It's official. The Catholic Knight is retired.  I'm hanging up the helmet and passing the torch. There will be no more articles, no more commentaries, no more calls to action. THIS BLOG IS CLOSED. I've spent a very long time thinking about this, I believe the time has come, and is a bit overdue.  I want to thank my readers for everything, but most especially for your encouragement and your willingness to go out there and fight the good fight. So, that being the case, I've spend the last several weeks looking for bloggers who are fairly active, and best represent something akin to the way I think and what I believe.  I recommend the following blogs for my readers to bookmark and check on regularly. Pick one as your favourite, or pick them all. They are all great..... In His Majesty's Service, THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Secularism Is More Dangerous Than Radical Islam

(Catholic Insight) - In a meeting with various U.S. Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI said that the consensus which once existed in America supporting “ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God,” has faded. “Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such,” he said.

The Pope was emphatic in insisting that the threat posed by current trends threatens not only Christianity but “humanity itself.” He said: “To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God.”

The Pope used strong language to describe the grave situation he perceives in America. “(I)t is imperative, he said, “that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realise the grave threats to Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.” He continued, “The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life.”

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  Pope Benedict XVI has now warned Americans against the dangerous trend of militant Secularisation in the United States.  It is, in my own estimation, a trend far more dangerous to us than radical Islam, and threatens to do more harm to our Christian culture than Muslim jihadists could ever do on their best day.  Pope Benedict ought to know a thing or two about this.  He has lived his entire life in Europe, where he has watched first hand the horrors of Nazism, followed by the post-war Secularisation of European society.  Today, Europe is spiritually lost, just as Our Lady of Fatima warned the three seer children almost a century ago.  That once great Christian civilisation is no more.  The twentieth century killed it.  What was the cause of Europe's demise?  Was it Nazism?  Was it fascism?  Was it communism?  While all of these things certainly played a role in preparing Europe for her rapid apostasy, it was none of these things that finally brought it about.  No.  What caused Europeans to give up their faith was nothing more or less than Liberal Progressive Secularism!  With mind-blowing speed, Europe was returned to an era where practising Christianity occupied a percentage of the population so shockingly small, that numbers of this type haven't been seen since the days of the ancient Roman Empire.  Their embrace of the Secularist mindset brought about this immediate and dramatic decline of Christianity in Europe -- IN LESS THAN ONE GENERATION!!!  Radical Secularisation proved to be more effective at eliminating Christianity than Nazism, fascism and communism combined!!!

Now the Secularists have set their sights on North America.  They have infiltrated our schools, media, government and courts.  They occupy the highest offices in the land and sit on the United States Supreme Court.  They have been present among us for just as long as the European Secularists, if not longer, and their works are evident.  Many of them have ties to known hate-groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis.  Yes, some are in our federal government, and even some have sat on the United States Supreme Court.  I encourage you to listen to this short audio clip from Constitutional lawyer and radio talk-show host Mark Levin.  (I'm not his fan, but I give credit where credit is due.)  He will tell you where American Secularism came from and it will shock you.  The anti-Catholic bigots are still running America, and they have been for a very long time.  Think of it for just a moment.  While I am no fan of the former President John F. Kennedy, and he was certainly no paragon of Catholic virtue by any stretch of the imagination, he could not be elected president in this country without first RENOUNCING his faith in public life.  This is why I predict that Rick Santorum WILL NOT be nominated for president by the GOP.  While the man has many flaws, not as serious as Kennedy's but flaws nonetheless, he has refused to renounce the influence of his Catholic faith on his public life.  That killed his campaign right there.  Santorum will fizzle in the weeks ahead.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, did renounce his Mormon faith in public life back in 2008.  So having bowed to the sterile gods of Secularism, just like J.F.K., he will get his party's nomination.  Whether or not he wins the presidency is another story.  That depends on different issues.

The Secularisation of the United States and Canada have now reached an unstoppable speed.  The Obama administration's recent HHS mandate is just a symptom of this much greater problem.  Word has it that another HHS mandate compromise is in the works.  We shall see what comes of that, but it changes nothing as far as I'm concerned.  Even if the U.S. Catholic Church wins this battle hands down, the fact that they had to fight that battle in the first place clearly signals that the United States of America, I was taught to believe in as a child, does not exist and clearly has not existed for a very long time.  The flags, the anthems, the mottos, the pledge, all of it; they are an illusion.  The religious freedom these things claim to represent does not exist.  Anti-Catholics have been running this federal Union for a very long time.  This is why I have joined the League of the South, an organisation heavily influenced by Catholic thinking in regards to freedom of religion, and have become a full-fledged secessionist and Dixie Nationalist.  Their Core Beliefs Statement and Statement on Racism were formulated with the help of Catholics and present a future vision of our homeland that no good Catholic can honestly object to.  The League's Statement on Obama's attack on Christians demonstrates a clear stand with the U.S. Catholic Church against the Obama administration's recent HHS mandate.  The biggest reason why I have joined the League of the South however, is its blatant and unapologetic stand against militant Secularism.  There is no other viable political organisation in the United States that takes such a strong stand against the Secularisation of our society.  Admittedly, the League of the South is a geographical organisation, representing mainly the sixteen Southern states of Dixie, thirteen of which seceded in 1860 - 61 to form their own nation.  One doesn't need to be a Southerner to join the League, but admittedly, the League's interest concerns the South.  Catholics in other parts of America are more than welcome to support the League, but I would also encourage them to form their own geographical organisations in opposition to the militant Secularism now promoted by the District of Columbia, otherwise known as 'The Columbian Empire' or 'Washington D.C.'  I would strongly encourage Catholic involvement in the Second Vermont Republic and the Third Palmetto Republic.  Both of these growing state secession movements will need strong Catholic influence to become successful and prevent an infestation of anti-Catholicism within their ranks.  Between the Second Vermont Republic and the Third Palmetto Republic, one will immediately observe two very different ways of addressing social problems, but both can be easily guided by the wisdom of Catholic teaching on Subsidiarity, each in its own way.  Catholics should also look into forming new state organisations in other parts of the United States.  Why?  Because in order to fight back effectively, we must bring into question the authority of Washington D.C. over us.  It's the Church's job to transform the faithful, and yes, the laity do have a role in that process.  However, when it comes to the political affairs of this world, it is not the Church's job to transform our political institutions.  That is specifically the job of the laity.  So if you think the Catholic Church is ever going to transform anti-Catholic Washington D.C., you can just get that silly notion out of your head right now.  IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!!  Rick Santorum, for example, would transform Washington D.C. about as effectively as John F. Kennedy did -- which is nill.  The nation's capitol is un-reformable.  It's not just the District of Columbia that needs transformation, (a transformation that will never happen), but increasingly we are beginning to see anti-Catholic sentiments in many U.S. states as well.  Basically, wherever one sees a strong political push for homosexual 'marriage,' there one will also find a latent anti-Catholic bigotry just beneath the surface.  Again though, it's not homosexual 'marriage' that is the problem here, it's just another symptom.

THE PROBLEM IS MILITANT SECULARISM.  That's because Secularism and Christianity are two opposing world views, at odds in every way, having virtually nothing in common.  Indeed, Christianity and Islam have more in common than Christianity and Secularism.  If one believes that Christianity and Islam can never coexist in peace, an assumption sometimes accurate and sometimes not, than the dichotomy between Christianity and Secularism is even greater.  THE TWO SYSTEMS CANNOT COEXIST IN PEACE AT ALL.   One will always devour the other.  The only question is which one will pursue the more aggressive position.  For the last sixty-plus years, the more aggressive party has been Secularism.  It has destroyed Europe at a mind-blowing speed.  North America is next, and the Secularists are well on their way.  The momentum is gathering.  Christians in North America have this one last window of opportunity to make our last stand before the coming Chastisement of God.  We must break the hold that Secular institutions (governments) have upon us.  We must deny them their power to govern us.  We must make it crystal clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, in no uncertain terms, that we will not submit to the sterile gods of Secularism any more.  They have no power over us.

Like it or not, America's Roman Catholics will play a central role in this struggle.  The Church has given her marching orders insofar as she is authorised to give them.  We, the Roman Catholics of the United States, have been instructed to disobey any government law or diktat that violates Catholic conscience.  Most recently, such an edict has manifested itself in Obama's HHS mandate on artificial contraception, sterilisation and abortion-inducing drugs.  What will become of this edict we cannot know right now but it does not matter.  Because even if the Catholic Church wins this battle, more will soon follow, and it won't just be against the federal government, but against state governments too.  Sadly, most of these state governments are in what is historically known as Yankee or Western territories.  So far, the Old South (Dixie) has been the only region that remains legally friendly to the Catholic Church.  Catholics must seize on this opportunity while it still lasts -- before this window closes and all is lost.

In addition to what the Catholic Church advocates, which amounts to limited civil disobedience against unjust laws, as a Catholic layman working in the political realm, I am advocating a counter punch against Secularism, which has not been seen since the advance of this evil since the middle twentieth century in Europe and North America.  Nobody thus far has called out militant Secularism for what it is -- EVIL.  Since it is evil, we must stand against it.  We are morally obligated to do so.  Thus we must also stand against those private and public institutions that promote it, and this includes not only various state governments, but the United States federal government itself.  After more than half a century, the time has finally come to fight back!  We are a Christian people, and WE WILL NOT voluntarily submit to a government that opposes our faith.  We cannot be expected to submit to militant Secular law any more than we can be expected to submit to Islamic shariah law.  Both of them oppose us and both of them are hell bent on devouring us.  Therefore, we will not voluntarily submit to them.  They must be forced upon us, and indeed they have been in various places, and we have had enough!  In the east Christians must deal with Islam, but in the west we must deal with Secularism, and in the west not only is Secularism more dangerous, but we still have a fighting chance against it.  This is why I advocate peaceful secession movements, not just in America but in Canada too, and the creation of benign Christian Republics that respect the rights of all without infringing upon our Christian faith or historic Christian culture.

My fellow Catholic readers, you cannot say that anything I've written here is untrue.  You know what is happening.  The signs are all around us.  You know the window of opportunity is closing, and if you stand idly by and do nothing, you have only yourselves to blame.  We are Christians, and we are bound by Christ's law of peaceful activism.  Let us exercise this law to its fullest extent.  Let us peacefully declare the reign of Secularism over!  Let us take back our land and our institutions where we can, and let us make our last bold stand as we wait for God to deliver us from evil.

Monday, February 27, 2012

U.S. States Begin To Prepare for Collapse Of Federal Government

Sinking of the Titanic
(Trib.com) - State representatives on Friday advanced legislation to launch a study into what Wyoming should do in the event of a complete economic or political collapse in the United States.

House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government. 
The task force would look at the feasibility of Wyoming issuing its own alternative currency, if needed. And House members approved an amendment Friday by state Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. David Miller, R-Riverton, has said he doesn’t anticipate any major crises hitting America anytime soon. But with the national debt exceeding $15 trillion and protest movements growing around the country, Miller said Wyoming — which has a comparatively good economy and sound state finances — needs to make sure it’s protected should any unexpected emergency hit the U.S.

Several House members spoke in favor of the legislation, saying there was no harm in preparing for the worst...

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: This is very intelligent, and if you live in the United States, you need to forward this story to your state congressmen, urging them to support similar measures in your state. As the article says, there is no harm preparing for the worst, and I'm afraid that in all likelihood, the worst will indeed happen, with the only question being 'when?'

Yes, the United States federal government in Washington DC, what many are beginning to call 'The Columbian Empire,' will collapse eventually. With a federal debt surpassing the GDP, combined with over a trillion dollars in annual deficits, and matched by a trade deficit that is just as large, it is clear that America's eventual demise is inevitable. Combine this with political and social unrest in the Union, and these problems are just compounded all that much further.  Just as sure as I am writing this, that day will come. What we don't know is when it will come. Will it be sooner (within 20 years) or later (beyond 20 years)? That is unpredictable right now, but it WILL happen. That much is sure.  The watery grave of history demands it.

WHEN it does happen, it will be kind of like the sinking of the Titanic, and it will be hard for the world to watch. When the USA goes down, it will likely take Canada and Mexico with it. Much of North America will be thrown into economic, social and political chaos. The effect of this will reverberate outward economically, bringing great harm to America's primary trading partners. Other regions of the world will be thrown into economic upheaval as well. The European Union will not likely survive such upheaval, that is, if it still exists at all by the time this happens. China and the Pacific rim will also be negatively effected, as well as South America. However, the effects of America's sinking will vary on different regions, directly related to their economic dependency on the United States. I suspect the worldwide economic upheaval (when it finally happens) will last approximately five years, before the world settles down into a new economic-political paradigm. This upheaval will likely include war in some places. Hopefully, it won't be a world war. Of course, there is always the chance that the United States could go out with more of a whimper than a bang. The upheaval may simply be localised to North America, while the rest of the world seeks ways to manage the new world paradigm without the United States. The first order of business however, would be moving the United Nations out of New York and into some other international metropolitan. It may involve changing the charter of the UN as well. Who knows how the world will handle this. The best advice I could give to people of other nations is that if you want to reduce the effect of this catastrophe on your nation, pressure your leaders to get your nation less dependent on the United States.

As for Americans, our time has come to get ready, and the smart people of Wyoming are on the right track. With just a handful of exceptions, most U.S. states are economically solvent, or very close to it. Many states, including my own (Missouri) are energy independent when it comes to electricity. We actually sell our electricity to other states. Most states have access to coal and natural gas as well. Then of course there is crude oil. States liberated from the restricting powers of Washington DC (The Columbian Empire) will have unhindered access to their own oil reserves and the ability to sell it or build refineries as needed. Timber is abundant in many states, and then of course there are farmlands that can be used to sustain our local population. Yes, for the most part, many states do have what they need to not only survive, but even flourish and thrive, in the absence of the United States federal government. As for military defence, this will not be a problem either. The emerging independent states of America will have the finest retired military veterans to draw from, including leftover equipment from the imperial arsenal, and that will include nuclear weapons. Of course these will have to be secured somehow, and it is highly unlikely that the independent states of America will allow some foreign power to do that for them. So you see, unlike the Titanic, the sinking United States of America has plenty of lifeboats available for everyone. The sinking process will be painful to be sure, but when it's finally over, there will be a new beginning. Yes, it will be the end of an era, but not the end of the world. Personally, I believe the sinking of America actually began in September of 2008. That's when we hit the iceberg, so to speak, an iceberg of economic collapse thanks to reckless government policies, and the chambers of the ship have been flooding ever since. However, thanks to the Federal Reserve, we have good pumps that are keeping the ship afloat for now, but just barely. Those pumps WILL fail eventually. It is inevitable. Sooner or later, we are all going to have to get on the lifeboats.

Those states, like Wyoming, which are officially exploring this, are getting ready in advance. They are inspecting the lifeboats, so the speak, which is a restoration of power to state governments, and securing the supplies they need from the ship before the inevitable happens. Of course, it would be wise for such independently thinking states to start looking at alliances with neighbouring states with a similar culture. Cultural alliances (based on language, values and religion) have historically proved to be much more reliable than proposition alliances (based entirely on economics and politics) as currently exist in the United States and the European Union. Proposition alliances (such as USA and EU) have a history of falling apart sooner or later.  Sometimes they even result in civil war. Cultural alliances have a long-enduring history. Fortunately, besides what we know to be the obvious cultures in America, there have been studies of the dominant cultural make up of the North American continent. The following is a map created in 1981 by Joel Garreau and was published in a book entitled 'The Nine Nations of North America' (read more here).  It is a map of culture. This is not a prediction of political divisions. As we know politics will likely produce different results than what is seen here. However, it would be wise for the future political entities of the independent states of America to use cultural maps such as these to help them determine what will produce the most lasting and reliable long-term alliances....


As I said, this is a cultural map.  It is not intended to represent future political boundaries.  Rather, it is designed to outline the cultures that already exist as expressed in religion, values, music, art, dispositions and temperaments.  You will notice that much of this has to do with how North America was settled by European immigrants.  For example; the Germans and Swedish settled much of the green area labelled as 'Breadbasket,' while the Scots and Irish settled much of the red area labelled as 'Dixie.'  The English settled much of the light blue area labelled as 'New England,' while the Spanish originally settled much of the brown area labelled as 'Mexamerica.'  The area labelled as 'Empty Quarter' simply means there is currently no dominant culture there, and so it's open to whatever culture wants to settle it.  As you can see, Mexico is not labelled, simply because Mexico is already established as a dominant Spanish culture.  This in no way insures the survival of the political entity known as 'Mexico.'  Who is to say what will come of that?

Whatever balkanisation comes from the fall of the United States will inevitably be drawn up somehow along these cultural lines.  Of course, political boundaries will likely look a bit different than the general cultural boundaries we see here.  For example, I cannot, for the life of me, imagine the State of Texas allowing itself to be divided three ways.  Texans will fight and die to keep their borders intact.  Missouri on the other hand, is a different story.  Missourians are less particular about political boundaries, and are more inclined to 'go along with whatever works,' as the state has a long history of political compromise.  That being said, I can easily see a cultural split between the German north, and the Scottish south, turning into a political division if Missourians are so inclined to go that route, and I can guarantee, based on cultural temperaments, that such a split would not only be peaceful but agreeable as well.  With Missouri however, you never know.  Missourians may simply decide to stay together in spite of their cultural differences, as they do have a lot in common, and there has never been any significant problems between them.

In the mean time, before the sinking is complete, individuals states would do well to imitate Wyoming and simultaneously explore interstate alliances in the absence of The Columbian Empire (Washington DC).  In my own region of Dixie, the League of the South and the Southern National Congress are designed to do just that.  It would be wise for other regions of the United States to explore the creation of similar organisations.  The time has come to start thinking outside the box.  The ship is sinking and it will go down eventually.  The damage is too great to repair, and the pumps keeping us afloat will fail eventually.  Start getting the lifeboats ready.  Talk to your local state congressmen.  Tell them to imitate Wyoming.  Then start exploring interstate alliances based on cultural similarities.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Artificial Contraception - Why Is It Wrong?

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It's one of the more 'inconvenient' teachings of the Catholic Church, but all Christians would be wise to remember that prior to 1930, every single Christian denomination in the world taught that artificial contraception was immoral and a sin. It just so happens that the Catholic Church is the only one that didn't change. One by one, all the Protestant denominations caved in, and here are the results...

Santorum Reality Check


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Readers of this blog know I am not a Libertarian. Nor do I fully subscribe to the Austrian theory of economics. I am a Distributist, which means I believe the Austrian theory must be restrained, and the purpose of government is to support smaller government through Subsidiarity, rather than stand aside and do virtually nothing. In this respect, I find myself at odds with our Libertarian friends, even though I do find myself having more in common with them on other things. The truth is, Libertarians are people we can work with, to some degree, whereas supporters of big-government are nearly impossible to work with.

Senator Jim DeMint is right. The debate in the Republican Party should be between Libertarians and Conservatives, and I think by Conservatives he means to say those of a more Traditionalist and Distributist mindset. Or at least, that's what I THINK he means to say. Who knows?

The problem here is that the vision of Reagan Conservatism has always been an aberration in the Republican Party, one of very recent origin. Historically, the Republican Party has always been about radical Modernism and empire building. The only thing that is different about the modern era, is that in the last eighty years, the liberal Democrats have out-radicalised the radicals! The Democrats have beaten the Republicans at their own game, so in came Ronald Reagan to redefine the game based on the Barry Goldwater model. What the Reagan-Conservative Republicans seek is to turn back the clock on financial matters to the days prior to the New Deal. Personally, I don't think this goes nearly far enough, as I would advocate a more Mediaeval economic model pre-dating anything the Libertarians have to offer, but it's all a moot point anyway. The problem is, top Republicans have for the most part rejected the Reagan Conservative (Austria-Libertarian) approach to economics anyway! Leading Republicans (like Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney) have embraced the big-government New Deal model. Sorry, that's just the facts, and like it or not, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. It is reality.

If you were looking for a fiscal conservative in this presidential election cycle, you're not going to get one. The one and only candidate that has embraced Reagan-style economics is Ron Paul, and the Republican Party has rejected him! So this is what you get. Regardless of who wins the G.O.P. nomination (Santorum or Romney) what you will get in November is a choice between two big-government politicians. Granted, I think both Romney and Santorum will likely spend less than Obama, but both of them will run large national deficits -- mark my words! Both of them, like Obama, will seek to expand the American empire overseas. Both of them are just as likely as Obama to take America into another major war. Both of them, like Obama, will look to the federal government FIRST for all the answers to America's problems. The only difference is, both of them will likely be less offensive to Christians (at home) than Obama. That's about all. Sorry, that's just the facts. Don't shoot the bearer of bad news.

Republicans now get to choose between two variations of the G.W. Bush presidency, because both will carry on the G.W. Bush legacy -- like it or not. We can choose between a Catholic version of G.W. Bush in Rick Santorum. Or we can choose a Mormon version of G.W. Bush in Mitt Romney. Take your pick! Personally my hope is the Catholic version of G.W. Bush (Santorum) might actually listen to the pope on some things. So there is a little hope there I guess.

Perhaps we will be lucky and Ron Paul will gain enough delegates to broker some kind of deal at the convention. I just find it sad that the Republican Party has rejected him outright. In doing so the G.O.P. has helped consign America to the ash heap of history. Our time is short. Americans would do wise to start thinking about what kind of nations they want to build after the fall of the United States.

Happy Ash Wednesday and a Blessed Lent


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I have come to find Lent a time of liberation. When I first became Catholic, the whole concept of Lent was confusing to me. Not because I didn't understand it, but because it seemed to me that it wasn't being observed the way it ought to be. For example, the parishes in my area would all drain their baptismal fonts, and put up thorny bushes as decorations. Well, I don't care for thorny bushes, as for some reason I always seemed to get caught up in them one way or another. As for the drained fonts, they seemed to have stopped doing that now. Still the sombre mood remains, and frankly I don't get it. Yes, from dust we came and from dust we shall return, but I find nothing depressing about this. Actually, I'll be rather glad to get rid of this tattered tent in which I currently reside. I'm looking forward to that mansion in heaven. (I believe the 'mansions' to be a reference to the glorified bodies that await us.) To me, Lent offers an opportunity for detachment. It's an opportunity to start letting go of the things in our lives that get in the way of God. Giving up meat on Fridays, and fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday is one way of doing that. Giving up the sweets and sugars throughout Lent is another way. This year however, I've decided to do something different in addition to the customary things. I'm going to start giving stuff away. Yes, that's right. I've got a house full of clutter, things that are useful, but I never use. Yes, I have too much. I'm going to start by donating many of my books to the local library. Next comes clothing. Am I sombre about it? No way! I'm glad I can finally rid myself of these things I don't need, and others might find useful. Isn't that what Lent is about? Letting go? Trusting God? What could possibly be sombre about this? I'm actually enjoying it!

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The Declaration of Independence - What Does It Mean?

Signing of the Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

-- The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: There is a lot of talk these days about the Constitution of the United States. Indeed some have enshrined the Constitution as if it were some sort of Holy Writ. In fact, not only does the U.S. Constitution have nothing to do with the founding of the United States, but it wasn't even our first form of government! The 'Articles of Confederation' (1777 - 1787) was the first document outlining the function of American government. That document was eventually replaced by the Constitution which has since served as our SECOND attempt at self-governance. Neither of these documents, not the Constitution nor the Articles of Confederation, were the founding documents of the United States. That designation is reserved for one document alone -- The Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson
The above words, originally penned by Thomas Jefferson, declare the basic premise and concept behind the United States of America. The founding principle of our nation was one simple concept. That concept is that when people are systematically abused by their government, they have the God-given RIGHT to secede from that government and form for themselves their own government, especially if such a local government already exists.

As in the case of the thirteen British colonies in America, each of them had their own local state government. Likewise, these state governments frequently sent representatives to a regional 'Continental Congress' which in many ways functioned as a precursor to an independent government. Yes, the principle America was founded on was the notion that people (organised in the states they reside) have the right, to pull away (secede) from one form of government, become independent, and even reorganise under another form of government of their own making. It was a revolutionary idea to say the least, and one the king of England did not agree with. After a long and bitter war with the British crown, the king signed thirteen separate agreements to end all hostilities with each of the thirteen colonies. It was called the Treaty of Paris, and it was signed on September 3rd, 1783. After all the platitudes about 'freedom' and 'liberty' as well as what that means to various people, in the end, America was founded on just one thing -- the right to secede!

Some eighty-five years later, something happened that turned all of this on its head. It was called the American Civil War. We can debate the circumstances and causes of the Civil War ad nauseum but it will not scratch the surface of this issue. To debate the causes of the Civil War is to miss the point entirely. The point is; do states have the right to secede or don't they? Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers said 'YES' and they fought a war to defend it.  Almost a generation later, as the New England states were seriously considering secession from the rest of the United States over the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson was asked what he thought of New England secession.  He responded with the words 'they will all be our children' pointing out that they had the right to leave America, and even if they did start their own country, they would do so in the spirit of the American Revolution and remain Americans by common heritage.  New England secession never happened, but the movement itself, along with Jefferson's response to it, underlines the position of America's founding.  People (organised in the states they occupy) have the right to lawfully secede.

Abraham Lincoln
Exactly thirty-five years after Thomas Jefferson's death, one of his presidential successors, Abraham Lincoln said 'NO' to the right of secession, and he fought a war to defend his position.

So which is it? Who is right? Is it Jefferson or Lincoln? It has to be one or the other, but it cannot be both.

Before addressing this issue in the comments section below, please keep in mind this is not about the alleged 'causes' or 'circumstances' leading up to the American Revolution and American Civil War. Any comments disparaging one side or another, concerning these alleged 'causes' or 'circumstances' will likely be moderated. This is solely about the principle enshrined in the document above. DO STATES HAVE A RIGHT TO SECEDE OR DON'T THEY????

Monday, February 20, 2012

The Time Is Short

'A time will come when the enemies of Christ will boast: "We have subjected the earth and all its inhabitants, and the Christians cannot escape our hands." Then a Roman Emperor will arise in great fury against them... Drawing his sword, he will fall upon the foes of Christianity and crush them. Then peace will reign on earth, and priests will be relieved of all their anxieties.' -- St. Methodius of Olympus, 311 AD

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  Some time ago I created the above timeline chart, which is based simply on my limited and flawed understanding of the Catholic prophecies leading up to the time of Antichrist.  Based on the most reliable sources I can find, and carefully compiling the chronological order of the events described, this is the best I can come up with.  Where are we now?  Well, if the chart is accurate, and to the best of my knowledge I think it is, we are now on the dotted line between the bar marked 'present' and the bar marked 'riots and war.'  I think perhaps we are getting dangerously close to the bar marked 'riots and war.'  I created this chart in 2009, which explains why the first bar is marked 'present.'  The dotted line indicates an unknown period of time and events.  The solid line indicates a known period of time and events based on prophecy.

As we look at the world around us now, it is becoming painfully clear what the plans of the enemies of Christ are.  The prophecy of St. Methodius states the enemies of Christ will say among themselves: "We have subjected the earth and all its inhabitants, and the Christians cannot escape our hands."  Signs of this are now all around us.

In the East...
(kath.net/KAP) The Egyptian Parliament has, according to reports by the human rights organization IGFM, a fact finding committee is prepared to expel Coptic Christians. AS the International Community for Human Rights explained on Thursday, the Parliamentary Committee has proposed the explusion of eight Coptic families from their home village Sharbat near Alexandria. The families have received the notice that they will be forced to leave their homes by the police and the village elders, since their safety can longer be guaranteed anymore. 
For months encroachments against the Christian minority have increased in this Muslim land. According to IGMF, the proposed investigation has particular importance, because it anticipates also the future Parliament's conduct in its orientation regarding conflicts between religions. 
read full story here
And in the West...
(RNS) - A coalition of nearly 40 religious leaders has published an open letter that seeks to recast the battle against same-sex marriage as a fight on behalf of religious freedom. 
The religious leaders, predominantly from conservative Christian churches and Orthodox Judaism, say their concern is not that legalizing gay marriage will force their ministers to perform same-sex weddings; they say they doubt that will happen. 
Rather, they wrote Thursday (Jan. 12), allowing same-sex couples to marry would wind up "forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations -- throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies -- to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct." 
read full story here
------------ 
(Times Colonist) -- Catholic parents in Quebec cannot keep their children out of an ethics course at school that teaches them about other religions, the country's top court has ruled. 
The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday rendered its decision in a controversial case that was cast by some observers as a matter of religious freedom versus a bid by the province to increase tolerance. 
The case pitted a set of Catholic parents against the school board and the province of Quebec. 
Quebec's Ethics and Religious Culture program became mandatory for schools in May 2008.
In the course, students learn about the Catholic and Protestant Christian traditions in Quebec culture. The program is meant to expose students- who are also taught about the contributions of Judaism, aboriginal spirituality and other religious traditions- to a variety of religions. 
read full story here
When we look at what is currently going on in the United States with the Obama administration's HHS contraception/sterilisation/abortion mandate, it is not difficult to see which way things are going.  We may not have yet reached the point where the enemies of Christ can truly say: "We have subjected the earth and all its inhabitants, and the Christians cannot escape our hands."  However, we are getting close.

Of militant Secularism, we can honestly say we have seen the future -- and it is both sterile and gay.  The agenda of the Secularists is to separate religious worship from religious conscience.  Of religious worship, the state will allow us to do whatever we please.  Of religious conscience, the state will set limits.  No longer will Christians be able to act in accordance with their beliefs against abortion, birth-control and gay-marriage.  The purpose of this is to neuter the influence of the Church in society, and to make Christianity nothing more than an academic exercise, even in that, certain forms of speech will likely be limited at some point.  In other words, the state is saying go ahead and worship your crucified 'god' but in practical application, you will bow your conscience to the higher authority of the state.  Do what you like on Sundays, but be sure to throw a pinch of incense on the altar of Caesar throughout the rest of the week.

In the East it's a different story.  There the Muslims seek a more direct and absolute control of their region, and the Secularists in the West are perfectly content to let this happen.  That the American CIA is helping the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is no secret.  That European and American NATO allies helped radical Muslims in Libya was demonstrated for all the world to see.  That CIA operatives are now working among radical Muslims in Syria is again a well known expectation.  The end result in all of these cases will be the same -- the persecution and expulsion of Christians in the region.  Where will these persecuted Christians go?  Why to the West of course!  Where they can deal with a different kind of persecution in the form of militant Secularism.  We may not be there yet, but soon, very soon, the enemies of Christ will honestly be able to say among themselves: "We have subjected the earth and all its inhabitants, and the Christians cannot escape our hands."  Yes, the militant Secularists and the militant Islamists have allied with each other, and their mutual target of oppression is us -- the followers of Jesus Christ.

The New World Order is a vision of the West.  It is the creation of the Globalists in North America and Europe.  It is marked by their attempted to reorganise the whole world into economic trading blocks.  Now with the looming implosion of Europe and economic instability of the United States, that pipe-dream is falling apart.  So the Western New World Order is becoming increasingly more aggressive, allying with radical Sunni Muslims in the Middle East to corner the Shiites and thus gain control of the Middle East.  Meanwhile the Shiites, particularly in Iran, have a different plan.  Theirs is one of opposition to the Western New World Order, and a willingness to martyr their whole nation in the process.  They have a strange theology about a coming messianic figure, called the 'Mahdi,' who will come to their aid in their great time of conflict against the West.  This is a Shiite Muslim teaching not shared by the Sunnis.  Iran is a great obstacle to Western control of the Middle East, at least as far as the West understands the Middle East.

However, it is likely a mistake that Sunnis can be as easily controlled as the West thinks.  Visions of a regional, and ultimately worldwide, Islamic caliphate are intoxicating to the radical Sunnis, who are simply using the West to accomplish their goals of eliminating their Shiite enemies.  With any luck, they presume, their Zionist enemies will likely be eliminated in the process as Iran and Israel duke it out in an apocalyptic conflict.  This will clear the way for their eventual vision of a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Meanwhile Russia looks at the whole situation with sober eyes, understanding what is at stake, and seeking to secure for itself a prominent place in the emerging global paradigm.  Russia stands in opposition to the Western New World Order as well as an Islamic caliphate.  It will be interesting to watch this matter unfold, and where Russia will eventually line up.  From inside Russia we have this report from our Christian brethren...
(Interfax) - The current global contradictions could deteriorate into a global war sooner or later, the Moscow Patriarchate said.

"There are many processes ongoing in the world in which Russia should play a much more active role, since the economic and social contradictions that have cropped up in the world are so strong that they are sure to blow up into serious military operations," head of the Synodal Department for Church and Society Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said in an interview with the Svobodnaya Pressa (Free Press) Publishing House.

""In order to ensure that these military operations not unfold in our territory or in the vicinity of our borders, we need to keep our armed forces combat ready and to participate in settling all situations that may lead to a war, be it the Middle East or Central Asia where the situation is also tense," he said.

"By all accounts, we will not manage to escape a big war," he said...

read full story here
So it looks likely that Russia will begin taking a much more 'proactive' approach to foreign policy, perhaps mirroring the strategies of the United States, but in ways that serve its own interests of course.  There are those in high places that are saying all this will unfold within this year. I don't know if that's true, but it certainly seems plausible.

Then of course there is China, which is a wild card. There is only one thing we can be sure about when it comes to China. The Chinese are in this for themselves. Some indicators show that China is in the early stages of a total economic collapse, but then so is the rest of the world. 2012 is already proving to be a very dangerous year, and we haven't even cleared the second month yet.

To be quite honest with you, I don't know exactly what the future holds. How can I? What I do know is what we all should know. We must repent of our materialism and our sexual impurity. These are the things that are the greatest threats to us. Then we must pray. Pray the rosary and make Eucharistic reparation. We should not abdicate our civil responsibilities either. Yes, we should vote, in accord with the Church's teachings on Life, Family and Subsidiarity. Yes, we should prepare our heart's for the coming of the Great Monarch as well. Likewise, we can even try to undo the power of the New World Order by joining peaceful secession/independence groups insofar as they are consistent with a Catholic way of life. Beyond that, there really is nothing more we can do. That is, unless you are somebody of great power reading this.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

First They Came for the Catholics...


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The Catholic Church has always suffered persecution. That is indeed what makes her strong, for the blood of the martyrs are the seeds of the Church. Catholics had gone a long time in America without any significant institutionalised persecution. Oh sure, there have always been Klansmen, Freemasons and Know Nothings, but as far as the government attacking the Church, we just haven't seen anything like that in a hundred years. That is perhaps why the U.S. Catholic Church has gone soft. That is perhaps why some 50% of Church members are 'Cafeteria Catholics.' That is perhaps why so many Catholic politicians not only resist Church teaching on key social issues, but actually work against it. That is perhaps why the bishops and priests have been so lax in their duties to call the faithful to a self-sacrificing faith for our Lord. That is perhaps why our shepherds have neglected to protect us from the wolves in sheep's clothing by failing to formally excommunicate those politicians and celebrities who bring scandal to the Body of Christ. Those days are over now.

The Obama administration's HHS mandate, and supposed 'accommodation,' are a carefully played hand, designed to split the Catholic Church against herself, pitting Cafeteria Catholics against Faithful Catholics, diminishing the strength of the Church in public life and preparing her for the next phase of her persecution. Not to worry, other Christians are affected by this as well, but the liberal modernists running the show know full well that once you strike the shepherd the sheep will scatter. The goal is to take down the largest Christian denomination in the United States first -- the U.S. Catholic Church -- and then going after the smaller denominations is 'easy pickings,' kind of like 'shooting fish in a barrel.'

The U.S. Catholic bishops, along with the priests under them, are not entirely without blame in all of this. Some of them would probably admit to that if you asked them. They made a deal with the devil by supporting Obamacare to begin with. Of course they did so in the interest of helping the poor, but in the process, they unwittingly signed their own arrest warrants. They assumed, wrongly, that Obama was an honest man. They assumed he would keep his word to preserve the conscience of religious institutions. They assumed too much! I submit to you however, that something like this HHS mandate was inevitable anyway, regardless of the character of the man behind it. Even if Obama had kept his word, sooner or later a man would enter the Whitehouse who wouldn't. I say, better now than later. We might as well lay out all the cards on the table before Obamacare goes into full force.

I submit to you that in making their deal with the devil, the U.S. Catholic bishops' fatal mistake was not in trusting Obama. That was just a minor mistake. Their fatal mistake was in trusting big government in general!  In doing so, they forgot the most important element of Catholic Social Justice -- Subsidiarity! They turned to big-government for the solution. They ignored the most prime ingredient of a truly Christian approach. Instead, the made the same mistake as the European and Canadian bishops, by abdicating the role of the Church to the state, ignoring Subsidiarity, and in the process creating a monster that would soon come back to devour them. We shouldn't blame the victims though, for these bishops are not solely responsible for Obamacare, and they will soon pay more than their fair share in penalties. Should Obama remain in office, or should his Republican successor fail to repeal this mandate, many of these bishops will find themselves behind bars by this time next year, and I dare say, half of all U.S. Catholics won't even care.

This whole affair is not really a critique of the U.S. Catholic bishops, though I am pleased to see them finally standing up to tyranny within the United States. In truth, the whole affair is actually an indictment of the U.S. federal government in addition to the Obama administration. Good luck getting a bill through Congress that will stop this thing. Even if enough votes can be mustered to pass such a bill, there will not be enough to override Obama's veto. Good luck relying on the federal courts to stop this thing. Even if successful in the lower courts, it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court will uphold it. Obama's 'accommodation' has been carefully crafted to pull the decision away from the churches and puts full responsibility into the hands of insurance companies. This battle will be lost in the courts before it ever has a chance to be heard.

The problem is not so much Obama as it is Washington DC. We have a system of government that is so consolidated and centralised that it knows nothing of Subsidiarity any more. Federalism is a thing of the past and it's never coming back. The normal political processes (campaigns and elections) will not bring it back. Something radical has to happen now, and until the people realise that secession/independence movements are the only political option left, this problem will continue to get worse year after year.

The whole thing is a critique on big-government in general. It's an experiment that has failed wherever it's been tried. Why should it be any different here?

The U.S. Catholic Church will remain at the forefront of this battle for the long haul. This news story is not going away. Regardless of what happens in the world, even the advent of World War III, this story will continue to simmer in the background. Religious freedom is coming to an end in America. The government has separated religious conscience from religious worship. What that means is, you can worship God in any kind of religious ceremony you want, but you just can't believe in anything that has an effect on your behaviour in public. You can give academic assent to the notion that abortion is murder, but in practical reality, you must provide for it in the medical insurance policies you offer. The same goes for contraception and sterilisation. Mark my words, it won't be long before a similar mandate is made to accommodate gay marriage. Obama's mask was already pulled back months ago when he attempted to force churches to hire religious school teachers based on government standards rather than religious standards. (see story here) Thankfully, the Supreme Court swatted him down on that pretty hard in a 9 to 0 ruling against his argument. Nevertheless, the mask was pulled back a little and we got a peak at what was underneath. Yes, Obama is a tyrant, but it is the political system in Washington DC that gives him the power to actually be one. We can get rid of Obama in November, Lord willing, but that does not guarantee our safety. If we are lucky the man who replaces him will reverse his policies and give us four to eight years of peace. Again, that is if we are lucky. Who is to say however that the next man who occupies the Whitehouse will not do something worse than Obama!?! We have no guarantees. Why? Because we have created a system of government that makes corrupt politicians into tyrants, because it gives them all the necessary power to become this. We have created a system of government that can rule us with a iron fist. All it takes is a man in the Whitehouse willing to do it.

That the American experiment has failed there is no doubt. Just look at us! We have become everything our founding fathers despised and fought a bloody revolution to escape. We are their worst nightmare. The only question that remains is where do we go from here? Obviously, to remain on the course we are on is suicide. To my faithful Catholic readers, if you have tracked anything I've been writing for the last few years, you know what is to come eventually. After a period of trial the Great Monarch will come and give us some temporary relief from these sufferings until the advent of Antichrist. However, this does not absolve us from our responsibility to act in accordance with our beliefs now, in whatever limited way we are able. Lest we end up becoming like the dispensationalist Evangelicals who sit on their thumbs waiting for the mythical 'rapture' to sweep them away, we must act in accordance with our beliefs and become engaged in the public square. I point to Hungary as a recent example. For better or worse, Catholics in that country have seized control of their republic, much to the shock and condemnation of the Secularist European Union. They have instituted strict immigration laws (especially against Muslims), declared the place of Christianity in the founding of their culture, and made abortion and gay-marriage illegal! (read story here) Yes, it can be done here, and it should be done here, but anyone reading this knows it can't happen under the Secularised federal government in Washington DC. Any American reading this knows the cultural difference between various regions within the United States make this impossible for it to occur on a national level, and the Secularist federal government would never let it happen anyway. Any American reading this knows it CAN'T happen in the United States, unless some states take it upon themselves to secede and start over independently.

My regular readers know that I am a Catholic monarchist at heart, but they should also know that a truly godly monarchy is something that is given, not something that is made. By that I call into contrast the Biblical examples of David and Saul. King Saul was the first king of Israel. He was effectively 'elected' to be king by the people. In other words, they created a monarchy for themselves. The result of that was disastrous. King Saul went insane and led his kingdom into economic and military ruin. God then replaced him with a king of his own election. King David was elected by God, not the people, and he was given to the people by God. He was a king that was given and not made. So until God gives us a king of his own election, we are forced to deal with the republican system that currently exists in our present world. The Catholic Hungarians have chosen to tackle this problem head on. They have taken over their republic and are now in the process of trying to correct its course. Likewise, the people of Scotland are soon going to hold a secession referendum, in which the public will vote on whether or not to stay within the United Kingdom. We do not know what the outcome of this secession referendum will be, or even if successful, will it produce a country more conservative and traditional? Who knows! We can't fault the Scottish people for trying however. They know the problems are too big for the normal political processes (campaigns and elections) to fix. At least they are thinking outside the box. At least they are trying something different. The whole thing may go down in flames, but at least they are trying. That's more than I can say for most Americans. Until we start getting a little radical in dealing with radical Secularism, these radical Secularists are going to walk all over us. It's a fact. It's happening. Look around!

Until then, let us offer this suffering of our bishops up as a sacrifice to God. Many of them may soon go to prison for the Gospel's sake, and I thank God for every one who has the courage to do it. Yes, mistakes were made on their part that contributed to the problem, but they are making atonement for it right now, and before this is over, they will pay more than their fair share. I can only pray we all have the courage to stand with them during this time of suffering, and that if faced with prison ourselves for the Gospel's sake, we will have the courage to join them.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Why I Joined the League of the South



Our Southern Culture Lives On
The people of Dixie have survived!
We want to be free!
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Recently, The Catholic Knight joined the 'League of the South' (see website here), a movement seeking 'to advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honourable means.' This is a Dixieland Independence movement, seeking the independence of Dixie from the United States, on par with similar movements, such as the one in Scotland that seeks independence from the United Kingdom, as well as the one in Quebec, which seeks independence from Canada. I joined this movement as a practising Catholic in good standing with the Church. There are many more Catholics involved in this movement, with a good number of them in leadership positions. I myself do not aspire to a leadership position within the movement, but I do give this movement my full support and endorsement as a practising traditional Catholic. I recently granted an audio interview with the Southern Nationalist Network (SNN) detailing my thoughts behind this decision (click here to listen).

There are multiple reasons why I have decided to become a full-fledged Dixie Nationalist.  I do confess to having a strong biological connection to Southern culture through my mother, both in Southern English, Irish and Scottish descent, as well as a strong Cherokee ancestry which is deeply connected to Southern history.  My ancestors on my mother's side fought for Dixie in the War for Southern Independence (American Civil War).  None of them were slave owners.  (Contrary to what is taught in America's public schools, the overwhelming vast majority of Confederates did not own slaves.)  Suffice it to say however, I had been holding back in my decision to join this secession/independence movement for nearly a decade in the hope that things might possibly turn around for the better in the United States. Those hopes have been dashed, as the U.S. Catholic Church now has a taste of things to come with the Obama administration's recent HHS mandate to force Catholic institutions to provide contraception, sterilisation and abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plans. It has become painfully clear that things WILL NOT get better in the years ahead, but that regardless of the election outcome in November, religious freedom in the United States is on a downward spiral.

Families that cling to their Dixie identity are frequently
discriminated against by anti-Southern propaganda.
Many Americans are angry at the Obama administration, and rightfully so. Their anger is justified. It is also justified to want to defeat Obama in the November election, and indeed the opposition will get its chance soon enough. However, I would like to propose to my readers that Barack Obama is not the problem. He is just a symptom of a much bigger problem. We can get rid of Obama in November if we are able, but that does not mean the problem will go away. The problem is not a man, it is a system, and that system is Washington DC. You see, ever since the Civil War, Americans have been content to consolidate more power and influence into the federal government. Power has consistently been directed away from the states, and toward the fed. As a result, with each passing decade, our government has become more and more centralised. This trend is a violation of the Catholic social teaching called SUBSIDIARITY, and it is the core source of our problem. By centralising the government, the American people have allowed Washington DC to become so big and so powerful, that a federal bureaucrat can hardly sneeze up there without causing turmoil all over the United States. Every little decision Washington DC makes effects us in large dramatic ways. It has now reached a point when a single election can install a man to the presidency, who happens to be insensitive to the conscience issues of Catholics, and that has in turn caused all religious freedom in the United States to come into question. How can this be? This is not what America's founding fathers intended. They never intended the president of the United States to have that much power. Never in their wildest dreams could they have imagined the government they created would turn into a tyranny worse than King George III.

My regular readers know that I am a Catholic monarchist at heart, but they should also know that a truly godly monarchy is something that is given, not something that is made. By that I call into contrast the Biblical examples of David and Saul. King Saul was the first king of Israel. He was effectively 'elected' to be king by the people. In other words, they created a monarchy for themselves. The result of that was disastrous. King Saul went insane and led his kingdom into economic and military ruin. God then replaced him with a king of his own election. King David was elected by God, not the people, and he was given to the people by God. He was a king that was given and not made. So until God gives us a king of his own election, we are forced to deal with the republican system that currently exists in our present world. The Catholic Hungarians have chosen to tackle this problem head on. They have taken over their republic and are now in the process of trying to correct its course. Likewise, the people of Scotland are soon going to hold a secession referendum, in which the public will vote on whether or not to stay within the United Kingdom. We do not know what the outcome of this secession referendum will be, or even if successful, will it produce a country more conservative and traditional? Who knows! We can't fault the Scottish people for trying however. They know the problems are too big for the normal political processes (campaigns and elections) to fix. At least they are thinking outside the box. At least they are trying something different. The whole thing may go down in flames, but at least they are trying. That's more than I can say for most Americans. Until we start getting a little radical in dealing with radical Secularism, these radical Secularists are going to walk all over us. It's a fact. It's happening. Look around! 

It has become clear to me that the principle of Subsidiarity will NEVER return to the United States federal government through the normal political methods. Once a government attains that much power, it never gives it up voluntarily. The only solution is for the people to unite and demand that their state governments TAKE IT BACK by asserting their tenth amendment rights, and if necessary, secede to become independent nation(s). Only a robust and credible secession/independence movement in the United States will create the necessary catalyst to restore power to the states and bring Washington DC back into a level of Subsidiarity more in line with what the founding fathers intended.

Now there are many peaceful secession movements across the United States; the Alaska Independence Party, Republic of Cascadia and the Second Vermont Republic just to name a few. None of these has the history and culture of Christendom though, except for the Old South of Dixieland. The people of the American Southeast, Dixie or Dixieland, are a separate and distinct culture from the rest of the United States. Nobody can deny that. One-hundred and fifty years ago these people seceded from the United States and sought independence. They were met with the most fiendish hostility from the federal government in Washington DC which acted illegally by making war on the very states it was designed to serve. The 'South' as it came to be called, was defeated by this federal government, and since then the people of Dixie have been forced to live under a regime that has never had their best interests in mind.  These Southerners were then vilified by that same regime in every way imaginable, while the regime itself went on to commit all sorts of unspeakable crimes both at home and abroad. The latest HHS mandate by the Obama administration demonstrates this with painful clarity. The United States federal government has exhibited a steady and consistent trend toward curbing American freedoms and forcing its industrial-military hegemony around the world. The United States of America has become an 'empire' in almost every sense of the word.

Part of the federal government's strategy to keep Dixieland suppressed is to vilify its past by rewriting history and teaching it to Southern children in their public schools. All across the Southland, Dixie's youth are consistently taught to hate their ancestry and most especially the cause their Southern ancestors fought to defend. The official line from the United States federal government, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary, is that the South fought solely to defend the institution of slavery and for no other reason whatsoever. While the 'good and virtuous' federal government, headed by that great 'hero and martyr,' Abraham Lincoln (a.k.a. 'Honest Abe') was merely trying to free the poor black slaves from those wicked white crackers down South. At least, that's how the United States federal government tells the story. Of course, the victor of any conflict gets to write the history, and Washington DC has spared no expense to write the children's history textbooks and erect the monuments that honour this version of events. In Washington DC, the two largest monuments erected in the memory of a man are the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. The first was the founding father of the nation. The second was a - well - another founding father of course! Even though his term in office came eighty years after the nation was founded. So powerful are the propaganda myths surrounding Lincoln that to question the man's motives or integrity is to commit 'unpatriotic blasphemy.' These things can be questioned of the original founding fathers -- in fact they can be slandered in character with virtual impunity -- but not so with Lincoln. The man, the myth, the legend; Abraham Lincoln is revered more as a god than a politician.

Pope Pius IX
No matter how good the propaganda, and no matter how forcefully it is pushed, the truth has a way of coming out eventually. With the advent of the Internet, a different view of history is starting to come to the forefront, backed by original-source documentation from the time period, including letters written by Vatican officials to the Confederacy, both acknowledging the fact that Dixie was a separate country from the United States, and acknowledging the governing titles of officers within the Confederate States of America (C.S.A.).  This should not be confused with an endorsement of the CSA, or taking sides in the Civil War, but rather a papal recognition that the South had indeed seceded, established its own government, and had become a separate nation.  Naturally, this caused an uproar in Washington City, and some sources indicate President Lincoln was furious over it, prompting some explanation from the Vatican nuncio to the United States federal government that the pope had not taken sides in the Civil War.  Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Confederate General Robert E. Lee (both Episcopalian-Anglicans) greatly admired the reigning pontiff of that time -- Pope Pius IX -- and it was this same pontiff who sent an autographed picture of himself to President Jefferson Davis while he was in prison after the war.  (You can read more about this HERE.)  I could go into a long apologetic for the South here, but I will spare you of that. Instead I will only say that the American Civil War was not fought over slavery or state's rights, but over money! Yes, after all is said and done it all came down to cold hard cash. The South was treated unfairly by the North financially. So to save money, the South seceded and formed a new independent nation. When the Northern banks realised how much money they stood to lose from this, they pressured Lincoln to take the South back by force. So that is exactly what he did. Yes, other factors played into this as well, westward expansion playing a huge role, but after all was said and done, it was a clash of civilisations that was a long time in the making.  Money played a very big part in it, and no, according to the testimony of leaders from both sides, it wasn't about freeing the slaves.  Any serious investigation into the attitudes that prevailed among the leaders of both sides during the time will reveal latent racism, greed and blinding self-righteousness. This was common in the middle nineteenth century, but it was especially true of Abraham Lincoln and his successors. Of the two sides, clearly the South had the most to lose and the least to gain financially from the conflict, but they fought for principle's sake and that was their undoing. If you want to learn the real history of the Civil War, and the real story behind the culture of the Old South, it should be told from the perspective of a man descended from Southern black slaves -- a man who knows his history and isn't afraid to tell it like it was. His name is H.K. Edgerton and his website is SOUTHERN HERITAGE 411.

H.K. Edgerton
This of course leads me to the second tool used against Dixie Nationalists by the U.S. federal government and its supporters in the 'politically correct' liberal modernist establishment.  It is the myth that anyone who sports a Dixie flag (or one of the flags of the Confederacy) is automatically a racist white supremacist on par with a Klansman or Neo-Nazi. Of course this is poppycock!  But it is typical of the liberal modernist establishment to propagate symbolism over substance.  Liberal modernists often express their support or opposition to things in very cursory ways, such as sporting various coloured ribbons, bumper-stickers of different sorts, lapel buttons, rainbow flags and such.  This is how they 'identify' who and what they are, and it is also how they 'label' others.  Naturally of course, they think they have the authority to label all symbols based on their very narrow world view.  Having been educated by America's public school systems, they immediately assume the Dixie flags stand for slavery, since after all, that's all the South fought for (according to the federal government anyway).  Therefore Dixie flags MUST represent a glorification of slavery and are therefore a sign of racist white supremacy.  Never mind the fact that Dixie flags are sported by men and women of colour all throughout the deep South.  Not only are such banners flown by black men in various places, but it has become fashionable for many women in the deep South (including young black women) to wear bikini swimsuits patterned after the Dixie flag!  Common sense would tell the average observer that this symbol obviously has some meaning other than racist white supremacy, but liberal modernists seem incapable, or else unwilling, to make this logical leap.  The truth is, the racist shtick works well for them.  Liberal modernists in the United States (and elsewhere) are notorious for labelling anyone who disagrees with their multicultural moral relativism as a 'racist.'  It allows them to shut down the conversation, claim the moral high ground for themselves, and demonise their political opposition, regardless if there is any truth to the charge.

The Dixie Flag is a Symbol that
Crosses all Racial Lines.  It is a Symbol
of CULTURE not Racism!
To clarify, there is a history of known racists using the Dixie flag as a symbol of their hate, but also in fact, those same racists use the American flag as a symbol of their hate.  So which is the symbol of their hate?  Is it the Dixie flag, or the American flag, or is it both?  If it is both, than what are we to say?  Could it be that these idiots will use any symbol to express their hatred?  Since when do they get to define our symbols for us?  If the liberal modernists use the actions of fringe idiots as an example of the Dixie flag representing racism, than intellectual honesty demands that they say the same of the American flag.  Anything less is hypocrisy.  Nevertheless, this is another way the liberal modernist establishment oppresses and demonises the people of the South.

So what would a free and independent Dixie look like today?  Well, for starters, the circumstances behind secession today would be considerably different than those of 1860-61.  Slavery is a thing of the past (thank God!) and the scourge of institutionalised segregation is behind us as well.  The reasons for secession today however, would take on some similarities to those of 1860-61, centring around economics and culture -- specifically in this case focusing on freedom of religion (conscience) and our national identity as a Christian people.  A free and independent South would have to manifest itself by individual state secessions, followed by a call for a constitutional convention, in which some form of constitution or 'articles of confederation' would have to be drawn up.  The original Confederate constitution could be used as a template, if that is what the state delegates want.  Whatever form a new Dixie Republic will take, its constitution will have to make recognition of the role of Christianity in the formation of our people and our culture.  It will have to base its laws on Christian virtues, which of course would include the protection of human life from conception to natural death.  Marriage would have to be based on the traditional Christian understanding of one man and one woman.  Citizenship would need to be defined by the states, and the national borders would need to be enforced.  Immigration would have to be stopped for the short-term to lower the unemployment rate across the Southland, and when immigration is opened back up, it will need to be tightly regulated to allow for full assimilation of those entering the country.  Limits would need to be placed on corporations, so as to prevent massive international business from taking over local economies and controlling the government, as they do in the United States.  Beyond that, states must be allowed to run their own business, following the principle of Subsidiarity, as the new Dixie Republic stands aside and lets state and local jurisdictions do what comes natural.  For the most part, states would handle their own business, while the Dixie Republic would focus on national defence and interstate commerce, while assuming a very limited role in internal state affairs.  This principle of Subsidiarity would have to be enshrined into the new constitution somehow.  Culturally, Dixians (as we would likely come to be called) would need to focus on renewing their local religious establishments and rebuilding the Anglo-Celtic culture that still exists but has been nearly decimated by 150 years of Yankee oppression.  A revival in the arts would be necessary, especially as they relate to our Irish and Scottish cultural roots.  To clarify, this is a CULTURAL thing, not a racial thing.  Black Southerners are very acquainted with the Anglo-Celtic culture of the South, and have indeed made a sizable contribution to it, especially in the arts.  That contribution is already recognised, and we will need more of their help.  A new Dixie Republic MUST and WILL be defined by cooperative partnership between all people of colour and ethnicity.  We will NEED each other for Dixie to flourish and thrive.

Believe it or not, whites and blacks worked together under
this flag, fighting big-government oppression during the
Civil War, and we still do today!
Of course the question always arises; wouldn't secession/independence start another Civil War?  To which I must say this is not 1861.  There is little chance that a sitting president today could get away with what Abraham Lincoln did one-hundred and fifty years ago.  The whole world is watching America now, in real time, via news channels and the Internet.  Yes, there will likely be politicians in Washington DC who will WANT to go to war over this, but they would be few in comparison, and they would be restrained by the tide of international public opinion.  You see, the United States federal government has been sponsoring and championing secession movements around the world for the last sixty years or so.  Washington DC trying to explain why the federal government won't allow a similar movement in its own country would be awkward to say the least.  The use of military force on its own people would be broadcast around the world, and Washington DC would lose all credibility among its international partners.  No, this is not 1861.  Things are a bit different now.

The League of the South is not a product of the past, but rather a completely new creation. It stands firmly against institutionalised racism and bigotry, calling upon all of its members to act in Christian charity toward their fellow man (see official statement here). The League has stood squarely with the Catholic Church in her struggle against the recent HHS mandate (see official statement here). As I said, many of the leaders within the League of the South are Catholics. Most importantly however, the League of the South stands for Subsidiarity, the very thing that would have prevented all these problems had Americans abided by it to begin with. The League also stands for promoting the religious virtues of Christendom and the cultural heritage of the Dixie people, which is Anglo-Celtic in nature -- a hybrid of English, Scottish and Irish culture.

I am convinced that a free and independent Southland of Dixie will inevitably result in more freedom and independence for those states in the North and West that choose to stay within the Federal Union of the United States of America. This is because Washington DC will likely loosen its grip on the states in order to prevent another secession/independence movement from arising elsewhere in the nation. That is assuming the United States actually survives much longer as a nation.

Dixie Nationalists Frequently
Turn Out To Protest Government Suppression
These Events Have Come To Be Called
'Flag Rallies' or just 'Flagging.'
They irritate liberal modernists to no end.

There are many signs that indicate the United States will not last much longer anyway. The rising federal debt, along with a stagnating economy and social discord seem to be pointing in the direction of a rapid decline. It is quite possible the United States may break up into multiple smaller nation-states anyway, regardless of what happens in Dixieland. That being the case, we Americans should all be thinking about where our loyalties reside, and what culture we most closely identify with. Because in the not-too-distant future, we may need to act in accordance with that just to survive.

If you would like to join the League of the South as well, you can do so BY CLICKING HERE. You do not need to be a Southerner to join the League or support its charitable causes. Simple donations to various charitable causes can be made HERE. Donations can also be made to 'Southern Heritage 411' HERE.  Or if you prefer, Southern heritage merchandise can be purchased HERE, with the proceeds going to 'Southern Heritage 411.'  I don't believe one is even required to be an American to make donations. If you agree with Dixie independence and the promotion of Southern culture along with the virtues of Christendom, than supporting the 'League of the South' or 'Southern Heritage 411' are ways you can help make it happen.

The St. Andrew's Banner of Dixie Papists

PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH OTHERS USING THE 'SHARE' ICONS BELOW.

Obama's War On The U.S. Catholic Church

Originally posted back on July 3, 2009. I brought it back from the archives to shed some light on Obama's recent HHS mandate....

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It is the opinion of this blogger that alleged President Barack Obama is actively working to do everything he can to crack and split the U.S. Catholic Church in half. His appointment of exclusively pro-abortion Cafeteria Catholics to key positions in the government, coupled with the statements below demonstrate this beyond the shadow of a doubt. Allow me to elaborate....

Obama has a pro-choice Liberation Theology (i.e. "Christian" Socialism) agenda, and the only thing standing in the way is the U.S. Catholic Church, which officially opposes both. Unfortunately, the U.S. Catholic Church has been considerably weakened in recent years, plagued by sex-scandals (which only affected 5% of the clergy), and other scandals related to associations of the USCCB, coupled with a general liturgical crisis and poor catechises over the past four decades. The U.S. Catholic Church is ripe for schism, and President Barack Obama knows if such a thing were to happen, it would only help clear the way to push his agenda through. Nothing would serve the Obama administration better than a U.S. Catholic Church torn by infighting and reorganization.

There is nothing new about this strategy. It's been successfully employed in the past by Marxist regimes in Central and South America, where Liberation Theology (i.e. "Christian" Socialism) was born and has pitted the Catholic clergy and laity against each other in that region. Obama is doing the exact same thing here in the USA, except he's just a bit more subtle about it. It all starts with the appointment of dissenting Cafeteria Catholics (who agree with his pro-abortion Marxist goals) to key positions in government. Obama has made it clear that Catholics who actually believe and practice what the Church teaches on abortion and socialism are not welcome in his administration. In other words, Catholics who oppose the teachings of the Church will be rewarded with high level cabinet positions, while Catholics who adhere to Church teaching need not apply.

Okay, so what does this do?

Well, the U.S. Catholic Church is already split on social issues about 50/50. Approximately 50% of U.S. Catholics are what we call "practicing Catholics" (actually the number may be a little less than that, but about 50% rise to the occasion when the bishops call them to on key issues). The other 50% are what we call Cafeteria Catholics, and these are the dissenting group who may (or may not) regularly go to mass, and like to "pick and choose" which teachings of the Church they will follow, and which they will not. It's sort of like a "salad bar" approach to the Catholic faith. According to the Vatican, and the U.S. Catholic bishops, this Cafeteria Catholicism is unacceptable, and in some cases it causes those who practice it to put their status in the Church in jeopardy. In other words, Cafeteria Catholics aren't really good Catholics, they just say they are.

By exclusively putting Cafeteria Catholics in key government positions, Obama is pandering to the Cafeteria Catholic community, and in the United States, that's about 50% of all U.S. Catholics. Simultaneously he shields himself from any criticism of anti-Catholicism, because he has plausible deniability. As soon as the accusation is made, he can simply say that such charges are ridiculous because he's appointed more "Catholics" to government positions than any other president in recent memory. He won't bother to point out, of course, that these are only Catholics who oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church. His most recent nomination of a Cafeteria Catholic to the U.S. Supreme Court was his crowning achievement in implementing phase one of his plan to crack and split the U.S. Catholic Church in two.

Phase two is now underway. Barack Obama will embark on a media campaign, directly engaging U.S. Catholics, via press interviews and photo ops with the pope and various Catholic leaders. This is where the propaganda war goes into effect. What Obama started in appointments, he now follows through with in commentary. On July 2nd, Obama met with a Catholic press conference ahead of his July 10th meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. In that interview he had the following to say, among many other things, but the trigger lines I have bolded for clear recognition....
“When I was first becoming interested in social justice issues, the American bishops were talking about nuclear freezes and sanctuary for illegal immigrants and protesting U.S. policy in Latin America, and there was, I think, a very different set of perspectives that were represented, arising out of the Second Vatican. And then there was a decided shift that I think took place within — among Church officials. And, in some ways, that tracked changes in American society at large, or at least American politics... I think responses to my administration mirror tensions within the Church as a whole. Cardinal Bernardin was strongly pro-life, never shrank away from talking about that issue, but was very consistent in talking about a ‘seamless garment’ and a range of issues that were part and parcel of what he considered to be pro-life, that meant that he was concerned about poverty; he was concerned about how children were treated; he was concerned about the death penalty; he was concerned about foreign policy... and that part of the Catholic tradition is something that continues to inspire me. And I think that there have been times over the last decade or two where that more holistic tradition feels like it’s gotten buried under the abortion debate. Now, as a non-Catholic, it’s not up to me to try to resolve those tensions... All I can do is to affirm how that other tradition has made me, a non-Catholic, I think reflect on how I can be a better person and has had a powerful influence on my life. And that tells me that it might be a powerful way to move a broader set of values forward in American life generally.”
Okay, notice how Obama is trying to pit one side of Catholic Social teaching against another, and thereby trying to pit Cafeteria Catholics against practicing Catholics. He's lecturing the U.S. Catholic bishops (and ultimately the pope) on how Catholic emphasis on the holocaust of abortion is clouding the "larger" social teaching of the Church. In effect, he's telling the U.S. Catholic bishops (and the pope) that they ought to tone it down a bit on the abortion issue, so more Catholic Americans can "recognize" how much he supposedly agrees with the other aspects of Catholic social teaching. But does he really expect the pope and bishops to take his advice? Of course not! He may be a narcissist, but he's not stupid. Obama knows perfectly well that his supposed "advice" will fall on deaf ears with the pope and bishops, and in fact, he's counting on it. The comments are not intended for the pope and bishops. They're designed for the 50% of U.S. Cafeteria Catholics who would be more inclined to agree with him on the matter. The point here is to come across as seeming "reasonable" and "open to dialog." The idea being that he wants to paint the pope and U.S. Catholic bishops as being "unreasonable" and "stubborn." His coming photo op with the pope will be his capstone on this phase of the plan.

Notice, however, that Obama let the cat out of the bag with the second bolded comment. He said "I think responses to my administration mirror tensions within the Church as a whole." This is the wedge people. He just pointed out the very thing he hopes to exacerbate by his actions and comments. In this one comment he has revealed that he is all too aware of the catechises problem within the U.S. Catholic Church. He is mindful of the sad fact that the U.S. Catholic bishops have nearly lost control of half of their flock, and indeed some of those bishops are contributing to the problem. Then he goes on to lament how the Catholic bishops "unreasonable and stubborn" emphasis on abortion has "obscured" the "larger message" of Catholic social teaching, of which he claims to be in agreement on. We can expect a lot more comments like this in the near future, as this is the strategy folks. He's trying to paint the leaders of the Catholic Church as intolerant and unreasonable. Simultaneously, he's trying to make himself out to have a greater understanding of Catholic social teaching than the Church does. It's designed to drive the wedge deeper between Practicing Catholics and Cafeteria Catholics. It's designed to pit as many Catholics as he can against the leadership of the U.S. Catholic Church. It's designed to create a full-blown and all-out schism in the U.S. Catholic Church, and thus neutralize the influence of U.S. Catholic bishops on the 2012 election, and any major issue of his agenda that comes up between now and then.

Of course, the last thing Obama will let us know is that he really doesn't agree with the Catholic Church on ANY of it's social teaching. That's the dirty little secret. You see, Catholic social teaching on poverty and fairness is based on the principle of SUBSIDIARITY. Essentially it's an anti-Marxist principle. The idea of subsidiarity is that it's immoral for larger government functions to take over and perform the roles of smaller entities (state, city, local, neighborhood, family, parish church, private charity, etc.) when those entities are perfectly capable of performing those functions for themselves. The larger government entities should instead refrain from direct interference (i.e. micro-management) and instead attempt to coordinate efforts between them, to help things run more smoothly. In other words, the American principles of limited government and federalism are consistent with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, while the Marxist principles of huge government and micro-management are not. Unfortunately, the kind of Liberation Theology Obama believes in is Marxist in principle, and flies in the face of subsidiarity. The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church is very clear that all social principles are based on subsidiarity, and subsidiarity is the "hinge" upon which all Catholic Social Justice turns.