Pope Francis, Cuba and the emerging World Socialist State

Writing for the Acton Institute, Joe Carter explains that, "The U.S. began imposing sanctions against Cuba after Fidel Castro seized power in 1959, nationalized the economy, and stole more than $1 billion in American assets on the island.

Diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba broke off in 1961 as tensions between the two nations increased after Cuba signed a trade agreement with the Soviet Union. Even though the Cold War ended, not much has changed in the relationship between Cuba and the U.S."

Why is it that even though Cuba hasn't changed at all and is as repressive a regime as ever that Pope Francis worked with President Barack Obama to rescind sanctions against Cuba which have been in place for more than fifty years?  Why the secret meetings at the Vatican behind closed doors?

The forces behind the Socialist Society will not be deterred. They are determined to destroy the old society in order to build an atheistic society on its ashes. Archbishop Fulton Sheen writes, "Dostoyevsky, who understood atheism better than Nietzsche and who saw it coming in his own beloved land, knew that atheism had to be associated with the destruction of the old society. There was some suggestion that an overplanned or socialistic society had to be the prelude of an atheistic society. As he made one of his characters say: 'If Aloysha had not believed in God, he would have become a socialist.'

For the man-god to grow in age and wisdom, two conditions must be fulfilled. The heavens must be emptied, and man must be secularized. Both will be achieved by turning freedom into license. Men will be asked to give up God because His Commandments 'enslave' and because our will often runs counter to His. When finally everyone has his own will and does whatever he pleases, then there will be a chaos due to the conflict of egotisms.

It will then be necessary for Big Brother, or the state, to organize this chaos into a closed socialist society and the formulas given by the character, Shigalev, the theorist of the Communism to come: 'Having set out from unlimited freedom, I have ended up with unlimited despotism.' What Dostoyevsky was predicting through his characters, Nietzsche was saying through his philosophy. As he put it: 'I heralded the coming of the tragic era. We must be prepared for a long succession of demolitions, devastations, and upheavals...There will be wars such as the world has never seen. Europe will soon be enveloped in darkness. We shall watch the rising of the black tide.' And in another work, he wrote: 'A catastrophe is at hand. A catastrophe whose name I know*, whose name I shall not tell...Then all the earth will writhe in convulsions.'" (Fulton Sheen, essay entitled "The Death of God"). * John 5:43.

Years ago Father Malachi Martin, in his excellent work entitled, "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church," noted that: "In reality, Liberation Theology is a quicker-than-the-eye transformation of a spiritual warfare into a sociopolitical struggle; and - if need be - into an armed revolutionary warfare against capitalism.  It is a transformation hinted at by Teilhard [Pere Teilhard  Dr Chardin, S.J.] in his theory of man endeavoring to evolve to the Omega Point by achieving complete' hominization' so that he could pass over into the 'Ultra-Human.' Indeed, Liberation Theologians were the ones who finally succeeded in giving all those airy concepts of Teilhard Dr Chardin a practical meaning." (The Jesuits, p. 312).

For these "New theologians," [and Pope Francis the Jesuit approves of them and has lived and moved in their circles], "Sin is not primarily personal; it is social and almost exclusively the injustice and oppressions due to capitalism.  Mary the Virgin is the Mother of a revolutionary Jesus - indeed of all revolutionaries seeking to overthrow Capitalism.  The Kingdom of God is the socialist state from which capitalist oppression has been eliminated.  Priesthood is either the service given by an individual [the priest] who builds up socialism, or it is the 'people of God's as it worships according to its likes...the New 'theological' lexicon not only justifies but mandates the use of any means - including armed violence, torture, violator human rights, deceptions, and deep alliances with professedly atheistic and antireligious forces such as the USSR [at the time, although her demise is more pretense than reality, see Golitsyn's New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception] and Castro's Cuba - in order to achieve the 'evolution' of Marxism and its promise of material success." (The Jesuits, p. 312).

Socialists are uniting within and without the Church to defeat their entrenched foe.  See here.

Related reading here.

Cuba's human rights abuses.  See here.

Father Bryan Hehir is calling for a New Global Order

Michael Rivero, in an article entitled "Why I am opposed to a One-World Government," writes: "There is nothing new about one-world rule. From a political and economic point of view, ruling the world means controlling everything one can reach that is worth controlling. Alexander the Great conquered the whole world that he could reach, and the treatment of those he conquered serves as a model for the realities of life under a world dictatorship.

Rome also conquered pretty much the whole world that it was aware of (until it hit Germania). Life was pretty good if you happened to live in the capital city within walking distance of the Colloseum and the Circus Maximus, but everywhere else life was made harsh by Roman rule, else there would have been no need for legions located across the empire to stamp out rebellions by the tax-weary populace. All conquerors like to boast that they are a benefit to the conquered, but common sense and history shows this to be a self-serving lie. Whether you are Caesar or Hitler, if you use military might to force your way of life on another, then the people being forced clearly do not agree that the way of life of the conquerors is a blessing.

One-world rule is great for the rulers, but terrible for the ruled. My opposition to a One-World Government is based on two arguments, one obvious, and one subtle.

The obvious argument against a One-World Government is that while the New World Order groupies imagine a One-World Government with a benevolent Santa Claus in charge, the reality is that power will attract the very sort of people who should not have it, who will do anything to get it, and therefore once they have it, will do anything with it.

Human history proves that as soon as we are all slaves to a One-World Government, it is inevitable that this government will fall into the hands of another Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Torquemada. No purported safeguards can prevent that from happening. Hitler was elected by the German people, and our own recent history proves that elections can be rigged by powerful individuals or agencies.

Past genocidal monsters were stopped because the nations they ruled, however powerful, were only one out of many. Those other nations were then able to band together to stop the single monster, as was the case in World War II.

What happens if a One-World Government falls into the hands of another Hitler? The people of the world would be no more able to stop a new Hitler than the people of Germany were able to stop the first one. Imagine the world today if Hitler had won WW II. That is the world which MUST sooner or later come to exist, cannot help but come to exist, under a One-World Government. That danger alone, of the creation of a one-world dictatorship waiting to be plucked as a prize by the most ruthless cutthroat the species can breed, is alone reason to abandon the suggestion of a One-World Government.

The second reason to avoid a One-World Government is a bit more subtle. The creation of such a One-World Government pre-supposes that the very structure of such a government is the best of all possible systems under which people could be ruled. But every system ever created assumes that they are the best possible system. The Egyptians believed that. So did the Romans. So did the Confederacy. And the rulers of such systems, being the beneficiaries, worked hard to preserve those systems and to crush out examples of alternative systems that might actually be better ones.

The process by which one social system replaces others is a process of evolution. Under a One-World Government, such social evolution would stop. There would be no tolerance for alternative systems, no experimentation with new social orders, no possibility of recovery from socio-political trends detrimental to the people. The political structure of the New World Order would be no more tolerant of alternatives than are the two established parties of the United States, the Republicans and the Democrats (which are in reality two faces of the same oligarchy).

It is impossible to claim that the perfect socio-political system has been found, yet the establishment of a One-World Government is founded on the very assumption that it is the perfect socio-political system, and that therefore no corner of the world should be allowed to rule themselves with a different system."


There are many, even within the Church, who are working to undermine the Mystical Body of Christ so that she too will be subjected to a New World Order, a Socialist One-World Government which will be built on a new foundation: one which demands that Christianity be emptied of its supernatural dimension and thereby rendered impotent.  As Father Livio Fanzaga notes, "Marxism prophesied a future in which man will satisfy all his human needs and enjoy paradise on earth.  Such will result in the demise of faith in God.  Paradise will be achieved by peace, progress and labor for all."

One individual who has called for a new global order is Father Bryan Hehir of the Boston Archdiocese.  In an article aptly titled "Wanted: a new global order," Fr. Hehir, while noting that "The Christian Church has the capacity to make a special contribution to the globalisation debate," insists that "the Church has something to teach and much to learn" and that as the world "sets about building the necessary structures" [for this new global order], globalisation calls for "a leap forward in ideas and institutions." 

As I said in a previous post,  "..the Earth Charter is 'a declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century.' The Earth Charter Commission hopes that the Charter will become the common standard "by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions [such as the Roman Catholic Church, my note] is to be guided and assessed.' The globalists who are behind the Earth Charter seek to promote a New Age religion which will neutralize the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism. In the words of Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragan, 'Clearly, we are faced with the total denial of Christianity.'...many of those who are pushing the Earth Charter Initiative believe that the Ten Commandments are "out of date" and must be replaced by a new paradigm. There is institutionalized apostasy. Many in the Christian community (including many Catholic priests and religious) are agitating for this emerging new religion.

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

Do we have the same courage? Or will we forfeit our freedoms to an increasing tyranny, to a Socialist State intent on banishing God from the public square and enslaving men with a distorted notion of freedom which is nothing but license, another form of chains and slavery?

God save the Republic!

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin