The Real Reason

This will not be a particularly long post because what I have to say can be said fairly briefly...unless, of course, I manage to ramble on.

I have known many people who call themselves socialists, but I've never been able to get any of them to admit that communism is not a good thing. In other words, they believe what all true socialists believe: socialism is just a step along the path to full-fledged communism. 

 

We must understand that socialists and communists are all Marxists. This single fact is a key that explains much of what we are experiencing as the China virus wreaks havoc in this country and around the world. It explains why New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, an avowed Marxist, wants to use the virus as a means to destroy small businesses. Marxists, you see, despise those small business owners, the budding capitalists who represent the middle class, what they like to call the bourgeoisie, because the middle class are avid free-marketers. Indeed, the middle class could not exist for long without a free market.

 

Marxist power brokers want everyone to be counted among the proletariat, everyone, that is, except themselves, the Marxist elite. Without a thriving middle class, the proletariat, the workers, must then turn to the state for everything. They must also be conditioned to do whatever the state tells them, even though these orders violate their God-given freedoms. "It's for your own good. We know best!"

 

The non-ideological governors, mayors, city councilors, and others -- those who seek only to feather their own nests and gain power -- unwittingly fill the role of Lenin's useful idiots. Because they are motivated solely by power and money, they gladly follow the policies of their advisors -- the "experts" who will lead them to the power they crave. Of course, once the public cedes power to the politicians, the Marxist experts usually act quickly and remove the puppets from office. After all, once in power the ideologues can disarm the citizenry, leaving themselves with far more than mere political power.

 

It's just a series of variations on the same story, repeated whenever socialism was tried and inevitably found wanting. Socialism does indeed lead to societal equality, except for the Marxist elite, for it brings everyone else down to a common material and spiritual poverty. It's truly remarkable that a system with an unbroken record of failure can still attract so many.

Modern Gnostics

(This is the second -- and probably the final -- post on gnosticism and its presence in today's world, a sequel to my earlier post: Roots of Modern Gnosticism)

_____________

When we examine ancient gnosticism's modern successors, we encounter a change, or a progressive movement that renounces God, or really any belief in a vertical, other-worldly transcendence. Gone, then, is the “hidden God” of the ancient gnostics, replaced by a horizontal belief in a closed historical process manipulated by a revolutionary elite. According to these elitists, these modern gnostics, only they can understand the process as history moves inexorably forward, one step after another. 

For the gnostic, the old world -- that is, traditional society and its institutions -- must be destroyed to make way for the new. Change, then, means destruction. This transformation will take place thanks to the knowledge -- the gnosis -- possessed by the elite who will manage the process. We see shades of this gnostic thought among politicians, intellectuals, academics, revolutionaries, media pundits, and others who desire to transform the world through programs run by experts, by those in the know. In other words, the gnostic, rejecting the God who acts in and redeems the world, believes in self-salvation through human knowledge.

Eric Voegelin, one of the more stable and believable 20th-century philosophers, reminds us of the gnostic's "prohibition of questions." Using Karl Marx as an example, Voegelin describes Marx's unwillingness to answer questions as central to his philosophy. To paraphrase Marx: For socialist man, questions become an impossibility. When socialist man speaks, man must be silent. Indeed, for Marx, questioning his thought "becomes a practical impossibility." 

Interestingly, Rudolf Hőss, the commander of the infamous Nazi death camp at Auschwitz, when asked at trial why he did not question or disobey the horrific extermination orders, replied that such a thought would never even occur to him. "Something like that was just completely impossible...I had to carry it out," he said. Yes, indeed, for all socialists questions become "a practical impossibility." It matters little whether they are communists (international socialists) or Nazis (national socialists) or run-of-the-mill socialists (democratic socialists), since they employ identical tactics -- some just more subtle than others -- when it comes to exerting power over others. Too many people have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, that the word, “Nazi,” was shorthand for the full name of the political party founded by Adolph Hitler, the Nationalsozialtische Deutsche Arbeiterpartie, or the National Socialist Workers Party. There is really very little difference between extremists on the left or right. 

[Note: If you have about 22 minutes to watch a homily that addresses the role of Divine Mercy in the conversion of Rudolf Hőss before his execution, watch the video I've embedded below. As my eighth-grade teacher, Sister Francis Jane, often said, "You might be surprised whom you meet in heaven...assuming you get there."]

We see this prohibition of questions, too, in the response of today's leftists to serious questions, a response that inevitably centers on attacking the questioner. The gnostic mob -- regardless of what it calls itself -- silences its questioners with personal attacks, both verbal and physical, and with noise. It screams it’s irrational chants as it tries to destroy the symbols and ultimately the foundation of the existing society.

The gnostic "spirit", however, is largely a revolt against God. Marx, in his doctoral dissertation, provides us with the perfect example of this. Like Prometheus, Marx writes:  

In a word, “I hate all the gods” is its own confession, its own verdict against all the gods heavenly and earthly who do not acknowledge human self-consciousness as the supreme deity. There shall be none beside it.

The Marxist, a true modern gnostic, rebels against the cosmic order created by God and, therefore, rebels against God Himself. But today's gnostic knows that such a revelation might well undermine his legitimacy in a world that still largely accepts a transcendent God who cares for His creation. And so, the gnostic must deceive, knowingly deceive, and perpetuate an ideological shell game. It's a game that cannot  succeed in the long run; but in the short-run some very nasty things can happen, as they have in the past and are happening in the present.

Fascism and communism are both manifestations of the modernist and socialist ideology that rejects God. In a sense they embrace the first sin in Eden — “you, too, shall be like gods” — and like all evils attempt to imitate good but ultimately embrace the culture of death. From the beginning of recorded history to 1900, governments murdered an estimated 133 million of their own citizens. Between 1901 and 1987, governments killed nearly 170 million of their own citizens. Stalin slaughtered 41 million, Mao 35 million, and Hitler 21 million. Another 38,5 million died in state-sponsored wars during the same period. 

If you can make your way through such modern philosophers as Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Marx you will encounter the core of modern gnostic thought. Marx was probably the most influential, although Nietzsche was certainly the most readable. Yes, they were all intellectuals, but those who took their ideology into the streets — Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all the rest — were really just thugs. In fact, once the thugs gained control, the intellectuals and the academics were usually the first to go. During the so-called “Cultural Revolution” in Communist China (1962-1976), Mao first adopted the slogan, “Never Forget Class Struggle.” Under this slogan Mao encouraged the students to rise up against their teachers who were labeled bourgeois intellectuals. The students, who evolved into the infamous and brutal Red Guards, beat and imprisoned their teachers. Mao even attacked the party itself because he believed too many of its functionaries were insufficiently revolutionary. This phase was spurred on by the slogan, “Sweep Away All Monsters and Demons.” Mao later demanded the Red Guards erase all vestiges of the old culture, which led these young thugs to attack virtually everyone. Destruction was universal — churches, temples, shops, libraries, cemeteries, museums, monuments, statues, even pets were destroyed — and countless people were slaughtered. The entire process was orchestrated by Mao as a form of directed anarchy, violence from below but with approval from above.

Under Marxism — and, folks, socialism, even Bernie’s and AOC's so-called “democratic socialism,” is founded on Marxist principles — human beings are seen as socially determined by their historical and material circumstances; they are not defined by their infinite worth before a transcendent God. According to Marx himself, Marxist revolution implies “the replacement of religion by politics as the source of man’s liberation, since evil is a consequence of society...and not of an original sin,” and it ultimately leads to an ennoblement of violence and the extinction of ethics. 

Revolutionary ethics sees its own version of violence as liberating, unlike what it claims is the repressive violence of the established order. Marxism approves of the former as the means to overcome the latter. We will continue to encounter this "liberating" violence so long as those who should know better continue to support and bankroll violent revolutionaries.

Barack Obama called for the "fundamental transformation of America" but to the far left these words simply mean total revolution. And in total revolution violence becomes just fine, a necessary tool to achieve the complete alteration of the society. Ethics, too, at least ethics as we know it, becomes meaningless, since such concepts as justice, freedom, and morality are incompatible with revolution because they represent and legitimize the existing order which must be destroyed. Oh, these words and others like them will be parroted to recruit those who believe society is oppressing them, but to the revolutionary they mean little. 

Because the modern gnostic elites believe they know better than the masses, they really can’t stand the thought of the uninitiated being free to use the gifts God has given them. For the same reason, elitists, whether of the liberal or revolutionary variety, always crave power. For the revolutionary, the only acceptable form of democracy is mob rule, the democracy of violence which for them is the pathway to power. Liberal elites are more subtle and strive to convince the masses to trust them because they know better, all the while working within “the system” to undermine the people’s freedom. Publicly they minimize the violence of the revolutionaries, although they fear it could get out of hand and threaten their personal power. And yet this same fear leads them to continue their quiet support of the revolutionaries.

A recent Rugters University study found that the social media profiles of some anarchists gained hundreds of thousands of followers since May. According to Pamela Paresky, one of the study's co-authors:  

"The systematic, online mobilization of violence was well-planned, coordinated (in real tme), and celebrated by explicitly violent anarchy-socilaist networks that rode on the coattails of peaceful protest...The ability to continue to spread and to eventually bring more violence, including a violent insurgency, relies on the ability to hide in plain sight -- to be confused with legitimate protest, and for the media and the public to minimize the threat."

As I mentioned in a recent post -- Madness Rising -- the similarities with the early years of the Russian Revolution are striking. 

What’s behind it all? For the true believers, it”s driven by their ideology and their quest for power. For the followers, Lenin’s “useful idiots”, I really believe that too many today simply refuse to recognize that which is good, that which is beautiful. Modern education has taught them that the world of man lacks goodness, and the wonders and beauty of God’s creation escapes them. Lacking moral imagination, the concept of sin and disorder in the human soul means nothing to them. How can it, since they reject the very idea of the goodness of creation by a transcendent, loving God who acts in the world? One gets the impression they’re just bored with it all.

There is much evil in the world today, but that’s nothing new. The evil — and that means Satan and all his followers — are unable to fathom the motives of the good. We see evidence of this in the way so many haters simply cannot understand religious values, particularly Christian values. One need olny read the mainstream media's coverage of things Christian, and especially that related to the Catholic CHurch.

We who believe, though, live on in trust and in hope; and hope is knowledge, the firm knowledge that "all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose" [Rom 8:28]. God will indeed bring all things to good because the good is far more powerful than any evil and will emerge the victor.

Strange Doings

Just a few of the random thoughts that have arisen in my often confused and certainly aging mind as I try to understand the more confused minds of those who make the headlines.

Oh, Canada! A few days ago an acquaintance asked me, "Did you read what Canada has done? What's with those Canadians? Have they gone insane?" He was referring to a law passed overwhelmingly (67 to 11) by the Canadian Senate that makes it a crime to refer to a person's sex by other than the term the person desires. In other words, should a Canadian decide that he/she/it is none of these but prefers to be called by another manufactured pronoun, such as "zir" or "zie" or "zit" or whatever, you must acquiesce to the loon's desires or face criminal prosecution. As my friend suggested, this is, of course, insane. But rest assured, the Canadians have not "gone" insane, they have simply remained insane. Indeed, a mild form of insanity has been their occasional mental state for the past few hundred years. After all, rather than join us in our quest to free ourselves from tyranny, they remained loyal to King George III, a man whose madness is rather well documented. So...the Canadians rejected George Washington -- a good guy and a very smart and sane man -- and instead placed their future well-being in the hands of another George, who happened to be a madman. I rest my case. I have only one question: Will those 11 senators who voted against the measure be prosecuted for discrimination? This would seem to be the most likely outcome for a nation comfortable with insanity.

LGBTQetc and Islam. Isn't it a bit odd that the Alphabet Corps of self-declared victims of sexual discrimination has become another voice decrying what they perceive to be Western (i.e., once Christian) Civilization's rampant Islamophobia? I do find this odd since virtually every Muslim-majority nation has sharia-based laws prohibiting homosexual and "related" behavior. And in many of these nations -- including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, and others -- the punishment under these laws includes the death penalty. Strange bedfellows...so to speak. It only confirms the late James Burnham's belief that liberalism is just another form of suicide. (See his remarkable and prophetic 1964 book, Suicide of the West.) 

Violence on the Left. What do Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, and Bernie Sanders have in common? Well, OK, four of them are dead, but all five are (or were) Marxists. And once we establish that basic fact, the violence we encounter on the political left today becomes understandable. Socialism is just a seemingly "soft" form of Marxism. But it is Marxism nonetheless and accepts the basic tenets of Marxist faith. One of these tenets is the need for revolution to accomplish its ends. In the words of Elton John: "We go up the revolution, freedom strike another blow. Yeah, strike another blow." In this context, of course, freedom includes only the freedom to believe what the Marxist believes.

That's why all of those young collegiate Marxists, who have been indoctrinated by all those aging professorial Marxists, get violent whenever someone who holds an opposing view dares to show up on campus. Yeah, strike another blow.

That's why a mediocre comedian can hold up an effigy of the decapitated head of the president and get rave reviews from her fellow travelers. Yeah, strike another blow.

That's why a Bernie Sanders toady can decide it's fine to shoot up a Republican congressional baseball practice. Yeah, strike another blow.

That's why a Nebraskan Democratic official can say he wished the baseball-field shooter had actually killed that  Republican representative instead of just wounding him. Yeah, strike another blow.

Interestingly, according to a recent poll, registered Democrats now prefer socialism to free-market capitalism by a double-digit advantage: 49% to 37%. I can only assume this will lead to increased violence on the left and quite likely an increase in violent responses from the far right.

Yes, indeed, we live in a strange, confused world. Thank God for God.

Laudato Si -- The Pope Speaks

A few days ago, early, before the Florida sun burned too hot, Maddie and I took our usual morning walk. Maddie is our little Bichon Frise (that's a dog for all you cat lovers), and she and I walk together twice daily. The length of these walks varies -- sometimes a mile, sometimes two miles, sometimes more -- and so too does the direction. I usually let Maddie decide which way to turn as we depart the driveway. It's the least I can do for this loving creature who spends so much of her life obeying others.

An egret

On this particular morning Maddie turned left and led me to a pond about a quarter-mile from our home. It is, of course, an artificial pond, one placed purposely alongside our street which bisects an executive golf course. Our retirement community, The Villages, has kindly placed several benches there so one can sit quietly and watch the waterbirds or listen to the song birds. And so I sat while Maddie engaged in her life's work of sniffing every blade of grass she encounters.

Because it was so early, barely past sunrise, few humans or canines were up and about. Maddie and I could, therefore, more fully appreciate the remarkable beauty and quiet sounds of God's creation. No golf carts, no garbage trucks, no landscapers with their pick-ups and trailers, no handymen hammering, no unnatural noises, just the sound of Maddie quietly sniffing and the plaintive cooing of a mourning dove perched above me in a small magnolia tree. At the edge of the pond, just a few yards from my bench, two great egrets stood motionless, solemnly watching the antics of an anhinga or "snake-bird" that tirelessly dove again and again into the calm waters. Across the pond a family of five black-bellied whistling ducks waddled through the grass toward the opposite shore.

Whistling Ducks

Sitting on that bench in that quiet time of the day, I couldn't help but consider how well man and nature seem to have come together here. Indeed, The Villages has become a virtual bird sanctuary. I have seen herons, egrets and ibises of all sizes and colors, eagles, osprey, and hawks of every kind, flocks of white pelicans, many varieties of songbirds, and, of course, the ubiquitous mockingbird. They all seem to thrive here. We also have alligators, but they tend to avoid all but the stupidest of humans.

Anyway, as I sat, not so much watching and listening as absorbing my surroundings, I couldn't help but think of Pope Francis and his first encyclical, Laudato Si. My immediate setting, while not as wildly pristine as a rain forest in New Guinea or the deep woods of Canada, was certainly not repellant. What were once farmers' fields filled with watermelons, and pastures in which horses and cattle grazed, are now well cared-for neighborhoods. Ponds and green space abound, as do the large live oak trees so common in this part of Florida. I found myself thinking that this transformation of the land from agrarian use to human habitat was not necessarily a step backward. As Christians we understand that man is also a part of creation; indeed, as revealed in Genesis, we are the very pinnacle of God's creative work. This places an awesome responsibility on us: to accept that creation is God's doing, that He "owns" it, and that we are called to be good stewards of all that He has given us.

For those of you who haven't read Laudato Si, and I assume that includes many of you, let me say that it's not a quick and easy read. The encyclical is long -- more than 40,000 words -- and I expect many copies will sit unread on a lot of bookshelves or computer hard drives. I managed to make my way through it, but spent an entire evening doing so. To digest its contents fully I will need to read it again much more slowly. My comments here, then, simply reflect my own first impressions.

When a pope speaks, people listen. But far too many listen less to the pope and more to their own biases and ideological preconceptions. We see this in the range of reactions (including mine) arising in response to what Pope Francis had to say.

Those who pitch their tents among the extreme environmentalists of the far left concentrate their praise on the pope's concern for what he calls the “present ecological crisis” abetted by a "throwaway culture" that contributes greatly to the earth's environmental deterioration. But many of these same folks -- at least those who years ago made the ideological transition from a failed Marxism to green environmentalism -- ignore the Gospel of Creation that forms the foundation of the pope's thinking on humanity's relationship with the earth. In other words, his environmentalism is fine, but why on earth did he have to inject it with God and Jesus Christ and the Gospel and Creation and all that other religious stuff? And so they simply ignore the latter and focus on the former.

Opposed to the environmentalists we hear the complaints of those critics who believe the pope has been co-opted either by far left socialists who blame capitalism for all the world's ills or by "wacko greens" who believe the earth would be a far better place without humanity. For these critics there is no environmental crisis, and even if there were, technology and the free market would solve any ecological problems that might arise. Because some, but certainly not all, of these people are believing Christians they find themselves conflicted by the pope's encyclical and its deep religious roots. They manage to resolve the conflict, appeasing themselves by saying that Pope Francis is, after all, not speaking ex cathedra. Indeed, for them Laudato Si is just the word of a man, not the Word of God, so they really don't have to accept this particular papal teaching. Most, therefore, will simply ignore everything the pope has to say.

Of course there have been other reactions to the encyclical, some favorable and some not. I suspect many of the initial batch of pundits simply reacted to the out of context snippets that appeared in the secular media. Honestly, because my initial exposure to the encyclical was in the form of leaked excerpts, my preconceived notions led me to some erroneous first impressions. There's no need to include them here.

I'm certainly not qualified to discuss every aspect of the encyclical. Like all of us I have my opinions, but I'm not a climatologist and cannot address the science on which Pope Francis relies heavily. The question many Catholics have already asked me is, "Do I have to accept everything the pope says in his encyclical?" I suppose the only correct answer is, "It depends."

When it comes to the science behind climate change and the pope's proposed public policy responses, an informed Catholic might disagree so long as that disagreement is based on a firm foundation. Given the continued debate within the scientific community on the causes and direction of climate change, I believe one might reasonably disagree with the pope on these issues. As for how society should respond, the pope himself recognizes that others might differ with him. After all, if history has shown us one thing it's that science is not static, and future advances in technology might well enable new and better approaches to the use of natural resources and the protection of the environment.

Unfortunately, too many people will focus on the more controversial aspects of the encyclical, elements that might well be overcome by future events, and ignore the crucial theological and moral underpinnings.

It's important to realize that papal concern for the environment did not begin with Pope Francis. Indeed, many of his concerns have been expressed by his predecessors and other Catholic thinkers. He begins by quoting his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, whose Canticle of the Creatures calls the earth "our Sister Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us,”. Indeed, that same canticle gives the encyclical its name. 

Continuing his introductory comments Pope Francis refers to Pope Saint John XXIII's 1963 encyclical, Pacem in Terris, to Pope Paul VI's frequent references to humanity's poor environmental stewardship, to the ecological concerns expressed by Pope Saint John Paul II in several of his encyclicals, and to Pope Benedict XVI's demand that as Christians we openly recognize how our irresponsible behavior has damaged the environment. Pope Francis also quotes the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, Bartholomew I of Constantinople, who has often addressed humanity's "sins against creation." In Bartholomew's words, “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God.”

In other words, the current pontiff's concerns are nothing new. As I read the encyclical I couldn't help but think of the late Jesuit theologian, Romano Guardini (1985-1968), who has had such a significant influence on my own thinking. Guardini was a prolific writer, but the theme of  two of his books in particular seem to resonate with Pope Francis: Letters from Lake Como (1926) and The End of the Modern World (1956). It wasn't until today that I discovered Pope Francis had spent years studying Guardini and his work. To summarize Guardini's thought, he believed the modern world had been transformed in a way that encouraged enmity between humanity and nature. Instead of living within God's creation and nurturing it as a good steward, modern man has decided he must control or master it.

Such themes are also evident in the writings of Feodor Dostoevsky,  J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis and others who recognized that both unchecked capitalism and radical Marxism suffer from a common materialism that attempts to excise religion from the human spirit. For example, reading the encyclical, I'm reminded of the words of Dostoevsky's monk in the Brothers Karamazov:

"Love all God's creation, the whole and every grain of sand init. Love every leaf, every ray of God's light. Love the animals,love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you willperceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, youwill begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come atlast to love the whole world with an all-embracing love. Love theanimals: God has given them the rudiments of thought and joyuntroubled. Do not trouble it, don't harass them, don't deprive themof their happiness, don't work against God's intent. Man, do not prideyourself on superiority to the animals; they are without sin, and you,with your greatness, defile the earth by your appearance on it, andleave the traces of your foulness after you -- alas, it is true ofalmost every one of us! Love children especially, for they too aresinless like the angels; they live to soften and purify our heartsand, as it were, to guide us."

One gets the sense that Pope Francis has been greatly influenced by the thinking of such men as these, although he certainly has his own ideas on how it relates to the world today.

This post is already too long, so let me wrap it up with my agreements and disagreements. I agree with the pope's concerns about the world's deepening addiction to consumerism, about humanity's elites and their general disregard for the poor and the common good, and about the rise of technocrats and the misuse of science and the technology that flows from it. I also greatly appreciate the pope's focus on the environmental damage that one encounters, especially in the second and third world where the accession of power too often trumps everything else. Finally, we need to be reminded of our own place in God's creation, and of the responsibilities this places on us.

My concerns relate to the pope's belief that there is a scientific consensus about both global warming and its causes. His thinking seems to echo the kind of naive view of science often heard from Al Gore and others like him. Perhaps more importantly, though, the pope also, in seeming contradiction to his own warnings about the rise of technocrats, recommends that we come together globally, applying our technology to the environmental problems facing us. The problem with giving governments or global agencies the power to carry out such a worldwide mandate is that those who wield this power will almost surely misuse it. Even when applied with the best of intentions, such power usually leads to negative unintended consequences that often create a whole new set of problems. Lastly, I had hoped that Pope Francis, following the lead of his predecessors, would use this encyclical to teach his flock about how our faith and morality are affected by these issues plaguing the modern world. Instead, he has given us an encyclical that, at least in part, reminds one of the sort of quasi-political documents produced by committees at the United Nations.

Laudato Si will surely be studied, talked about, and written about for years to come. I trust this study will lead to a clearer understanding of man's place in the world and how best to address the problems we have created for ourselves. In the meantime, once it cools down this afternoon, I intend to take Maddie for another walk, thanking God for her and for all of His creation.