fact preparing their death and enslavement. Here is why politicians are such liars, especially since the French Revolution in 1789, when the West lurched to the left, away from God.

Let these grand accusations be illustrated from recent real life: actions of Her Majesty’s Government of Great Britain. On the website of a British nationalist party (patria-uk.org), a British patriot wrote an article which supports Archbishop Vigano’s contention in these “Comments” last week, namely that the peoples of the world must stop thinking that their governments are ruling for their benefit. Quite the opposite is true. Here is an edited summary of the first half of Dennis Whiting’s article –

“Today, we are not in charge of our own country – we have a government of occupation which creates its own “truth” and spins events in line with a preconceived narrative. Since the year 2000 various disasters have occurred for which the official government explanations are not believable. Notably 9/11, 7/7 and more recently, the Salisbury poisoning. The narratives of these and similar events put out by successive governments and faithfully reported by the media are inconsistent and incoherent.

In 2014, in a speech at the United Nations, UK Prime Minister David Cameron characterised the questioning of official narratives by “conspiracy theorists” as a form of “right-wing terrorism” that needed to be dealt with. Since the onset of Covid-19, the UK government has been frantically countering alternative narratives, setting up bodies such as the Integrity Initiative, and now it is threatening to criminalise any serious search for the truth with the Online Harms Bill. The Behavioural Insights Team was set up in 2010 as an official body answerable to the Cabinet Office. Its function is the psychological management of public perception. SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) is a similar body set up to advise the Cabinet Office, together with its subgroup SPI-B (Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours). In 2020, SPI-B stated that a “substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened [by Covid-19]” and the “perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging” – in other words fear must be ramped up to ensure that the public at large accepts the government’s narrative on Covid-19.

Similarly, in the aftermath of the mysterious poisoning of the Scripals in Salisbury in March 2018, the government had some difficulty in making the official narrative stick. So, at the G7 meeting in June of that year, Prime Minister Theresa May announced that “G7 leaders have agreed to establish a new Rapid Response Mechanism.” This meant that all the G7 nations would automatically accept the version of such events as given by one of their members, and would react appropriately . . .”

In other words, the leading seven governments of the world promised to unite in their organising of the lies! See these Comments next week for the rest of Whiting’s article.

Kyrie eleison