The face of fanaticism

 

As shown here, a liberal supporter of Joe Biden explains why she believes Donald Trump is "dangerous" as she sports a Communist tattoo on her arm and wields a weapon - a pistol crossbow - at a political rally. When asked why she is carrying a weapon to a political rally she explains that she doesn't feel safe in that crowd. She neglects to explain why, if she feels so threatened,  she didn't just remain at home.

When asked about the assassination attempt against Trump, this unhappy soul declares that she's sorry the attempt failed because Donald Trump is "dangerous."

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel writes, "..the fanatic never sees himself as a fanatic; it is only the non-fanatic who can recognize him as a fanatic; so that when this judgment, or this accusation, is made, the fanatic can always say that he is misunderstood and slandered...Fanaticism is essentially opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature....whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, he is led, as we have seen, to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation. It cannot be asserted too strongly or repeated too often that those the Nazis made use of in their camps - techniques for degrading their victims in their own eyes, for making mud and filth of them - and those which Soviet propagandists use to discredit their adversaries, are not essentially different though we should, in fairness, add that sadism, properly so called, is not to be found in the Russian camps." (pp. 135-136, 149).

Marcel explains that, "In fact, the greatest merit of the critical spirit is that it tends to cure fanaticism, and it is logical enough that in our own fanatical times the critical spirit should tend to disappear, should no longer even be paid lip service as a value."

I'm glad I wasn't at this same political rally. Witnessing my Ultra Maga shirt, this woman may have felt inclined to deliver an arrow into my chest to smash down my "dangerous" views.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, heal our troubled nation.

Facebook covers up excessive Covid deaths

 

Facebook is covering up excessive Covid deaths by banning articles and posts which reveal the deaths and by imposing restrictions on those who dare to speak the truth.  See here.

My account has faced such restrictions because I posted such information. 

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

We witness such a fanaticism in Rudolf Hess, who became deputy leader of the Third Reich, and who said: "It was granted to me for many years of my life to live and work under the greatest son whom my nation has produced in the thousand years of its history. Even if I could I would not expunge this period from my existence. I regret nothing. If I were standing once more at the beginning I should act once again as I did then, even if I knew that at the end I should be burnt at the stake. No matter what men do, I shall one day stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty. I shall answer to him, and I know that he will acquit me."

For such a fanatic, the State is beyond criticism. Its realm is utterly sacred. And even if one should have convictions which run counter to those of the State, these must be subordinated to the State. Hermann Goring expressed this belief when he said, "I have no conscience! Adolf Hitler is my conscience!" and "It is not I who live, but the Fuhrer who lives in me."

As Dusty Sklar notes, "In the suggestible state, the proselyte may attribute divine powers to his leader and accept dogmas which he might have rejected in a more normal state [see here for example]. Some of the men closest to Hitler, for example, acknowledged that they believed in his divinity. Himmler's masseur, Felix Kersten, relates that he once answered the phone and heard Hitler's voice before passing the phone on to Himmler, who exclaimed" 'You have been listening to the voice of the Fuhrer, you're a very lucky man.' Himmler told Kersten that Hitler's commands came 'from a world transcending this one.' and that they should be 'saved' by 'a figure of the greatest brilliance' which had 'become incarnate' in Hitler's person." (The Nazis and the Occult, p. 157).

Even intelligent people are not immune from the desire to conform. As Sklar notes, "We 'catch' ideas, too, because we want to be like others, particularly when we want not to be our despised selves. If we're satisfied, we don't need to conform, but if we're not, we imitate people whom we admire for having greater judgment, taste, or good fortune than we do. Obedience itself is a kind of imitation. Through conformity, the person who feels inferior is in no danger of being exposed. He's indistinguishable from the others. No one can single him out and examine his unique being. Conformity, in turn, sets him up to be further canceled out as an individual, to have no life apart from his collective purpose. This gives a movement tremendous power over the individual...Hoffer [Eric Hoffer] observes: 'Above all, he [the true believer] must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must still feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life. This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes. Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individual bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as a throwback to the primitive.'" (Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, citing Eric Hoffer, p. 158).

What is a Christian to do when faced with a mass movement which seeks to subjugate the individual to the collective? A movement which "refuses to recognize the competence of individual judgment" and to enslave all in a prison of absolute conformity to the State? The Christian must prepare himself or herself by relinquishing the fear of public opinion and to pray for the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude.

It was the Cure of Ars [St. Jean Vianney, patron saint of parish priests] who said: "Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God, the angels, and the saints - they are your public." To which he added: "If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become a Christian."

The pushback against tyranny

 

This is what things have come to.  See here.

Trust in American media has disintegrated

 

From Liberty Nation News:

This past week brought some sobering news for journalists from America’s legacy media. A recent Reuters poll conducted in January and February of this year revealed a truth at once startling and unsurprising: The United States ranks dead last of 46 countries in trust in media. A mere 29% of Americans surveyed said they trust the news. Adding insult to injury, the U.S. Fourth Estate was handily dispatched by countries such as Finland, Kenya, and Canada, which enjoyed approval ratings of 65%, 61%, and 45%, respectively.

Ouch.

The decline of journalism these numbers represent is a writ large crisis of integrity in American media. The New York Times had a brief but ultimately disingenuous moment of institutional self-reflection after Donald Trump’s stunning 2016 defeat of Hillary Clinton. The Times seemed to admit that it had been swept up in reporting from the myopia of an elite coastal city and failed to consider the many millions throughout the country who felt increasingly disenfranchised from the American Dream and snidely disparaged by the Grey Lady and her ilk in the media. That hollow and performative attempt at journalistic self-searching lasted a week – tops.

With the patina of objectivity set aflame, The NYT leaned into its leftward tilt until the base partisanship was only too obvious. Then, the paper began sacrificing basic journalistic principles to privilege – uber alles – the new narrative. And what was that agenda? It was to harangue, hobble, discredit, and ultimately defeat Trump by any means necessary – accuracy and truth be damned.

The new marching orders throughout the largely left-leaning American media were to apply maximum pressure to the new administration. With that raison d’etre, the press worked in lockstep to saddle Trump with unfavorable exposure. According to a Harvard study, 93% of coverage of Trump throughout all of the media was negative. Meanwhile, his many considerable successes were either downplayed, ably spun to reflect poorly on him, or ignored.

But once you make your deal with the devil, there is always a day when the bill comes due. With everyday Americans now using air quotes around the word “journalism” when referring to formerly unimpeachable sources of information, the chickens have come home to roost. The people have been awakened rudely from their slumbering daydreams of an America in which the press endeavors to tell them the truth.

Is it any wonder?

We were told by CNN, MSNBC, and most major newspapers throughout the country that Trump had colluded with Russia and with Vladimir Putin to win the most seismic election of our lifetimes. For over two agonizing years, the country was rent asunder and divided by a false assertion steeped in prevarication and deceit. Even though the media ran cover for them, we learned how politicized our intelligence agencies were – how arrogant and willing to weaponize federal power to achieve their ends.

The American media told us that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault as a young man – a 36-year-old claim made by Christine Blasey Ford, who could not remember the year it occurred, the home at which the party she attended was held, how she got there, or how she got home. Memory is tricky, so she can be afforded the benefit of the doubt. But the assumptions of guilt and the overall savagery of the press coverage of Justice Kavanaugh cannot be forgiven.

We were told by the Fourth Estate that Trump kept immigrant children at the border in cages – the very enclosures Obama had used during his time in office. We were told that Trump had cleared Lafayette Park using tear gas for a photo opportunity – an utter falsehood proven to be so by an exhaustive, year-long watchdog report.

Our legacy media told us that riots following George Floyd’s murder – which caused an estimated two billion dollars in damage and resulted in 18 additional deaths – were “peaceful protests.” Yet, these same institutions worked like a well-trained cheerleading squad to brand the unconscionable January 6 Capitol riots an armed “insurrection” – one that occasioned the death of Officer Brian Sicknick, whom The New York Times informed us was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher by MAGA protestors. Both “facts” were false.

In the days leading up to the 2020 election, the mainstream media told us that the recovery of Hunter Biden’s laptop, replete with highly salacious photos and evidence of illegal activity, was Russian disinformation. Twitter blocked the New York Post from sharing the bombshell story of the year – one a very substantial number of voters later polled said would’ve swayed their decision on Election Day had they known about it.

The United States media mocked anyone who suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may have leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan – while its social media handmaids canceled, censored, or deplatformed these same “heretics” for claiming something so outrageous. Nevertheless, the lab-leak postulate has now satisfied Ockham’s Razor to quickly become consensus theory – even though proving it will likely be impossible after gifting China a whole year and a half to cover its tracks.

But political physics suggests the pendulum is swinging back – proof that there is an equal and opposite reaction to every action. CNN is hemorrhaging viewership with its marquee talent Jake Tapper having lost a staggering 75% of his audience since January. A court ruling determined that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s “statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as allegations of fact.”

Facebook may have sidestepped a congressional anti-trust effort brought by the attorneys general of 48 states, but the stinging rebuke may only embolden Congress to act with rare bipartisanship to limit the metastasizing power of these self-appointed gods of Silicon Valley. And Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey may have reached the limits of his power after kicking the President of the United States off his platform – while simultaneously providing safe haven for Ayatollah Khomeini and Louis Farrakhan.

Given these many hypocrisies, is it in the least a surprise that the goodwill and trust of the American public for the media is at an all-time low?

________________________________________

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

We witness such a fanaticism in Rudolf Hess, who became deputy leader of the Third Reich, and who said: "It was granted to me for many years of my life to live and work under the greatest son whom my nation has produced in the thousand years of its history. Even if I could I would not expunge this period from my existence. I regret nothing. If I were standing once more at the beginning I should act once again as I did then, even if I knew that at the end I should be burnt at the stake. No matter what men do, I shall one day stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty. I shall answer to him, and I know that he will acquit me."

For such a fanatic, the State is beyond criticism. Its realm is utterly sacred. And even if one should have convictions which run counter to those of the State, these must be subordinated to the State. Hermann Goring expressed this belief when he said, "I have no conscience! Adolf Hitler is my conscience!" and "It is not I who live, but the Fuhrer who lives in me."

As Dusty Sklar notes, "In the suggestible state, the proselyte may attribute divine powers to his leader and accept dogmas which he might have rejected in a more normal state [see here for example]. Some of the men closest to Hitler, for example, acknowledged that they believed in his divinity. Himmler's masseur, Felix Kersten, relates that he once answered the phone and heard Hitler's voice before passing the phone on to Himmler, who exclaimed" 'You have been listening to the voice of the Fuhrer, you're a very lucky man.' Himmler told Kersten that Hitler's commands came 'from a world transcending this one.' and that they should be 'saved' by 'a figure of the greatest brilliance' which had 'become incarnate' in Hitler's person." (The Nazis and the Occult, p. 157).

Even intelligent people are not immune from the desire to conform. As Sklar notes, "We 'catch' ideas, too, because we want to be like others, particularly when we want not to be our despised selves. If we're satisfied, we don't need to conform, but if we're not, we imitate people whom we admire for having greater judgment, taste, or good fortune than we do. Obedience itself is a kind of imitation. Through conformity, the person who feels inferior is in no danger of being exposed. He's indistinguishable from the others. No one can single him out and examine his unique being. Conformity, in turn, sets him up to be further canceled out as an individual, to have no life apart from his collective purpose. This gives a movement tremendous power over the individual...Hoffer [Eric Hoffer] observes: 'Above all, he [the true believer] must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must still feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life. This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes. Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individual bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as a throwback to the primitive.'" (Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, citing Eric Hoffer, p. 158).

What is a Christian to do when faced with a mass movement which seeks to subjugate the individual to the collective? A movement which "refuses to recognize the competence of individual judgment" and to enslave all in a prison of absolute conformity to the State? The Christian must prepare himself or herself by relinquishing the fear of public opinion and to pray for the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude.

It was the Cure of Ars [St. Jean Vianney, patron saint of parish priests] who said: "Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God, the angels, and the saints - they are your public." To which he added: "If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become a Christian."

There is always a price to be paid for following Jesus. Those committed to their Christian faith must expect a certain amount of unpopularity. God knows I live with this unpopularity every day. So be it. What difference does this make? It was St. Gerard Majella who asked, "Who except God can give you peace? Has the world ever been able to satisfy the heart?" To which I would add: look closely at the photograph at the top of this post. Think of the masses who succumbed to Hitler's propaganda of a "thousand year Reich" which would transform the world. Were these throngs of people any happier at the end of the war? Did the world satisfy their hearts? Were these people not left with the bitter and empty taste of defeat?

What is the absolute worse the world can do to us? Why do we fear the world so much? We must recall the words of Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., as he faced his firing squad: Viva Christo Rey! Long live Christ the King! For, as St. Paul of the Cross has told us, "The aversions that you experience, the ridicule, the scorn, the jokes, etc., should be received with great gratitude toward God. These serve as the pyre of love on which the victim of love is burned..."

The soul that gives itself completely to God can expect to be persecuted. Even killed. But what of it? We should remember the words of Jesus: "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one. Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. Do not be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows." (Luke 12: 4-7).

The Athol Daily News publishes an offensive anti-Christian cartoon...

The Athol Daily News, a local newspaper which is published and written by leftist ideologues, today published a political cartoon from Kevin Siers of The Charlotte Observer showing Roy Moore reading the Scripture where Jesus says, “Suffer the little children to come unto me."

The implication of this cartoon is obvious. For this same cartoon shows Moore asserting that, "The media are just trying to destroy those who follow God's Word."

If indeed Roy Moore has accosted underage females (something not yet established), this anti-Christian cartoon is insinuating that he receives his marching orders from Christ Jesus.

When "comedian" George Carlin used this same Scripture in a blasphemous way, the Catholic League addressed that instance of Catholic bashing.  See here.

It is perhaps unrealistic to expect the far-left propagandists at The Athol Daily News to strive for anything even remotely resembling objectivity.  Like most fanatics, nothing will produce the slightest crack in their wall of conviction.

It would be nice if they could at least refrain from insulting Christians and their deeply-held beliefs.

I won't be holding my breath.

Francis: More angry anti-Trump partisan politics...

Once again, Francis is engaging in partisan politics and embarassing himself.

Liberal Speak reports, "Pope Francis, leader of the global Catholic church, has been telling his followers that they must reject Trump’s position on immigrants and refugees. According to Pope Francis, Christians have a duty to embrace immigrants and refugees – that’s exactly the opposite of what Trump and modern day Republicans are trying to do."

Father George Rutler, of EWTN fame, wrote the following about ideologues like Francis:

"The recent action of our government’s executive branch to protect our borders and enforce national security is based on Constitutional obligations (Art. 1 sec 10 and Art. 4 sec 4). It is a practical protection of the tranquility of order explained by Saint Augustine when he saw the tranquillitas ordinis of Roman civilization threatened. Saint Thomas Aquinas sanctioned border control (S. Th. I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). No mobs shouted in the marketplace two years ago when the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act restricted visa waivers for Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. The present ban continues that, and only for a stipulated ninety days, save for Syria. There is no “Muslim ban” as should be obvious from the fact that the restrictions do not apply to other countries with Muslim majorities, such as Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Turkey.

These are facts ignored by demagogues who speak of tears running down the face of the Statue of Liberty. At issue is not immigration, but illegal immigration. It is certainly manipulative of reason to justify uncontrolled immigration by citing previous generations of immigrants to our shores, all of whom went through the legal process, mostly in the halls of Ellis Island. And it is close to blasphemy to invoke the Holy Family as antinomian refugees, for they went to Bethlehem in obedience to a civil decree requiring tax registration, and they violated no statutes when they sought protection in Egypt. Then there was Saint Paul, who worked within the legal system, and invoked his Roman citizenship through privileges granted to his native Tarsus in 66 B.C. (Acts 16:35-38; 22:25-29; 25:11-12) He followed ordered procedure, probably with the status of civis Romanus non optimo jure—a legal citizen, but not allowed to act as a magistrate.

It is obvious that the indignant demonstrators against the new Executive Orders are funded in no little part by wealthy interests who would provoke agitation. These same people have not shown any concern about the neglected Christians seeking refuge from persecution in the Middle East. In 2016 there was a 675% increase in the number of Syrian refugees over the previous year, but while 10% of the Syrian population is Christian, only one-half of one percent of the Syrian Christians were granted asylum. It is thankworthy that our changed government now wants to redress that. The logic of that policy must not be shouted down by those who screech rather than reason."

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel writes, "..the fanatic never sees himself as a fanatic; it is only the non-fanatic who can recognize him as a fanatic; so that when this judgment, or this accusation, is made, the fanatic can always say that he is misunderstood and slandered...Fanaticism is essentially opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature....whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, he is led, as we have seen, to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation. It cannot be asserted too strongly or repeated too often that those the Nazis made use of in their camps - techniques for degrading their victims in their own eyes, for making mud and filth of them - and those which Soviet propagandists use to discredit their adversaries, are not essentially different though we should, in fairness, add that sadism, properly so called, is not to be found in the Russian camps." (pp. 135-136, 149).

Marcel explains that, "In fact, the greatest merit of the critical spirit is that it tends to cure fanaticism, and it is logical enough that in our own fanatical times the critical spirit should tend to disappear, should no longer even be paid lip service as a value."

Francis has an extremist leftist political agenda.  To advance his agenda, he finds it necessary to demonize those who disagree with it.  Anyone who, following Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, believes in border control, must be demonized as "non-Christiano," and as somehow "uncharitable."

Francis is cheapening himself and doing much damage to the credibility of the Church.

Lily Tomlin: Nazi Hunter...

Lily Tomlin is an authority on Nazis.  If you don't believe me, read this article.

Comparing the Trump administration to the Nazis, Tomlin said, “You’ve got to change the laws, just like he’s changing, Trump is changing the laws now. He’s trying to change the laws. You know, my mind is going too fast. I wanna think about the fact that, you know, I don’t wanna make this comparison, I’m not making it any way, but the Nazis, they changed the laws if they didn’t agree with them. They just changed them and they could do whatever they wanted.”

Her mind is going too fast or too slow?

It is ironic that Tomlin would compare the Trump administration with the Nazi Party.  For Tomlin is part of a movement which is totalitarian in nature: the radical homosexual movement.

I've been saying this for years.  See here for example.  In fact, when this hate movement fails to get its way, it frequently resort's to violence.  See here.

If Tomlin is really interested in finding Nazi-like individuals, she has only to survey the LGBTQ landscape.  There are plenty of Jackbooted thugs there.


In the meantime, I think Tomlin needs to climb down from her high chair.  The air must be awfully thin up there.  Her brain must be oxygen deprived.

Hillary Clinton: Christians are irredeemable

Daily Caller reports:

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Friday that 50 percent of Donald Trump supporters are nothing more than a 'basket of deplorables,' which means she considers about 25 percent of America to be 'irredeemable.'

'To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,' Clinton said, according to CNN. 'Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.'

Numerous polls have put Trump’s support numbers at around 45 percent. Half that is 22.5 percent–the exact slice of America with which Clinton seems to have a serious problem.

'And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up,' Clinton added. 'He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.'

Is there any doubt that Hillary Clinton has a problem with Christians who take their Faith seriously?  Christians who oppose homosexuality because of God's Revelation are "deplorable," "homophobic," and "irredeemable."  Such people are not part of America for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is the textbook example of a fanatic. In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel writes, "..the fanatic never sees himself as a fanatic; it is only the non-fanatic who can recognize him as a fanatic; so that when this judgment, or this accusation, is made, the fanatic can always say that he is misunderstood and slandered...Fanaticism is essentially opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature....whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, he is led, as we have seen, to wish to wipe his opponents out.

And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 135-136).

Hillary Clinton is not a unifier, she's a divider.  And her hatred of Christians, rooted in a fanatical secular humanist ideology, is manifesting itself.

Catholic priest beheaded but it's okay, Obama says the world has never been less violent

President Barack Obama just said, at the White House Summit on Global Development last Wednesday, that “we are living in the most peaceful” era in human history and that “the world has never been less violent.”

Since this asinine statement, there have been several more Islamic terror attacks.  Two Islamic knife-wielding terrorists have just beheaded an 86 year old Catholic priest in France.  See here.

None of this will produce the slightest crack in Mr. Obama's wall of conviction. This because he is a fanatic.  And the fanatic is incapable of seeing the truth.

It was the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, a man whose thought so greatly influenced my own, who said that, "Fanaticism is essentially opinion; opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature...whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, his is led...to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make very effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation...fanaticism is, of its very nature, incompatible with any regard for truth; and as truth itself is not really seperable from our regard for it, we need not hesitate to say that the fanatic is the enemy of truth..." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 149-150).

Hillary Clinton shares Obama's fanaticism and his delusion that the world has never been safer.  We see this delusion in certain corners within the Church.  For example, Bishop Robert McManus has asserted that, "the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims. This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world..."

A harvest of mutual respect?

Pray for those who are so blinded by ideology that they can no longer see reality.

Look who's calling the kettle black....

As noted here, "President Obama lamented the rancorous, divided state of U.S. politics in a wide-ranging interview with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson.

In the unusual discussion, Obama revealed some of his longstanding frustrations with politics while asking the Iowa author questions about her family, her Christian faith and her writings.

'How do you reconcile the idea of faith being really important to you and you caring a lot about taking faith seriously with the fact that, at least in our democracy and our civic discourse, it seems as if folks who take religion the most seriously sometimes are also those who are suspicious of those not like them?' Obama asked during the interview, which was published Monday in the New York Review of Books."

Rather than addressing the serious and substantive criticisms – or just plain concerns – directed at his policies, Obama has chosen time and again to dismiss his critics by painting them as dishonest, emotionally unstable or simply obstinate.  His fiercest criticism has been directed at those who are actually committed toward their religious beliefs, especially Christians.

Remember when he asserted that Americans who disapprove of homosexuality are clinging to worn arguments and old attitudes. Clearly no one has ever gifted Obama with a copy of Dale Carnegie's best-selling book.

Sophocles, in Antigone 1. 1023, says, "Stubborness and stupidity are twins." How so? Dr. Montague Brown explains as he makes the distinction between tenacity and stubborness: "Tenacity is the dedicated adherence to something we know to be worthwhile. As such, tenacity is positive. It involves a clear purpose - to persevere in what is good - and welcomes new evidence and perspectives that clarify or enrich that good...Tenacity is particularly evident when the adherence required is difficult. If my perseverance requires great effort of body or mind, or if it requires me to face a great deal of peer pressure and perhaps even ridicule, then my holding fast to my good purpose shows strength of mind and courage. In such cases, there may be little to gain in terms of social standing, but much in moral standing. Tenaciously holding to what is true and good not only benefits me in terms of virtue; it also works to ensure the stability of these goods in the community....Stubborness is the uncompromising insistence on having our own way. As such, stubborness is negative. It involves a kind of blindness, along with a willful rejection of evidence and the perspectives of others. Stubborness is particularly evident when the compromise required is easy. If the evidence I need to convince me to change my mind is readily available, or if accepting another's perspective would mean giving up little of importance, then my refusal to yield is not reasonable, but is motivated by stubborness. There is little to lose except my desire to be in control. Such rigid clinging to my own will hurts the community, because I refuse to cooperate with others, and it also prevents me from becoming successful and virtuous." (Dr. Montague Brown, Ph.D, The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 162-163, Sophia Institute Press).

Obama accuses people of faith with sincere and deeply held religious beliefs as being "suspicious of others." This from the same POTUS whose administration authorized a document entitled the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon," which was issued to the Department of Homeland Security. In this lexicon, the Obama administration defined pro-life advocates as follows: "A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently anti-abortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities."

Religious belief isn't the reason why we lack civil discourse in our politics.  The root behind such incivility is fanaticism; The fanaticism which seeks to demonize the other, as Obama frequently does.  See here for example.

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel writes, "..the fanatic never sees himself as a fanatic; it is only the non-fanatic who can recognize him as a fanatic; so that when this judgment, or this accusation, is made, the fanatic can always say that he is misunderstood and slandered...Fanaticism is essentially opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature....whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, he is led, as we have seen, to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation. It cannot be asserted too strongly or repeated too often that those the Nazis made use of in their camps - techniques for degrading their victims in their own eyes, for making mud and filth of them - and those which Soviet propagandists use to discredit their adversaries, are not essentially different though we should, in fairness, add that sadism, properly so called, is not to be found in the Russian camps." (pp. 135-136, 149).

Marcel explains that, "In fact, the greatest merit of the critical spirit is that it tends to cure fanaticism, and it is logical enough that in our own fanatical times the critical spirit should tend to disappear, should no longer even be paid lip service as a value."

It is obvious that President Obama is no fan of the critical spirit but has, rather, succumbed to ideological fanaticism and the techniques of degradation.

He is the one suffering from suspiciousness of others.  To the point of anti-religious paranoia.

The SPLC and the Homosexual Hate Movement

Just returned from a very productive evangelization project in the Monadnock area.

In the news, Patrick Vaughn, Legal Counsel for the American Family Association, correctly observes that, "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) calls the American Family Association (AFA) a 'hate group' because AFA promotes traditional Biblical views on homosexuality and marriage. SPLC does not have a standard for who they label as a 'hate group.' They apply the label to whomever they want to dehumanize and attack." See here.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has even included Mass Resistance in its list of hate groups because of the organization's opposition to homosexuality, an opposition which is rooted in both Divine Revelation and Natural Law. This is ridiculous on so many different levels. What is particularly ironic, however, is that Mass Resistance doesn't even meet the SPLC's definition of a hate group: "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." (Source: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp).

And what is the definition of "immutable"? The word itself comes from the Latin: in - not and mutabilis - mutable (changeable). The American Heritage Dictionary provides us with an excellent definition: "Not subject or susceptible to change." But can one honestly suggest that homosexuality is immutable? Not according to the hard science:

http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

What then has motivated the Southern Poverty Law Center to include Mass Resistance in its listing of hate groups? Is the SPLC driven by politics or science? Tolerance or relativism? Open-mindedness or indiscrimination?

And where is the hate really coming from?  See here and here.

The mainstream media would have us believe that the homosexual movement has nothing to do with hate. Tell that to the Catholics, Protestants and Mormons who came under both verbal and physical attack in California after the Prop 8 controversy.  Nobody wants to persecute us? That must be why I have received numerous threats and hate mail, not to mention hateful comments at this Blog directed against my person. There is no hatred from the "gay" community? This must be why a homosexual activist called The Mothertown News in Massachusetts to tell them he objected to an article I wrote for that publication - explaining the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality which includes respect for the homosexual person - and that he was going to kill me with his high-powered rifle.

Radical homosexual activists do not view themselves as fanatics.  This comes as no surprise.  It was the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, a man whose thought so greatly influenced my own, who said that, "Fanaticism is essentially opinion; opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature...whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, his is led...to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make very effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation...fanaticism is, of its very nature, incompatible with any regard for truth; and as truth itself is not really seperable from our regard for it, we need not hesitate to say that the fanatic is the enemy of truth..." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 149-150).

Which is why Catholics faithful to the Church, faithful to the Lord Jesus, must be painted as "loony" and "deranged." We must be made to be seen as being somehow "dangerous."  We must be demonized and eventually criminalized.  And then we can be disposed of in the gulag or in front of a firing squad.

Homosexual Hate Movement: The Final Stage

Ten years ago, I posted the following here at La Salette Journey:

Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, "First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior." (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).

Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process:

"The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."

And increasingly, we are witnessing episodes which serve to highlight the fact that we have entered this final stage.  See here for example.

The homosexual movement is essentially totalitarian.  There is no point in denying this.  See here.

This hate movement seeks to impose its ideology on all.  And it will employ any means, including physical violence, to attain its evil agenda.  See here.

Persecution? What persecution?

In a recent post dealing with the coming persecution [which has actually already begun but which will become increasingly violent], I noted the gradual process by which secular humanists and other anti-Christian types weed out Christian thought and eventually ban it altogether, often criminalizing the Gospel.  I am now under attack [along with such prominent Catholics as Cardinal Raymond Burke and Dr. Jeff Mirus] for having the audacity to warn of the coming persecution against the Church by the Homosexual Hate Movement.

In a post which may be found here, I am accused of engaging in "Catholic persecution fantasies."  This after the writer asserts that my Blog post and additional articles are "deranged" and "loony."  Referring to my post, the writer asserts:

"The blogpost gets more and more deranged after this, so I will spare most of the details. Amongst other things, he urges us to read another loony article of his called The Homosexual Hate Movement: Another form of totalitarianism, which offers further insight into his demented religious mindset. What is most worrying, though, is how Melanson finds so much encouragement for his political and religious obsessions from the leaders of the Catholic Church. His post was prompted in the first place by news of Cardinal Burke's ludicrous claim that American Catholics are on the brink of a great persecution. He is also able to cite Pope John Paul II writing that 'Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person'. Or in other words, democracy is only 'authentic' and legitimate if the government conforms to Catholic teaching."

The writer concludes his confused piece by asserting that, "There is no totalitarian Homosexual Hate Movement...sorry to disappoint you Mr. Melanson, but nobody wants to persecute you.  Get over it."  The homosexual movement has nothing to do with hate?  Tell that to the Catholics, Protestants and Mormons who came under both verbal and physical attack in California after the Prop 8 controversy.  See here.  Nobody wants to persecute me?  That must be why I have received numerous threats and hate mail, not to mention hateful comments at this Blog directed against my person.  Nobody wants to persecute me [and other Christians and people of good will who are morally opposed to the radical homosexual agenda]?  Is that why a homosexual activist called The Mothertown News in Massachusetts to tell them he objected to an article I wrote for that publication - explaining the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality which includes respect for the homosexual person - and that he was going to kill me with his high-powered rifle?

Persecution?  What persecution?  It was the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, a man whose thought so greatly influenced my own, who said that, "Fanaticism is essentially opinion; opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature...whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, his is led...to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make very effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation...fanaticism is, of its very nature, incompatible with any regard for truth; and as truth itself is not really seperable from our regard for it, we need not hesitate to say that the fanatic is the enemy of truth..." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 149-150).


Which is why Catholics faithful to the Church, faithful to the Lord Jesus, must be painted as "loony" and "deranged."  We must be made to be seen as being somehow "dangerous."  We must be demonized and eventually criminalized.  And then we can be disposed of in the gulag or in front of a firing squad.

Persecution?  What persecution?

Related reading here and most importantly here.

Johann Hari provides more evidence of his fanaticism

Protect the Pope is reporting that:

"Johann Hari, militant atheist and gay activist, writes in The Independent, that Catholics who celebrate the Pope’s visit in a week’s time will be ‘understood as endorsing his crimes and his cruelties.’ He concludes that the faith of such Catholics ‘distorts’ their ‘ moral faculties’.

Hari writes: ‘If you turn out to celebrate him, you will be understood as endorsing his crimes and his cruelties. If your faith pulls you towards him rather than his victims, shouldn’t that make you think again about your faith? Doesn’t it suggest that faith in fact distorts your moral faculties?’

In the rest of the piece in The Independent he churns up the usual lies and distortions about Pope Benedict’s handling of child abuse cases. He then makes the disgusting comment that Pope Benedict has ‘facilitated the rape of your children’

He goes on to make the outrageous claim that Jesus demands that Catholics not support the Holy Father’s visit.

‘You have a choice during this state visit: stand with Ratzinger, or stand with his Catholic victims. Which side, do you think, would be chosen by the Nazarene carpenter you find on your crucifixes? I suspect he would want Ratzinger to be greeted with an empty, repulsed silence, broken only by cries for justice – and the low approaching wail of a police siren.’

Protect the Pope comment: As if we needed more evidence, so amply provided by Terry Sanderson, this lurid, outrageous piece by Johann Hari proves that those protesting the Pope’s visit are ANTI- CATHOLIC. He mendaciously and wickedly portrays Pope Benedict as a facilitator of child abuse and then claims that if Catholics celebrate the Papal visit that they do not support the victims of child abuse. Here before our very eyes, Protest the Pope is revealed as Protest the Catholics."

Mr. Hari's anti-Catholic rant may be found here.

Mr. Hari has a history of engaging in falsehood against the Church. At this point he has forfeited what little credibility he may once have enjoyed. Make no mistake, Johann Hari is not a journalist interested in reporting facts. He is an anti-Catholic propagandist.

Johann Hari: Journalist Or Fanatical Propagandist?

Credibility Hari Kari?

Johann Hari, a homosexual columnist who writes a column for The Independent and whose credibility has been called into question on several occasions by others working in the field of journalism, has written an anti-Christian rant in which he asserts that, "There is now overwhelming evidence that Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope, was involved for over twenty years in an international criminal conspiracy to cover up the rape of children by priests in his Church." See here for full article.

And what is this "overwhelming evidence" Mr. Hari refers to? He doesn't say. Five years ago I challenged attorney Daniel Shea when he said essentially the same thing. Mr. Shea asserted that "Ratzinger and company" were engaged in an "international conspiracy to obstruct justice." And after five years, he still hasn't produced the slightest shred of evidence to corroborate his claims.

This is the mark of the fanatic. It was the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, a man whose thought so greatly influenced my own, who said that, "Fanaticism is essentially opinion; opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature...whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, his is led...to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make very effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation...fanaticism is, of its very nature, incompatible with any regard for truth; and as truth itself is not really seperable from our regard for it, we need not hesitate to say that the fanatic is the enemy of truth..." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 149-150).

I challenge Mr. Hari to produce his "evidence" of criminal conspiracy just as I challenged attorney Daniel Shea five years ago. I likewise challenge The Huffington Post to publish this "evidence." Failure to do so will be seen for what it is: an admission that no such "evidence" exists.

The credibility of The Independent*, The Huffington Post, and what little credibility Johann Hari might still enjoy, now hang in the balance.

* The Independent has published an article written by Johann Hari which asserted that, "It is now an indisputable fact that the Catholic Church systematically covered up the rape of children across the globe." See here.

Indisputable fact? Why then has this lawsuit been dropped.

Christianophobia in Fitchburg (and beyond)...

Recently, the Sentinel & Enterprise published a letter to the editor which I wrote in response to comments made by Fitchburg City Councilor Kevin Starr to the effect that pro-life views have "no place" at City Council meetings. Several hateful comments have been left in response to my letter to the editor. One individual wrote:

"You Jesus freaks are outright stupid. This debate has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with whether or not an organization (with state funding) should be allowed to operate in our city. An organization mind you, that will provide free birth control and contraceptives to your $LUT daughters and your horny sons, and keep kids still in high school from having kids that the taxpayers have to pay to support. Planned Parenthood is a great organization who has positively served thousands of cities in the country for years. Go hide behind your crucifix just don't complain when your 14 year old daughter gets knocked up by some PR kid behind Market Basket and expects a handout from uncle sam. Begone hypocrites.

Kevin Starr is right. His comments ensure that both he and the city council stay on issue and dont get swayed by talks of the second coming of jesus and how god wouldn't want the state handing out condoms to kids who are just gonna **** with or without them. That's the truth, deal with it." (See here).

This debate has nothing to do with religion asserts this unhappy individual as he labels opponents of Planned Parenthood "Jesus freaks" while exhorting them to "go hide behind your crucifix."

Hatred for the crucifix is growing as intolerance and discrimination against Christians continues to widen. In Bad Soden, Germany, crosses were removed from hospital walls and thrown into trash bags [much as aborted babies are thrown into trash bags] as patients watched.

Fanaticism, as proven by the items listed above, stems from the will to power and not religion.
The French philosopher Jacques Maritain addresses this fact in his work entitled "On the Use of Philosophy," which is actually a compilation of three essays.

His second essay is entitled "truth and human fellowship." He writes:


"'O liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name!' Madame Roland said, mounting the scaffold. O Truth, it may be said, how often blind violence and oppression have been let loose in thy name in history! 'Zeal for truth,' as Father Victor White puts it, 'has too often been a cloak for the most evil and revolting of human passions.' As a result, some people think that in order to set human existence free from these evil passions, and make men live in peace and pleasant quiet, the best way is to get rid of any zeal for truth or attachment to truth. Thus it is that after the violence and cruelty of wars of religion, a period of skepticism usually occurs, as at the time of Montaigne and Charron. Here we have only the swing of the pendulum moving from one extreme to the other. Skepticism, moreover, may happen to hold those who are not skeptical to be barbarous, childish, or subhuman, and it may happen to treat them as badly as the zealot treats the unbeliever. Then skepticism proves to be as intolerant as fanaticism - it becomes the fanaticism of doubt. This is a sign that skepticism is not the answer. The answer is humility, together with faith in truth...

The problem of truth and human fellowship is important for democratic societies; it seems to me to be particularly important for this country [United States], where men and women coming from a great diversity of national stocks and religious or philosophical creeds have to live together. If each one of them endeavored to impose his own convictions and the truth in which he believes on all his co-citizens, would not living together become impossible? That is obviously right. Well, it is easy, too easy, to go a step further, and to ask: if each one sticks to his own convictions, will not each one endeavor to impose his own convictions on all others? So that, as a result, living together will become impossible if any citizen whatever sticks to his own convictions and believes in a given truth? Thus it is not unusual to meet people who think that not to believe in any truth, or not to adhere firmly to any assertion as unshakeably true in itself, is a primary condition required of democratic citizens in order to be tolerant of one another. May I say that these people are in fact the most intolerant people, for if perchance they were to believe in something as unshakeably true, they would feel compelled, by the same stroke, to impose by force and coercion their own belief on their co-citizens...

The only remedy they have found to get rid of their abiding tendency to fanaticism is to cut themselves off from truth. That is a suicidal method. It is a suicidal conception of democracy: not only would a democratic society which lived on universal skepticism condemn itself to death by starvation; but it would also enter a process of self-annihilation, from the very fact that no democratic society can live without a common practical belief in those truths which are freedom, justice, law, and the other tenets of democracy; and that any belief in these things as objectively and unshakeably true, as well as in any other kind of truth, would be brought to naught by the preassumed law of universal skepticism....

It is, no doubt, easy to observe that in the history of mankind nothing goes to show that, from primitive times on, religious feeling or religious ideas have been particularly successful in pacifying men; religious differences seem rather to have fed and sharpened their conflicts. On the one hand truth always makes trouble, and those who bear witness to it are always persecuted: 'Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth; I came not to send peace, but the sword.' (Matthew 10:34). On the other hand - and this is the point we must face - those who know or claim to know truth happen sometimes to persecute others. I do not deny the fact; I say that this fact, like all other facts, needs to be understood. It only means that, given the weakness of our nature, the impact of of the highest and most sacred things upon the coarseness of the human heart is liable to make these things, by accident, a prey to its passions, as long as it has not been purified by genuine love. It is nonsense to regard fanaticism as a fruit of religion. Fanaticism is a natural tendency rooted in our basic egotism and will to power. It seizes upon any noble feeling to live on it. The only remedy for religious fanaticism is the Gospel light and the progress of religious consciousness in faith itself and in that fraternal love which is the fruit of the human soul's union with God. For then man realizes the sacred transcendence of truth and of God. The more he grasps truth, through science, philosophy, or faith, the more he feels what immensity remains to be grasped within this very truth. The more he knows God, either by reason or by faith, the more he understands that our concepts attain (through analogy) but do not circumscribe Him, and that His thoughts are not like our thoughts: for 'who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath become His counselor.' (Isaias 40:13). The more strong and deep faith becomes, the more man kneels down, not before his own alleged ignorance of truth, but before the inscrutable mystery of divine truth, and before the hidden ways in which God goes to meet those who search Him....

To sum up, the real problem has to do with the human subject, endowed as he is with his rights in relation to his fellow men, and afflicted as he is by the vicious inclinations which derive from his will to power. On the one hand, the error of the absolutists who would like to impose truth by coercion comes from the fact that they shift their right feelings about the object from the object to the subject; and they think that just as error has no rights of its own and should be banished from the mind (through the means of the mind), so man when he is in error has no rights of his own and should be banished from human fellowship (through the means of human power).

On the other hand, the error of the theorists who make relativism, ignorance, and doubt a necessary condition for mutual tolerance comes from the fact that they shift their right feelings about the human subject - who must be respected even if he is in error - from the subject to the object; and thus they deprive man and the human intellect of the very act - adherence to the truth - in which consists man's dignity and reason for living." (Jacques Maritain, On the Use of Philosophy: Three Essays, pp. 16, 17, 21-23).