U.N. Head Needs His Examined

I just read that the United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, a Portuguese socialist, is all aflutter about what he sees as an imminent climate apocalypse. In a doomsday address to the Security Council, he warned that rising sea levels will completely destroy many coastal nations. In his words, “Low-level communities and entire countries could disappear forever...We would witness a mass exodus of entire populations on a biblical scale." According to Guterres, such an inundation could wipe out a tenth of the world’s population. He continued, getting more specific with his fearful predictions: “Under any scenario, countries like Bangladesh, China, India and the Netherlands are all at risk…. Mega-cities on every continent will face serious impacts including Lagos, Maputo, Bangkok, Dhaka, Jakarta, Mumbai, Shanghai, Copenhagen, London, Los Angeles, New York, Buenos Aires and Santiago.” I’ve been to many of these cities and am trying to decide which ones I would miss. 

How to avoid the coming catastrophe? Guterres has the answer: get rid of fossil fuels, or as he describes it, “break the global addiction” to these nasty forms of energy. For Guterres they’re the real cause of everything wrong in the world. Last month he whined about his frustration with world leaders who simply did not give “the climate emergency the action and investment it requires.” He then lectured them on their lack of enthusiasm: “Words are not enough. Without climate action, climate catastrophe is coming for all of us.” And what a catastrophe it will be for folks like Barack Obama, Al Gore, and Joe Biden who own multi-million dollar waterfront homes. If they really believed this garbage, one would think they’d have already sold these homes and moved to Colorado.

I think, however, we can dismiss the Secretary General’s apocalyptic scenario simply because he’s a socialist. To buy into the socialist lie is to be irredeemably stupid. After all, socialism has failed wherever it’s been tried. But, you might argue, “How can he be stupid? He’s the Secretary General of the United Nations.” Allow me to don my conspiracy theorist hat and answer by suggesting that Guterres is just the sort of person those who strive to wield earthly power would want in the position of U.N. Secretary General. After all, it’s one of those all-talk, no action jobs, and he’ll willingly spew the party line. Were Teddy Roosevelt with us today, he'd probably say, “The Secretary General has a bully pulpit, but lacks the big stick.” Guterres can say a lot, probably far too much, but what can he really do? Indeed, most of what he has to say is just preachin’ to the choir of globalists. He won’t convince those of us who disagree with him because we must live with the consequences of globalist, socialist policies. Believe me, folks, Guterres won’t convert those who actually know what’s happening in the world. And he certainly won’t turn them into climate warriors.

Interestingly, in a speech at the World Government Summit last week, World Economic Forum Chairman Klaus Schwab predicted that those who control emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and "synthetic biology" will ultimately rule the planet. In his words, “Our life 10 years from now will be completely different, very much affected, and who masters these technologies, in some way, will be the masters of the world.” He also predicted the flourishing of transhumanism, "a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres." Sounds like a not-so-brave new world, doesn't it?  Schwab, of course, is hoping he and his world government cronies will become masters of this new world. Of course, they need help and Schwab is just the kind of person to manipulate the strings controlling “useful idiots” like the Secretary General. (I just saw today’s “Dilbert” comic strip and thought it particularly relevant…and good for a needed laugh. Here’s the link: Dilbert)

Klaus Schwab - Master of the World

The Secretary General — Don’t you just love that title, so typical of UN-speak? Is he a secretary or a general? Is there even a difference today? — anyway, he and so many others openly claim climate as the driving force causing several million people from over 100 countries to cross our southern border illegally. This is so wrong it’s ludicrous. People come to this country for several reasons, none of them climate related. For many it’s an economic decision. They come because they can’t feed or house a family in poverty, or educate their children, or even hope to advance in a corrupt, socialist society. And that, friends, is the overriding reason: corruption. Corruption is what drives so many people to leave their homes, travel hundreds, even thousands, of miles, and cross our borders. The elite — the nomenklatura, as they were called in the Soviet Union — run every aspect of socialist societies. They have the power and the money (and the guns) to keep the peasants in line and in poverty. And so, the poor, the forgotten in their own countries, do whatever is necessary to get here, even signing up with the some of the most vicious, murderous people on earth, the Mexican drug cartels. These poor people are used to dealing with nasty folks and are willing to risk the consequences. Some become forced victims of human or drug trafficking. And sadly, it could all have been avoided had our government only secured our southern border, something sovereign nations do.

The ultimate question, though, the question no socialist wants to hear is the question no one seems to ask either the globalists or our socialist-leaning political leadership: If our free-market economy and our constitutional representative republic is so evil and destructive of the poor and minorities, how come so many poor and minorities are pouring across our borders?

Pray for our nation and the world.

Just Some Stuff…

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated. President Biden, and his sidekick, Dr. Anthony Fauci, have spoken frequently and loudly about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” Their purpose was always to shame those who haven’t gotten the mRNA COVID shots or, almost as bad, neglected to be boosted. In the spirit of full disclosure, Dear Diane and I both got the two Moderna shots and the 1st booster…but that’s it. We’ve decided to get no more COVID shots until we know more about the effects of these still experimental drugs. 

I actually believe I contracted COVID back in early 2020, before I had been vaccinated. I felt so bad I went to the doctor on a weekend and was treated by a very nice and seemingly competent PA. I had all the symptoms of COVID, but since no test was yet available, she assumed I had a bad case of some random virus. She gave me meds and told me to rest, drink liquids, and come back if it got worse. After a week or so, I recovered and forgot about it. But many months later I spoke to several others who had suffered from COVID and our symptoms, although they varied in intensity, were identical. Despite my age, I am in good health, so I think I just slid through my case more easily than many. 

Anyway, yesterday the CDC released its latest data on COVID deaths and — surprise, surprise! — “a majority of Americans dying from the coronavirus received at least the primary series of the vaccine.” This, of course, alters the narrative that it is only the unvaccinated who will die from COVID. My unscientific guess is that those who are dying today are folks with serious comorbidity issues and compromised immune systems. Perhaps the president should change his mantra since it apparently doesn’t reflect the “science,” which is always a moving target.

Dumbing Down the Legal Profession. The American Bar Association has decided that those hoping to enter law school should no longer be required to take the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), and apparently Harvard and Yale have decided to go along with this. Interestingly, the LSAT is designed to measure prospective law students’ ability to reason, solve problems, comprehend what they read, along with other intellectual traits that lawyers believe they should possess. I certainly won’t argue with the need for these traits. If I ever need a lawyer, I want him to be rational and smart. But one can only assume that by failing to test for these traits and abilities, some aspiring lawyers will lack them. I suppose, then, we can conclude that, on average, the lawyer of tomorrow will be less rational, less capable, and not nearly as smart as today’s lawyer, assuming such an outcome is even possible.

Okay, okay…my apologies to all my lawyer friends for that last remark. Perhaps I was thinking only of those lawyers who gravitate to government and subsequently do everything they can to siphon political power from the people, who are sovereign.

Abortion, Religion, and Politics. Shortly before the recent mid-term elections, during one of those “after Mass” conversations with a parishioner, I was told that “the Church really shouldn’t get involved in politics. After all,” he added, “our country was founded on the concept of separation of church and state.” I assumed he was telling me this because of his tacit acceptance, and the Church’s adamant condemnation, of abortion. As it turned out, my assumption was correct. Of course, his supporting statement was false. Our nation was not “founded on the concept of separation of church and state.” In fact, that specific concept was voiced by only one man, Thomas Jefferson, in a rather obscure letter written to a Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802. The Constitution does not demand separation. Here’s the actual text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that the first freedom, that which the founders believed to be most important, is the freedom of religion. The Constitution prohibited Congress from establishing a state religion of the sort found at the time in many European countries, especially England where the ruling monarch was, and remains today, the head of the established church. But it said nothing about banning religious faith from influencing political thought or action. Indeed, for true believers of any faith, religious values have a major influence on every aspect of their lives. This understanding no doubt drove the founders to add the second clause in which the government may not prohibit citizens from freely exercising their religious faith. Both religious freedom clauses are further supported by the subsequent clause that guarantees the freedom of speech. 

Because our bishops — and, yes, even priests, deacons, religious, and the faithful — are citizens, they may scream to high heaven about the gross injustice of the government’s support for the willful slaughter of the unborn. Abortion is by no means solely a religious issue. It is also moral and political, as we all saw in the last election. Politics, religion, and morality cannot and should not be separated. Religious values have always had an impact on politics. We need only consider the Ten Commandments and their place in many of the world’s legal systems. 

When I said all this to our parishioner, he just shrugged and mumbled something about disagreeing. But he apparently decided not to argue the issues with me and walked away. At first, I was pleased because his silence told me I had “won” the argument. But then I realized I had done little to change his opinion. In truth I had focused more on myself and my ability to argue effectively than on his need for conversion. We must learn to listen to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit speak through us:

“…do not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say" [Lk 12:11-12].

I’ll have to talk with this parishioner again.

Breaking with the Left. I often must remind myself of the reality of the passage of time. For example, anyone younger than 35 really has little memory of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European puppet states. After all, by the early 1990s much of the world had been transformed. For decades all of these nations had been ruled by the iron fist of communism, an ideology that maintained power only through the application of terrorism against its own people.

The exploited and the poor, those who suffered under earlier tyrannies, had liked the sound of socialism. It seemed to provide a solution to their problems, to offer a better life, to promise a leveling that would eliminate the vast disparity among the classes. Yes, indeed, socialism, and even its more violent and oppressive manifestation in communism, sounded so very good to the uninformed. Often enough, war and revolution created the catalytic environment needed to bring about radical societal change and a total shift in the balance of power. The Soviet Union was born out of the chaos of World War One and its subsequent discord, while Communist China arose in the aftermath of World War Two. 

But once the left assumes power and the people actually experience the reality of totalitarianism, they realize their lives are controlled by a corps of elites who wield absolute power. Even after they come to understand the truth about socialism, it becomes very difficult to turn back the clock. Only when an oppressed people decide that their freedom and that of their children is more important than life itself do they rise up, cast off their chains, and overthrow the tyrants. Perhaps the people of China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and too many other nations will someday make that decision.

Now for something a bit lighter, a wonderful fish story. 

A Goldfish Story. When I was growing up, like a lot of kids, I had a few goldfish. I managed to keep them alive, at least for a while, and I suppose the biggest ones might have grown to four or five inches long. The size of the tank seemed to be the limiting factor, so they never got much bigger. I just assumed that goldfish were by nature small fish. But the other day I was hooked by a story about a man who caught a rather large goldfish in a French lake. How large was it? A whopping 67 pounds. Here’s a photo of the UK fisherman, Andy Hackett, with his catch, a goldfish appropriately named “Carrot” by the locals. And don’t worry, after photographing his record catch, Hackett released Carrot so the remarkable fish could gain a few more pounds and continue to set new world records.

 

The President, the Economy, and Other Important Stuff

Let me begin by saying something that’s been apparent since President Biden took office on January 20, 2021. Everything our President knows about economics could be etched on the head of a pin with a jackhammer. Okay, that was a bit hyperbolic, but based on his political record during all those years as a senator from Delaware and as Barack Obama’s Vice President, Joe Biden really hasn’t learned very much. One suspects he’s been well-controlled by a team of handlers since he first ran for the U.S. Senate back in the early 1970s.

I’m not the only one who thinks ill of our President’s capabilities. Back in 2016, when Vice President Biden was competing for the Democrat nomination for President, his boss wasn’t too flattering about Joe’s abilities. An aide quoted Obama saying, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up.” Crude but revealing. Obama isn’t alone among those who know Joe well. As Robert Gates, President Obama’s defense secretary, once put it, Biden has “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Judging by his actions during that past 20 months, Joe hasn’t changed. But yesterday, campaigning for a truly incompetent senatorial candidate in Pennsylvania, Obama and Biden stood on a stage hugging each other as Joe called those who disagreed with their far-left policies “idiots.”

But let me focus on the economy President Biden has given us. I’m not an economist. Although I took lots of economics courses in graduate school, they had little positive effect. I sat through courses in macroeconomics, microeconomics, and international economics. I even studied econometrics one quarter. I managed to get an A in that course, but I remember absolutely nothing, except that the professor was a bit creepy…but I won’t go into that. Heck, it was the early 70s, a time of ubiquitous creepiness. And yet, through it all, and with the help of a few books by Milton Friedman, Jude Wanniski, and Arthur Laffer, I actually learned a few things that have inexplicably remained in my aging brain. For example:

• The Law of supply and demand actually works. Ignore it at your peril.

• Inflation is caused by government and by no one else, because only government creates money. Inflation results from government printing too much money so it can spend lots of money. This leads to all that money chasing too few goods, so prices rise. But in a real sense inflation’s root cause is the demand by citizens for government largess. That’s right, folks, you and I are the real cause because too many of us love to receive “free money” from the government. The solution? Stop asking the government for expensive goodies, and instead tell the folks you elected to slow the increase in the quantity of money; that is, tell them to stop spending so much. After all, it’s not their money; it’s ours. And because the folks that create all that money always want more of it, they increase taxes, something that only makes things worse because it drives up the prices of goods and services. If you and I hope to see inflation drop, then, we must vote for politicians that intend to reduce spending and cut taxes. Nothing else will work.

• Speaking of taxes, here’s another truth: If you tax something, you will ultimately get less of it. Taxation is a cost to both producer and consumer. Taxation, then, has a significant effect on the basic law of supply and demand. If the government taxes something, its cost is reflected in the prices paid at every level. Demand then decreases, affecting supply.

• I’ve never been a believer in taxing businesses, for the simple reason that businesses really don’t pay taxes, at least, not as you and I do. I don’t mean they’re tax cheats, not at all. Like you and I, they write their checks to the U.S. Treasury. But if we take a close look at taxation, we’ll note the differences between businesses and individuals. When the government increases personal taxes, you and I can try to increase our income, but that’s not easy, at least not in the short term. Most often our only real alternative is to spend less by cutting back on our expenses, which has a negative effect on the economy. Businesses are different. If government increases their taxes, businesses look for ways to reduce production, equipment, and other variable costs, and seek means to increase sales. But they also take a hard look at their workforce. Cutting their workforce and expanding technology can be an effective means to lower costs. Increasing taxes on business, then, often leads to increased unemployment. But cost-cutting steps take time to implement, so businesses have only one other option: they raise prices, thereby passing on the increased cost of taxation to their customers. The result? Increased taxes on businesses are ultimately paid for by you and me because the stuff we buy costs more. Over-taxation of businesses and individuals, then, has both short- and long-term negative consequences.

• Energy is a key driver of modern economies. Drastic changes in energy production or energy sources will cause major disruptions to the nation’s economy. This is especially true when we try to replace highly reliable energy sources with far less reliable alternative sources. Clueless politicians simply do not understand or ignore the hidden costs, the national security implications, and the additional infrastructure demands that arise when they make major policy changes on such critical issues as energy.

Now these truths are neither accepted nor understood by our President. In fact, President Biden seems to believe that prosperity comes not from the free-market economy but from the government. This, to use one of the President’s favorite terms, is pure idiocy. A government-run economy is simply socialism; and socialism, whenever and wherever it has been tried, has failed miserably. To believe in socialism, then, is to be historically ignorant. In truth, to be a socialist is to be remarkably stupid. Okay, that’s a bit harsh. Only the useful idiots recruited by the hard-core socialists are the stupid ones. The hard core, the true believers, are well aware that socialism in all its forms does not bring about the paradise they promise. Unlike the useful idiots, they know the truth; and the truth is that socialism will give those in charge near unlimited power. And power is what they seek. Back in 1962 one of my professors at Georgetown, referring to the problems that plagued Ancient Greek democracy, said something I’ve never forgotten: “Power is sweetest when it is wielded secretly.” Perhaps behind the scenes at the White House there are a few folks savoring the sweetness of the power they have managed to acquire.

Watching and listening to our President, one senses there is a cadre of true believers who secretly run the show and set policy. Ideologically they obviously reside among the far left and have had no difficulty moving “moderate Joe” in their direction. They seem to have been less successful controlling our Commander-in-Chief during his public outings, hence the repeated gaffes and embarrassing senior moments. Even discounting his age, I think I can confidently predict that Joe Biden will be a one-term President.

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.

Subsidiarity

Finally, brothers, pray for us, so that the word of the Lord may speed forward and be glorified, as it did among you, and that we may be delivered from perverse and wicked people, for not all have faith [2 Thes 3:1-2].

The upcoming election will certainly highlight the vast policy differences that define the Democrat and Republican platforms. And if we dig a little deeper we'll also encounter major differences in the underlying principles that form these policies. From a political and societal perspective, perhaps the most basic principles are those that describe how best to organize human communities and activities.

As I pondered this the other day, I couldn't help but turn to a principle the Catholic Church has long considered key to the proper establishment and function of any human community: the principle of subsidiarity. Here's how the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes this principle:

Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs." This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.

Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good" [Pope John Paul II, Centsimus Annus, 48].

God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order [CCC: 1882-1885].

Subsidiarity, then, is really a simple principle: if something can be done well (or better) by a smaller, simpler organization, it should not be done by a larger, more complex organization. In other words, opt for decentralization when it comes to the actual work performed. Note, too, that the Church bases this principle on the action of God Himself. In other words, subsidiarity has divine roots.

As I used to tell managers during my consulting days: 

“Get decision-making down to the level where the real work of the organization is done. As managers, your job is to develop policies that support the organization’s ends, to set the boundaries of action for those who do the hard work, to give them the freedom they need to work within those boundaries, and to monitor the quality of work so you can adjust policies and provide the necessary resources.” 

Managers in most small- and mid-sized companies usually understood and accepted this, but I often encountered resistance from executives of large corporations. Too many didn’t trust their frontline people, so decision-making moved to higher levels, away from those who did the work and understood the real needs of the company's customers. 

Socialism, in all its forms, rejects the principle of subsidiarity. Socialist governments, by their very nature, seize power from the people and grant decision-making authority to ideologically pure elites. Personal freedoms disappear and government becomes essentially unlimited in scope. It begins as a seemingly benign welfare state, but moves inexorably toward totalitarianism. Socialism, then, is the very opposite of the federalism upon which our nation was founded.

The principle of subsidiarity, therefore, is a bulwark, a key protector of limited government and personal freedom. It's implementation conflicts with the power-focused desire for centralization and the mindless bureaucracy characteristic of the ideological left. 

You might want to keep this in mind when you exercise your right to vote this November.

After America, There Is No Place To Go

The following is a talk delivered in 2012 by Kitty Werthmann, who as a child experienced the transformation of her native Austria by Adolph Hitler and his National Socialists, aka, Nazis. 

Her story has been around awhile, but I suspect it's new to many Americans, especially younger Americans. Kitty has been repeatedly attacked by the American left, accusing her of being allied with -- Oh, my gosh -- the late, great conservative, Phyllis Schlafly, one of my heroines. They have tried to undermine her story because the Austria Kitty describes sounds very much like the country the United States would become if the far left ever gained political power. Keep in mind, there's really little difference between fascism and communism when you are on the receiving end of their policies of power and control. 

I have known a couple of Austrians who as children also experienced the transformation of their country by Hitler and his National Socialists. Although they're both gone now, each would have echoed Kitty's powerful witness. And if you take the time to read the actual history of the Nazi Anschluss or annexation of Austria, you will find that Kitty's story mirrors the truth. 

If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.

_______________

“I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.

“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls.

She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers.

“Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”

No so. Hitler was welcomed by Austria

“In 1938, Austria was in deep depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25 percent inflation and 25 percent bank loan interest rates.

"Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.

“My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.’

“We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933.” she recalls. “We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.

“Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group – Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone in Germany was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.

“Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

“We were overjoyed,” remembers Kitty, “and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

“After the election, German officials were appointed, and, like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

“Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

“Then we lost religious education for kids.

“Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school.. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,’ and had physical education.

“Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.”

And then things got worse.

"Every Sunday the first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free.

“We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

“My mother was very unhappy,” remembers Kitty. “When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination.

“I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing.

“Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time, unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.

“It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

“In 1939, the war started, and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and, if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.

“Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

“Soon after this, the draft was implemented.

“It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps,” remembers Kitty. “During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys.

“They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines.

“When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.

“Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

“When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers.

“You could take your children ages four weeks old to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, seven days a week, under the total care of the government.

“The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

“Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna..

“After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything.

“When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full.

“If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

“As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80 percent of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families.

“All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

“We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables.

“Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands.

“Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

“We had consumer protection, too

“We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the livestock, and then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

“In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated.

“So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work.

“I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.

“I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months.

“They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

“As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law-abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

“This is my eyewitness account.

“It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

“America is truly is the greatest country in the world. “Don’t let freedom slip away.

“After America, there is no place to go.”

Kitty Werthmann

Communist China and Other Liars

There's a lot of public and private lying going on today. This always happens when a crisis arises. When the going gets tough, the incompetent and lazy and self-centered simply lie.

The lies of the self-important are usually designed to deflect attention from their current and past incompetence to the real or imagined mistakes of others. Once the crisis hits, they realize, or others make them realize, that their incompetence either caused or aggravated the crisis. Such knowledge, of course, must be hidden from the public. Hide the truth, identify a suitable scapegoat, and attack it aggressively. The truth, of course, is hard to hide, so this works for only a while. Eventually the truth becomes known. 

Sadly, the self-important, which include many politicians and most of the national media, are the least of our problems. The most dangerous of today's liars are not incompetent; they're simply evil. Perhaps the best example are the Chinese Communists.

The Chinese Communist Party really can't be called a political party because it's the only party permitted in China. Indeed, if you tried to start an actual political party in China, you would surely be arrested and likely imprisoned...if you were lucky. 

It's important to be aware of this, a key identifier of all totalitarian states. No totalitarian government, whether based on ideology or a cult of personality, can tolerate intellectual or political competition since it will always lose the argument. It must reject the very idea of truth, because it never has truth on its side. This is why those on the extremes must always distort history, creating fictional versions that support the ever-expanding structure of lies they want us to accept.

And here we encounter another key identifying trait of all extremist ideologies, whether national socialists like Hitler or international socialists like Lenin: their remarkable capacity for spreading lies. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Fidel -- yes, the whole bunch and so many others -- all encouraged telling the lie so long as doing so aided the spread of their ideology. For them the end always justifies the means, any means. 

This might lead you to believe that such extreme ideologues are not unlike most politicians who tell lies so easily when it suits their purposes. Yes, indeed, most politicians lie on occasion, and the longer they've spent in politics, the more comfortable they become with telling the lie. This is why I try to avoid voting for any man or woman who's spent a long career in politics. But communists and other socialists are different from run-of-the-mill politicians. The latter lie occasionally, but the former lie constantly. They must because their failing policies are indefensible.

Communist China's a wonderful case in point. Every agreement, every treaty, every official statement made by the ruling Chinese Communist Party is based on and filled with lies. The lie is present even in the nation's official name: the People's Republic of China. The people have no say in their government which cannot be described, by any definition I'm familiar with, as a republic.

Just look at how the party has handled the virus. When COVID-19 began to spread in Wuhan, the authorities clamped down hard on the doctors who were telling the truth about the budding crisis. Most were arrested because in a socialist state the truth will get you imprisoned. (See this story: Los Angeles Times.)

Now, months later, when the party offers statistics on the spread of the Coronavirus in China, you can be certain the data are intentionally inaccurate. This week we've begun to hear reports of tens of thousands of cremations taking place in Wuhan, where the virus apparently originated, and this despite the "official" death toll of 3,305. (See this story: International Business Times.)

The Communist Party can't completely hide the truth, so it changes the conversation and offers the world a spectacular lie: the United States Army is responsible for introducing the virus into Wuhan Province. 

Interestingly, many politicians and members of the mainstream media accept the Chinese "data" without question and use it to attack their favorite target: the president. In other words, they base their own lies on the lies of those whom they know are lying. Yes, it's all very interesting, and would actually be entertaining were it not so serous and so deadly.

So You Wanna Be A Socialist?

A few years ago, while speaking with a young person who was entering her senior year at a large state university, I suggested that the average high-school graduate from say, 1920 to 1960, was far better educated than the average college graduate today. She responded by saying that, in effect, I was insane: "That's crazy! You really can't believe that..." And so I asked this person a few seemingly simple questions, the kind that a high-school graduate should be able to answer. I began with a series of questions on US history, very basic questions, nothing complex:

• In what year was the Declaration of Independence written? Who was its primary author? From what nation did its signers seek independence? Who was the leader of that nation? What war resulted?
• Who were the first three presidents of the United States?
• The War of 1812 was between the United States and what other nation? 
• During what years did our nation engage in the Civil War? Who was president during those years? Name two leading generals, one from each side?
• In what war did the United States engage in 1898? 
• When did the first World War take place? Name at least two nations on each side. Did the United States take part? Who was our president during this war?
• Name two nations that were among the enemies of the United States during World War Two. What event led to our active involvement in this conflict? 

By this time it became apparent that our soon-to-be college graduate -- a psychology major -- was at an embarrassing loss because her only correct answer was the naming of Abraham Lincoln as president during the Civil War. Interestingly, she could not tell me when the Civil War took place. Her guess? "Around 1900." I won't continue the embarrassment by repeating some of her other answers. I suspect she knew even less about world history.

As her historical ignorance became apparent she objected that my questions all demanded knowledge of meaningless facts, "You know, dates, names, stuff like that...Not really important things like concepts or ideas."

I responded by saying that she was right about the importance of ideas and concepts. But I also suggested that to understand those concepts and ideas we must be able to place them in their proper context, the context of time and place, and to connect them to the people who originated and embraced them. After all, that's what history is. If we are unable to do this, to understand the sources and the results of ideas, how can we evaluate their efficacy? Quite simply, if we don't understand history we will quite likely continue to repeat the mistakes of the past. Of course, George Santayana, a man as complex as the times in which he lived, stated this famously when he wrote: 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." 

This encounter, admittedly with a single representative of her generation and, I suppose, anecdotal in the extreme, came to mind when I read that 7 in 10 millennials would vote for a socialist. To anyone who understands the nature of socialism, this might seem unbelievable. But not to me. I can think of only two reasons to be a socialist: a desire for power or invincible ignorance.

For the ideologue, socialism becomes a means to achieve power over others, over many others. And to ignorant snowflakes, who rely more on emotion than intellect, socialism sure sounds good, especially if its history can be ignored. That is, of course, the problem. When we examine the history of socialism we find it inevitably leads to massive corruption, slavery, and death. Socialism always rejects freedom.

During the past 100 years our world has come face to face with socialism in its two forms: the national socialism of Hitler's Germany and the international socialism of communism as manifested by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and a host of others. Although often considered opposites, at the extremes of right and left, there's really little difference between the two.

Jesus actually warned us of these evils and provided a key to recognizing them when, in His "Sermon on the Mount," he said:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them" [Mt 7:15-16].

And the fruits of Nazis and communists are remarkably similar: the murder of tens of millions of innocents and the enslavement of hundreds of millions more. Socialism in all its forms places the good of the state -- perhaps, more accurately, the good of those who wield the power of the state -- above all else. Those pesky values we hold dear -- freedom, truth, faith, justice, family, civilization, etc. -- become expendable, sacrificial victims offered to the false gods of socialism.

Socialism is hostile to life and faith. It simply cannot accept Almighty God, the Word, as the supreme good and will always make individual life subservient to the state. Just consider the leftists running for president today. All appear to be farther to the left than President Obama, and none are pro-life.

Our God clearly places the decision before us:

"See, I have set before you life and good, death and evil...Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live, by loving the Lord, your God, obeying His voice, and holding fast to Him" [Dt 30:15,19-20].

How to educate a millennial, and whatever a member of the next generation is called? I haven't a clue. They certainly won't receive a proper education at a public high school or by attending one of our colleges or universities. Most of these institutions abandoned education decades ago in favor of indoctrination and job or professional training. I'd suggest  encouraging your favorite millennial to read books such as Anthony Esolen's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, but in these days of 140-character tweets, reading a book might be asking too much.

Maybe we're simply doomed as a civilization, and some future generation will have to pick up the pieces and begin anew, assuming our merciful God, the Lord of History, doesn't end it all before then.

We certainly live in interesting times. All we can do is preach the Word, follow and live the Way, pray for civilizational healing, and keep the Faith.

Living Among the Breakage

There is no end, but addition: the trailing

consequence of further days and hours,

While emotion takes to itself the emotionless

years of living among the breakage

Of what was believed in as the most reliable--

And therefore the fittest for renunciation.

 -- T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets: The Dry Salvages

We certainly seem to be "living among the breakage" these days as our "most reliable" values, all that we the people have held dear for centuries, are considered by many "fittest for renunciation." 

Is there anything about this country the score of presidential wannabes believes to be worthwhile? Anything that does not merit condemnation? Do they truly despise this nation, its founders, and its Constitution? Do they believe our flag is a symbol of oppression? Listening to them one would think so.

They all openly despised the July Fourth celebration of the birth of our nation as a militaristic, Trump-centered fiasco that would draw no one. Of course they were wrong, completely wrong. Huge crowds joined the celebration despite the weather. The president spoke eloquently not about himself but about the greatness of our nation. And the presence of our military, from tanks to Blue Angels, thrilled the crowd. It was a wonderful day, a fitting birthday party for the USA.

Some among the 20 yearn for a socialist America. They call themselves "democratic socialists," an obvious oxymoronic title. Yes, they all scream, "Power to the people," but really mean, "Power to the state." That's what it's all about. It's all about power. Just count the ways...

Abortion. The 20 hopefuls all support abortion on demand up to, and even after, the moment of birth. They like to call abortion "reproductive health" or "women's health" but it really has little to do with reproduction or women. It has everything to do with a total lack of respect for human life. Despite their public religiosity, politicians and others who support abortion are essentially atheists, for how can anyone who believes in a loving God approve of the premeditated murder of the most innocent of human beings? Once again, it's all about power. So focused on the attainment of worldly power, they overlook the omnipotence of God.

In the Nicene Creed we praise the Holy Spirit as "the Lord and giver of life." Is abortion, then, anything less than a sin against the Holy Spirit? And so many sins...In our country alone we have murdered more than 50 million unborn babies since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Abortion is surely the work of Satan, but his love of death has blinded him to one beautiful thing. The unborn innocents are now with God interceding for our broken, sinful world and for those who choose and perform abortions. Prayer will always defeat Satan.

Gun Control. Regardless of your feelings about firearms, all Americans should support the 2nd Amendment which has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting, and everything to do with maintaining our sovereignty as a free people. The 20 hopefuls support for radical gun control is movitated less by concern over firearm deaths than by power.

An unarmed people are a controlled people (e.g. Venezuela and Tiananmen Square), and can be handled fairly easily by an armed military and police force. But a people with arms? That's a civil war, and wars can be lost. People control, therefore, demands gun control. And gun control really means gun elimination.

Healthcare. The hopefuls want "single payer" healthcare -- that is, healthcare run completely by the government -- because it gives the state ultimate power, the power over life and death. The selective wielding of that power can go a long way toward limiting any real opposition. Remember the "psychiatric hospitals" of the old Soviet Union? Such convenient places to provide "healthcare" to those pesky dissidents.

Open Borders. The hopefuls want open borders because, ultimately, they dream of a world government led by "smart people" like themselves. This borderless world would be free of all those national, cultural, religious, and racial "artificialities" that separate us. It would be the kind of world dreamed of by the unelected eurocrats in Brussels who by uniting Europe are destroying it. Open borders destroy national sovereignty, alter the culture of a society dramatically and permanently, impoverish the people, and solidify the long-term political power of the elitists.

Taxes. The hopefuls need higher and higher taxes because socialism costs; it costs a lot. Medicare for all requires trillions in new taxes. Providing free healthcare to all illegals will cost additional trillions. Paying for everybody's college education means more trillions. And giving every adult $1,000 per month...yep, trillions. This all demands that the state confiscate the people's earnings, then disburse it in ways that best preserve the state's power. 

There's a subtle gnostic side of socialism. Those in power are convinced they are the elect, the ones who know what the rest of us don't. "We can spend your money far better than you," they tell us. "Trust us." Uh-huh. Margaret Thatcher famously defined socialism's long-term economic failure when she remarked: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." By then. of course, everyone is already enslaved by the state and it's often too late to change without outside help.

----------------

If our presidential hopefuls are driven by a socialist, far-left ideology, I suppose their hatred for all things American makes sense. We can only assume, then, that this is what motivates them. The only other possible explanations are ignorance, gross stupidity, or political expedience. But whatever the cause, whether they have knowingly wrapped themselves in the mantle of Marxist ideology, are merely burdened by ignorance or stupidity, or are unable to speak the truth, I can't see how one of them can win the presidency in 2020. I can't believe American voters will abdicate their sovereignty and turn it over to these elitists and their bureaucratic toadies. I can't believe they would discard the political system that gives them the opportunity to make such a choice.

I could, of course, be wrong. The ignorance of too many Americans, especially younger Americans, could lead them to reject freedom and unthinkingly blunder into the Marxist slavery that has destroyed so many during the past century. I could be wrong since most of today's recent college graduates have never taken a course in either American or world history. Most have never opened a copy of our Constitution. Most have no understanding of how the government of our republic is constituted and meant to function. Most know little or nothing of the foundation and greatness of Western Civilization. Most consider our nation's Judeo-Christian roots to be the cause of all they believe to be evil. Yes, indeed, most have been brainwashed but not educated.  

I could certainly be wrong, and if so, the American experiment of a constitutional republic, one founded on the principles of limited government and the protection of its citizens' God-given rights, is likely finished.

I believe the 2020 election will determine whether we plunge deeper into the breakage or enter a period of renewal.

Pray for our nation and for those we have elected to represent us. God hears our prayers. He always answers them in ways that accomplish His will for the world. God always has the final say.