I find it very interesting that there are some figures (who are not courted by the mainstream media) who after research have deduced that the nations of the West and other nations too have been well and truly duped by the 'powers that be' with regard to the issues of abortion, sterilisation and artificial contraception.
Watt maintains that through the UN, which has ambitions of 'global governance' (that's slang for World Government) whole nations may yet be persuaded to sterilise, contracept and abort, even euthanise themselves to 'save the planet'.
His research into the works and writings of such people as Huxley, Darwin and a host of Royal Society fellows has led him to the conclusion that the sexual revolution, with its attending music and drug revolutions in the 20th century were well orchestrated affairs that came from the very top down. Seemingly not a Catholic, there does seem to be a wake-up call in the alternative media (though not in the mainstream media) that there is much that the West has accepted that has only been accepted through propaganda tools that border on hypnosis through the mainstream media. Same-sex marriage has been a pretty good illustration of this, but even those who disagree with it are presumably so disenfranchised and disempowered by the orthodoxy of 'political correctness' that they fear speaking out or making their voice heard on it.
This doesn't yet seem to be something that concerns Russell Brand too much, who has been calling for revolution on Newsnight, but even Brand's often amusing observations on the media, power and society are signs of an awakening within sectors of society that the World so often offers us illusions, myths and lies concerning moral behaviour and our acceptance of generalised, accepted 'norms'.
Russell Brand's ravings aside (a more interesting interview can be seen here), I wonder how it is that non-Catholics like Alan Watt can so eloquently put the case to the evils associated with abortion, sterilisation and artificial contraception and document their origins and source in eugenic thinkers of the ages who continue to govern as a self-preserving elite, yet the Catholic Church in England and Wales (and even in Rome) can be so quiet on the subject.
I must say I find it offensive that the Lord Jesus Christ should be mentioned by Brand in the same breath as Che Guevara, Ghandi and Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, but I guess at the time being that is just where Brand is 'at'. It seems to me that his main point is that an elite governs over the vast majority. He seems to want "revolution" without knowing how to replace the existing order (like so many anarchists). Paxman nails him on just that in their interview because Brand can only say what a society would not be after 'the revolution'. So said every false prophet since the Lord Jesus! Still, thankfully he is just a comedian. The Catholic revolution, in its effects upon the world, would bring many things, none of them disastrous. It would, for instance, bring many, many lovely babies into the World!
 |
| Alan Watt: Say no to the enslavement of abortion, artificial contraception |
G.K. Chesterton was fully alive to the threat posed by the eugenic thinkers and the self-preserving powerful elites of his day, penning a work entitled Eugenics and Other Evils. Why are non-Catholics taking up on the grave threat posed to humanity by both freemasonry and eugenics, but the Catholic Church remains largely silent in the face of not only a holocaust of the unborn, but to a system of beliefs that, unchallenged, poses such a terrible fate to bodies and souls in the 21st century?
To me, that is a mystery. I don't think Russell Brand and the Catholic Church are on the same page on sexuality, marriage and the transmission of human life, but as long as he keeps an open mind and challenges the propaganda spouted by the mass media about general matters, there is at least a chance that they one day will be.
The revolution espoused by the Catholic Church is never going to be popular. It is not a call to arms, but a call to self-sacrifice and the worship and service of Almighty God. It is the unpopular revolution if its the only one that makes any logical sense. Fight the power! Have loads of babies! Worship God! Its exactly what 'they' don't want you to do! Rebel!
A great many people who talk about the 'New World Order' are right, in my opinion, on many of the things they say. The real rejection of the new world order is, in many ways, summarised by Pope Francis's recent teachings - that marriage between a man and a woman is beautiful (the only kind of marriage recognised by the Church) and that no human life should be sacrificed on the altar of consumerism and materialism, because these are just what the passing and illusory joys that become the enslaving values of a world that honours money and power above family, love and the transmission of that most precious of gifts - human life itself - children.
I see we have another comedian around who reads my blog. He voted 100% in the poll in my sidebar. Thank you, you made me laugh! Of course, if only the Catholic Church owned the pornographic book industry, we could change it and make it holy and Catholic from the inside! Let's infiltrate it! Now we see the genius and cunning of the Bishops Conference of Germany!
4 comments:
The reason why the Church remains silent is not that complex to understand. Even the word "elite" as used by Brand et al. is a deliberate or at least self-conscious obfuscation ...
The salient points are these:
a) WWII
b) Anglo-Saxon and Soviet hegemony which emerged after the war
The Soviet empire has collapsed leaving the American empire. It was the latter's imperial ambition which wrecked the Second Vatican council for example.
The finest delineation of this process is found in the opening dialogue of Coppola's 1972 film "The Godfather". All the opening scenes address the problem of in groups (elites) and out groups (the Corleone family). The identity of latter is arbitrary. They could easily be the Catholic Church or any out group. In fact, the character Bonasera who speaks first in the movie could just as easily be a Vatican II theologian listing his efforts: aggiornamento, dignitatis humanae, gaudium et spes and even hermeneutic of continuity but complains to Marlon Brando that he is still a member of the "out group" despite all these efforts. In fact, Bonasera is ahead of the curve as at least he recognises his own project's failure something contemporary theologians and clerics refuse to do about their own. If you listen to Brando's response he is effectively informing his prospective client that whilst he understands the project's purpose, he (Bonasera) has in fact been wasting his time because it was never going to work and was destined to fail.
Can I please concentrate on contraception and ask: do you, does anybody, seriously want to forbid it in this or any other non-Catholic country? Or come to that in any country where the people elect their rulers, be it never so imperfectly, and where the rulers must, to a greater or lesser extent, have the consent of the ruled for what they do?
If so: please be serious. You might as well try to forbid the internet, or tobacco, or the printing press, or alcohol, or gossip.
If not: why not stop banging on about it and concentrate on abortion where you might, just might, turn the democratic process the way you want?
The short answer to Andrew T: yes
Chloe
Chloe: you are living in a dream world. Even if you persuade every Catholic to abandon contraception (and you cannot) those of other persuasions or none will not let you forbid them from using it. And you should not regard it as your business if they do. The bedroom, like the grave, is a fine and private place; and many, I know, do there embrace!
Post a Comment