PHASE 1 OF THE COMING PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS
Filed, October 16, 2006------PAULY FONGEMIE


WHEN Hitler and his henchmen decided to do away with the Jews en masse, they utilized several steps in sequence, in order to condition the populace in general to accept the "final solution". They had to count on the passive nature of the majority of people who are followers, not leaders. The first phase was mockery which evolved into the outright dehumanization of the Jews, who were branded as sub-human and the cause of Germany's economic woes. Hitler and his medical monsters had already done the same with those who had life-long disabilities, and who were considered useless eaters and expendable. When Catholic leaders, especially priests, objected from the pulpit and in Church publications, they, too were ridiculed in the Nazi press, the butt of every joke and so forth; and to make sure that the message stuck like flies to flypaper, the Nazis used ugly cartoons to depict Catholic priests, Jews, anyone they deemed a threat to the goals of the super-race and Nazi domination. There was very little that could be done to counteract this injustice because the Nazis either censored the press and or virtually shut down the non-Nazi press. Before any actual physical cruelty can be pursued on a grand scale, that is, a war against a people, genocide itself, the war of words must occur in order to redefine "reality". The Nazis were most adept as those of us who did not live under their persecution now know. The media was one of their most effective tools, apart from stark terror generated by the Gestapo, the politically correct police of its day. Jews who survived the Holocaust and who were interviewed for documentaries said that most at first could not believe the repression would lead to mass extermination, since they had lived in Germany for generations and "had been good Germans". Some of the Jews, even when given an opportunity to flee in the beginning, declined. Then it was too late. They would learn to adapt and hope for the best. We have our modern day scoffers, who scorn those of us who raise the alarm, too.

Tuning into MS-NBC's Tucker Carlson's news and debate show last week I realized that the Nazis may have a modern rival for mockery, Gestapo "arrangements" and cruelty. Mr. Carlson did not host the show that evening, which had the former Congressman, Joe Scarborough, who has his own program, as the substitute host. Two of the commentators were an MS-NBC regular, Lawrence O'Donnell, a Massachusetts liberal who was caught cheating in his field, which is journalism, and who has lately been "rehabilitated" as a television mediapert [impertinence a hallmark] and who is the afore-alluded to successor to the tactics of the Nazis. Nothing succeeds as celebrity in this culture and if the notoriety is because of folly, why that's okay, better this kind of fame rather than none at all, it seems, especially if one is going to moralize for the American people. The other commentator was a man who represents one of the Christian family groups: I won't embarrass him by mentioning his name because he was taken by surprise and who knows how anyone of us would react in the same circumstances? I have come to expect bad behavior from most ultra-left, traditional Catholic-hating liberals, but I was still shocked that the supposed Christian Scarborough, who as host always has command of the proceedings, did not seem to object to O'Donnell's method of intimidation to silence opposition. Here is how this portion of the show went, in somewhat abbreviated form, for the purpose of a short article:

The topic of discussion was a recently published book on Bush, whose author claimed that POTUS has been scamming the Christians, in essence. I haven't read the book, know nothing of the author, yet the premise sounds plausible, especially since the "pro-life" POTUS signed the fetal stem-cell bill, for starters. But that is another subject for another day. I merely mention it by way of setting up the segment interchange. Scarborough started with O'Donnell, who seemed somewhat dismissive of the book's claims, and then used the same claims to attack Christians in general. He was there to discuss Bush and his actions, not traditional, observing Christians across the country. While the regular host, Carlson, has some liberal ideas and sentiments, under no circumstances would he have permitted O'Donnell a platform to condemn an entire group of people gratuitously. Interestingly since this radical liberal dismissed the book for the most part, why was he asked to be the opponent of a Christian who defended Bush on the whole? Since there was no strong disagreement, O'Donnell had the perfect platform for his own agenda. Almost like a setup. I say almost, because Tucker Carlson, while not exactly perfect, has integrity and would not resort to this ploy when booking guests.

The Massachusetts malcontent insisted that his debate opponent, the Christian activist, was "crazy" [and he meant this certifiable, not in the loose vernacular] if he, the Christian, thought that [the majority] those people in the world who "do not accept Christ as their Savior" were going to Hell! This was a complete non sequitur. He repeated the incendiary overture almost like a harangue, reminding me of Hitler when he was just getting warmed up, but instead of Jews, this Gestapo capo was branding traditional Christians as "crazy", over and over again. The activist attempted to redirect the debate to the actual subject at hand, as promoted by the cable network, and would not answer O'Donnell's charges. I assume that he was taken aback unexpectedly, and struggled as best as he knew how.

It is O'Donnell who is crazy, and I mean this certifiable also, if he really thinks what he said and meant to say it. Perhaps he likes being downright nasty and churlish just to do so, but his hatred of traditional Christians was more convincing than anything else he conveyed to this viewer. Compare his acceptable tirade to the loose tongue of Mel Gibson who is still doing mea culpas.

As we traditional Catholics and evangelical or non-mainline Christians, who defend Christ daily, have come to realize with a startling, frightening clarity, there is a loosely-organized, but relentless body of non-believers, secularists and Christians who want things both ways and who are the perfect shills for the anti-God squad, and who congratulate themselves on being up-to-date-----this vast army holds powerful, influential positions in the law, [ACLU for one], the media, the academy, science, medicine, the arts, and in religious circles, almost unbelievably! In one manner or the other they all express a hostility to Christianity, while not seeming to mind other religions and are waging war on Christ, quite literally. Woe to those of us who get in their way. How many times has it been that I have been on the receiving end of such a liberal as described above and with the same taunt of derision: "You are crazy!" Crazy as in mentally ill. This sets the example to anyone else who might be thinking of coming to the defense of Jesus Christ and His sovereignty, that this is the treatment that they, too, will receive. Better shut up if you cannot shape up and go with the program. Go along to get along, just like in Germany. We all know of the men and women who have lost positions because they espoused Christ and or did not accept the fraud of evolution. Ann Coulter in her book, Godless, provides ample documentation. Ignore Coulter's impeccable research at your own peril. And those who ought to know better, Christians, especially Catholics, turn the other way, like monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil, know no evil, except for the rest of us Christians, that is! Moralizing is verboten, of course, although they seem to have a special dispensation to moralize to us. Hmmm! They used to call it old-fashion hypocrisy, but actually it is much more than this human frailty. Whatever a particular motive may be, the tactic is successful. Every week I experience another Christian apologizing for his beliefs and morality. Yesterday a local song writer was featured in the daily paper. One of the songs she composed was about Jesus and she felt the need to explain, claiming it was by accident. Well, maybe so, but why not be proud to witness to Christ, as St. Paul tells us He ought to be our boast, not ourselves. I spoke about an obvious case of bias against Catholicism at the local university, and the woman I was informing is a life-long Catholic who just shrugged and was uncomfortable. Anti-Catholicism, why that is just a figment of your imagination, don't you know! Well, you get the idea. I wonder what she would think about the Idaho school system that gives extra credit to students who come to school in Moslem garb while Christians are not permitted the same opportunity, if she would bother in the first place, but simply dismiss this as another isolated incident that is less than worthy of comment.

Well, the gentleman from the Christian organization did not take up O'Donnell on his crazed challenge. Permit me to weigh in for the sake of Jesus Christ.

Lawrence O'Donnell, your quarrel is not with us traditionalists, non-liberals, but with Christ Himself. It is He who taught in the parable of the king [the Gospel for the nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Roman Missal] that the man who came to the wedding banquet, a metaphor for salvation, when invited, but who came without a proper garment, that is without being in the state of sanctifying grace, that he was to be bound, both hands and feet, and cast out the outer darkness where there would be the weeping and gnashing of teeth [Hell]. Christ, not that gentleman, nor I. Christ also said that the path to Hell was wide and many there are that follow it, while the road to Heaven was narrow and few there are that find it. I am paraphrasing a bit, but not out of context according to Tradition and the teachings of the Apostles who personally knew Christ as a close friend. Christ also instructed His followers that they, too, would be hated because of Him, and that this would not be to their shame but to their glory. The false charges the Sanhedrin accused Christ of are echoed in the distorted views by which Christians are often portrayed, on a continuing basis, less and less ad hoc and more and more embodying a concerted effort to kill Christ once anew by attempting to shame His followers. It is not enough to say one believes in Christ [not every man who says Lord, etc.], one must keep His word and believe Him.

Before Vatican II the Pontiffs faithful to the word of Christ taught that while it is possible for those officially outside of the Catholic Church to be saved, that "we cannot have good hope". You see, Christ also taught us that "I have other sheep, and them, too I must bring . . .". By bring, the Church teaches He means into His Church through Baptism, and so on. Period!

St. John the Baptist, who came as a herald of Christ, preached the necessity of Baptism and called adultery, adultery, not "a relationship". For this and other socially inconvenient truths he lost his head and is the greatest Saint after Our Lady. Not bad for the local boy gone "crazy"!

Since I long ago gave Jesus my heart, He might as well have my head also. Since I am old, perhaps I won't live long enough for this honor, but only live long enough to be put into an internment camp to be "rehabilitated", where I will perish from disease and starvation. Still, quite an honor, compared to the utter folly of those who are worldly wise and beyond stupid! Crazy, really, really crazy!

ARCHIVES----------NEXT----------HOME------------[OLDER] MONITOR

www.catholictradition.org/media-watch3.htm