New World Order

The Imperial Presidency of GW BUsh has remained quiet of late, making me curious as to what the next move of Karl Rove is. Lest anyone forget, the machine that drives the BUsh administraiton is Karl Rove, the fanatical genius who delivered the White House to GW by most notably :

1. Using push polls in South Carolina to destroy the reputation of John McCain, and stir up racial fears among the voters (claiming his Bangladeshi daughter was an illegitimate black girl. Wait, was that Strom Thurmond?).

2. Creating an orgnaization called Swift Vote Veterans for truth, and using their hatred for John Kerry's antiwar actvities to spread lies about his war record.

In addition, one can also say that the 9-11 tragedy was used deftly by Rove to move support behind the President during a "time of war." As a result, with the President's approval ratings falling, and with some serious failures in social security, the Schiavo fiasco and the filibuster (amazing-especially with the lap dog dems. One would think they would be able to steam roll their agenda) one would have to assume that something is up. What is their plan?

There can be no denying that the ultimate plan is domination of all international institutions, and the creation of a "Pax American" that is a peace of America in which global peace is based upon the dominance of what George Bush Senior called the New World Order.

What is this New World Order? I would invite those interested to do their research, but it is simply a World Empire, run by a wealthy, unelected elite. So far, it appears to be emerging in the following ways:

1. It is financial. The IMF, World Bank, Cafta, Nafta, etc all of these financial/national organizations have combined to create a world economy. We truly are a global market place, led by the US.

2. It is technological. The internet, sattelites, cell phones, etc connect everyone in the world. It is now possible to electronically monitor and track just about any citizen who wishes to be a part of this global economy. In addition, it is possible to place a chip in a person's skin which will identify them, and perhaps even keep vital financial information on it. Sounds an awful lot like the mark of the beast.

3. It has a propoganda arm. The corporate media conglomerates are enthusiastically selling the idea of a global world order, led by the US and helped along by the emerging EU. Television media especially has become for all intents and purposes propoganda arms of the US government, and the rich elites that control the world economy, and the emerging technological web that will function to control the masses.

4. It is backed up by the US military, and its stockpile of nuclear weapons. Recently the US has changed the rules of engagement to include the right of premptively attackign any country they deem a threat to its National Security now or in the future. ALong this line of reasoning, one could imagine the US launching a nuclear attack against a country that theu felt might have Nukes themselves as a pretext for establishing a single world government to protect the internaitonal financial community and the emerging world empire.

I have a feeling that if they cannot get Iran to play ball, then they are next. The use of a nuke against Iran is a distinct possibility. The US could argue like with Japan, that the Iranians would fight to the death, and this was the only way to save US and Iranian lives. Either way, the reason will not be the war on terror, but instead the estblishment of the New World Order.

Pope Benedict the 16th

What kind of Pope will Benedict the 16th be? Will he be a unifier who revolutionizes, modernizes, and reforms the problems of an aging Church? Will he be a do nothing transitional Pope, as some have claimed he will be because of his advanced age? Or will he be a divider, deepening the chasm between modernity and the Holy See, and further alienating ordinary Catholics from their Mother Church? I suppose that is a question that can only be answered by him, and the answer will of course depend on whether Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger sees the office of the Pope as fundamentally different from the office he previously held as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. To get a sense of what he might be like as Pope, one can look to his in his previous incarnation as Cardinal Ratzinger. Here is the opinion of The Official Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club, which is of course favorable:

"From 1981 - 2005, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was appointed head of the Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose mission is to "to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world" (John Paul II).
As "Grand Inquisitor" for Mother Rome, Ratzinger kept himself busy in service to the Truth: correcting theological error, silencing dissenting theologians, and stomping down heresy wherever it may rear its ugly head -- and, consequently, had received somewhat of a notorious reputation among the liberal media and 'enlightened' intellegensia of pseudo-Catholic universities.
However, there are those among us who have delved beyond the polemics of his critics, who in familiarizing ourselves with his works have come to admire him both as brilliant Catholic theologian but also as a man whose faith, honesty, integrity, and unswerving devotion to the Truth is readily apparent. "

Below is a record of those who sufferd his devotion to the truth(From NCR online, The Vatican’s enforcer By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. NCR Staff)

"His record includes:
Theologians disciplined, such as Fr. Charles Curran, an American moral theologian who advocates a right to public dissent from official church teaching; Fr. Matthew Fox, an American known for his work on creation spirituality; Sr. Ivone Gebara, a Brazilian whose thinking blends liberation theology with environmental concerns; and Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, a Sri Lankan interested in how Christianity can be expressed through Eastern concepts;
Movements blocked, such as liberation theology and, more recently, religious pluralism (the drive to affirm other religions on their own terms);
Progressive bishops hobbled, including Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle, reproached by Rome for his tolerance of ministry to homosexuals and his involvement in progressive political causes, and Bishop Dom Pedro Casaldáliga of Sao Félix, Brazil, criticized for his political engagement beyond the borders of his own diocese;
Episcopal conferences brought to heel on issues such as inclusive language and their own teaching authority;
The borders of infallibility expanded, to include such disparate points as the ban on women’s ordination and the invalidity of ordinations in the Anglican church.
Indeed, it would be difficult to find a Catholic controversy in the past 20 years that did not somehow involve Joseph Ratzinger. Part of that is the nature of the job, but no other 20th-century prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- perhaps none ever -- has enjoyed Ratzinger’s high profile or his centrality to the life of the church. He and John Paul are men who believe that ideas count, and Ratzinger has prosecuted what he considers dangerous ideas with vigor. Whether his tactics and ironclad sense of certainty are more dangerous than the ideas he has attempted to suppress is a question that cuts to the core of some of the deepest divisions in the church.
After extensive interviews with leading Catholics, both friends and foes of Ratzinger from the United States and abroad, and after digesting thousands of pages of his writings and writings about him, three key insights about Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- Ratzinger the Vatican official, if not the man -- seemed to surface repeatedly:
He sees his work as a defense of human freedom;
He is convinced that he and John Paul are the rightful heirs of Vatican II;
He believes time is on his side.
It’s important to try to understand Ratzinger on his own terms, not merely as a historical exercise, but because believers who see the church as he does -- “Ratzinger Catholics” -- are likely to be a force long after the cardinal himself is gone. "


If for 20 years Ratzinger was intimately involved in doctirnal controversy, and the silencing or scolding of theologians, then one would have to expect that his papacy will not be transitional and subdued. In addition, his papacy will likely not be a unifying one, unless of course one agrees with his positions on a host of non-infallible teachings. The only logical conclusion is that Ratzinger will continue to divide and intimidate in order to establish what he sees as the true Church, a Church dedicated to obedient submission to the Magisterium on all issues. For those of us still in shock about the abuse scandal, and uncertain about the future of the Catholic Church this can only be a sign that the Church we love is in real danger of not surviving.


Mission Statement

According again to the website the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club, the following passage is his favorite scripture, and forms a sort of mission statement for Ratzinger's ministerial approach:

"Preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. "
St. Paul, 2 Tim 4:2-5

Ratzinger is quoted as saying in his Book, Salt of the Earth,
"I don't want to overreach myself, but I would say that this expresses the essence of what I consider to be my standard at this time." (p. 114).

This is of course very revealing. One can get great insight into what motivates and drives Benedict, and what he sees as his essential mission. And that is to return people to the truth. But what truth? The truth that comes directly and only from Rome, on any issue, whether it be an infallible teaching (the resurrection) or non-infallible (women's ordination, birth control, homosexuality, married priests, etc.). Is this still his mission? The firing of Father Thomas Reese, and the immediate canonization of John Paul II before the 5 year waiting period reveal that he still is. The purge is beginning and I can hear the people leaving the Church already, never to return.

A Word from Thomas Merton

I created this blog to offer my own opinons on the current extreme state of the world. Perhaps it is for my own psychological health? I would hope it offers an opportunity to discuss together the strange things that are happening in our country, and in the world.

My first post is an essay I wrote a year ago called Sitting Around Waiting for the End of the World. It is my response to what I saw as the insane actions of my government around the world. Nothing has happened to make me feel any better, or be more hopeful for the future.

Sitting around, waiting for the end of the World


The title of this essay is strange, no doubt. I am not exactly sure if it expresses my state of being, or the state of being of the entire world. However, I feel that I have been gripped by “millennial madness.” Perhaps it is a few years too late, but as I understand it our modern calendar is hopelessly out of synch with “real time” and as a result I may be getting millennial madness at just the right moment. Then again, if I understand quantum theory (and I do not, other than on a very cursory level) time does not exist any way. Therefore, I come back to my original point. This sure is a strange title for an essay.
I suppose the sub title could be, “Has everyone gone crazy?” Recent events seem to support this question, and the feeling that I am sitting around waiting for the end of the World. Let me offer an example. Very recently, most people in America seemed to be simply “sitting around” while their President performed a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation, Iraq, based on a threat (WMD) that we now know did not exist. The pre-war rhetoric insisted that the threat of WMD was real, obvious, and so dangerous that not acting militarily could cause a nuclear 9-11( National Security Adviser Condolezza Rice’s words, not mine). Now, the administration is saying that we have found no WMD, but they “could have existed, maybe, if we had done nothing,” President Bush was quoted as saying he perceived Iraq as a potential threat, whether now or at some point in the future, and that was why he decided to attack. Now, that is certainly not what people were told leading up to the war. However, lets give him the benefit of the doubt. Lets assume that 9-11 really did change things, and that in order to stop another attack we must remove all potential threats militarily. There should be then a huge American bulls eye on Saudi Arabia, since most of the 9-11 high- jackers were Saudis, Bin Laden was a Saudi citizen, and most of the funding for Al-Queda comes from Saudi sources. Right? According to this administration, Saudi Arabia is not a threat to America. Iraq, however, was. Am I missing something? Or has everyone gone crazy?
And, lets examine the Iraqi threat for a moment. The US military, perhaps the finest professional army in history, attacked a seriously undermanned country that had suffered thorough 30 years of repression under a terrible regime, 8 years of war with Iran, 13 years of UN sanctions, a major defeat at the hands of a multi-national Army in Gulf War One, and after that defeat was under siege almost daily from “surgical” US bombing missions for the next 12-13 years. The Iraqi army was and is a joke, and it has only been successful using guerilla tactics, which cause pain but will never really cause the US to leave the country, especially with the media surpressing bad news here at home.
Was Saddam a bad guy? Of course he was. However, there are lots of bad guys who are more of a threat to our “way of life” who we choose not only not to attack, but we in fact support and aid them. The House of Saud is just as repressive as Saddam was. And again, they seem to be at least indirectly linked to an actual attack against America on American soil.
Add to all this the incredible image of the President who authorized this tragic war landing on an aircraft carrier, declaring as if he were a god that hostilities had ended (yet people are still dying on both sides in greater numbers) wearing a flight suit signifying his supposed fine service to his country, when we now know that he was practically dismissed from his Air National Guard unit, or he himself chose to leave early for undisclosed reasons. You can see why I feel that we have all gone loony in the good old US of A. Now most people should find this situation appalling, unless of course you like war, and death, and chaos, and instability in your country. You know, you’re a war- mongering nut bag and damn proud of it. Yet, what really makes me think we are nearing the end is that a lot of people could really care less, and when you talk to them about these issues they rub the sleep form their eyes and say things like; “death, destruction, where is it? Iraq? Where is that anyway-oh the Middle-East. They hate us over there anyway, right? (Yawn) I’m sorry, what did you say? I was distracted by Brittanny kissing Madonna”
Has everyone gone crazy? We live in a society where a journalist can write a book about how Senator Joe McCarthy, he of the House Un-American Activities committee, was a hero, and in the same book make the case that liberals are traitors because they have undermined and criticized America. Granted, many on the EXTREME left certainly would not weep if America fell into ruin, and yes, everyone has the right to their opinion, but that is not the point. To paint all liberals (was FDR a traitor? How about Truman?) as traitors is unfair at best, and libel at worst. The fact that this journalist is given major air time on ALL 24 hour news networks shows again that we have become stark raving mad in this country. It is clear that this journalist is calling all democrats traitors. This journalist is also saying that Joe McCarthy was right to persecute, and otherwise destroy people because there were (GASP) COMMUNIST SPIES in AMERICA!! No kidding, and there are Mosad spies in America, so should we question people on whether they are Jewish, or know anyone who is Jewish? The End is near! And why did the media give this person so much air- time to sell this book, which seems to be prejudiced? Would they give the same face time to a white supremacist? How about an anti-semite? Will we have a new politically correct category in the future called liberal-a-phobia, the fear of liberals, in order to protect liberals from these ad hominem attacks? To say that democrats are traitors is absurd, loony really, because anyone with common sense knows that most democrats are as deeply invested in the establishment as republicans are. John Kerry is as rich and connected as George Bush, he simply likes poor people a little more than George Bush does. Both John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the war because they knew they were running for president, and they could never get the support of the establishment if they were seen as anti-war. But wait, there is more.
At last year’s Super Bowl, an event that gives the phrase over-the-top a good name, Janet Jackson revealed her breast. Now, I am certainly in favor of women covering themselves on national TV, yet the national backlash to this event, in light of the fact that MTV produced it and is FAMOUS for the use of its own versions of sexual “shock and awe” seems loony as well. Colin Powell’s son, the head of the FCC, is said to be “outraged.” Has this man seen MTV? Did he see Brittany kiss Madonna, Howard Stern reveal his butt cheeks as “fart-man?” Ok, maybe he missed those, but Mr. Powell the younger, I simply ask-DUDE HAVE YOU SEEN MTV! Having them do the show was loony, loony, hello LOONY! How could anyone not know that they would try a stunt like this? Of course, they did know it. Viacom’s stock has been rising recently, so they are enjoying some residuals. In addition, I think Janet was more covered than most of the female models in the ubiquitous beer ads that were aired on commercial breaks. It provides a nice distraction from the disaster that is the Iraq war, however.
Here I sit, waiting for the end.
Have we all gone crazy? I heard Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld talking about information gathered during the Iraq war about WMD’s , and he said something to the effect that we have “known knowns and unknown knowns, things we know that we know, and things we know that we may know.” Now, all I can say is WHAT? This is a great illustration of the popular confusion which surrounds what was once known as traditional morality. The knowns that most people thought they knew, like blatant promiscuity is bad, that we should not shoot each other over a traffic accident, and that homeless people do not actually choose to live in refrigerator boxes, and that exposing young people to a constant barrage of violence and sexuality will have an adverse effect on them, etc. are actually presented to us by the media, the business community, and hollywood as “unknown knowns,” that is, all matters of morality are actually a matter of opinion. In other words, when we thought we knew certain things were bad and others good, our culture tells us, in the immortal words of Don Rumsfeld, that we now know that we do not know what we thought we knew about them being bad. Therefore, everything is acceptable so get out there and shop till you drop!
That’s why Colin Jr. can say that Janet’s stunt was bad (traditional morality says that people should respect their bodies) yet can also remain silent on the barrage of negative images that fly from MTV daily, (artistic freedom). We know that freedom is good, we know that respecting oneself is good, but we do not know that we know that respect and freedom have no place on the Super Bowl halftime show. Is it no wonder then that most people yawn when presented with the problems associated with this war, or that they do not seem to really care? They have been lulled to sleep by the confusion of our culture, and when we awaken them, they just get more confused. Crazy.
Do we want the end to come? I think we do. What with all the books about the rapture and the apocalypse, the end times seems to be foremost on our minds. It’s a way to escape and to show that we are not responsible for our actions, other evil people are, who have darker skin then us, or who kill babies, or are homosexual. They are the reason our world is so crazy and out of control. Not us, were fine. We are a Christian nation. We love Jesus, and bomb the third world. We love Jesus and look the other way while corporate America sends thousands of jobs overseas. We talk family values, but cut spending that will help poor children get a good education. We talk family values, but refuse to address the issue of youth violence in the inner city. We talk family values yet refuse to address the issue of out of wed- lock pregnancy among the poor. We talk family values but sell sex and tell kids there are no consequences. We have gone crazy. I believe that only a deep, serious, and real conversion based on repentance and the acceptance of our powerlessness can really keep us from the experiencing the end. Maybe not the end of the world, but certainly the end of our country as we know it. Penance, conversion, prayer, and peace. In whatever way you conceive of God, these things are our only chance for survival. Of course, many will say I am crazy. My response is, how crazy do you have to be to continue to live the way we do?