Until a few months ago I had never heard of the book, The Myth of the Century. Judging from the title you might imagine that
it is dispelling some ill conceived concept of a particular time. To the contrary, it is actually proposing a
new myth, one that can be embraced by people in the future. It was written by Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi
closest to Hitler, a long time best friend from the days before Hitler’s rise
to power. They were conspirators
together in the coffee shops
and beer halls long before Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. Once he rose to power, Rosenberg was
appointed minister of culture and ideology among other things as it became
convenient to do so. 
Wikipedia says this about Rosenberg’s long term
intentions should the German’s be successful in the war.
“During WWII Rosenberg
outlined the future envisioned by the Hitler government for religion in
Germany, with a thirty-point program for the future of the German churches. Among its articles:
·
The National Reich Church of Germany would
claim exclusive control over all churches
·
Publication of the Bible would cease
·
Crucifixes, Bibles and saints were to be
removed from altars
·
Mein Kampf would be placed on altars as ‘to
the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book.’
·
The Christian Cross would be removed from all
churches and replaced with the swastika
In the book, The
Devil’s Diary, (a true story of the diary of Rosenberg) written by Robert
Wittman and David Kinney, we are told,
“Whatever Rosenberg’s rivals
in the bureaucracy thought of Myth, the
book became a standard text in Germany.
The new Nazi state mandated that it be placed on school curricula and in
library collections. Teachers attending
indoctrination courses were asked to bring along their copies. Law students were required to be familiar
with its lessons. Hitler Youth
instructors used its ideas in their ideological classes. ‘Rosenberg’s path,’ said Baldur von Schirach,
leader of the organization, ‘is the path of German youth.
In bookstores throughout the
country, Myth rested next to its only
rival in the German publishing world, Mein
Kampf. It became everything
Rosenberg could have wanted, and more:
He had written a bible for the Nazi movement.
‘I believe,’ one man told
Rosenberg, ‘that even after a thousand years have passed, your work will
endure.’”
I share this information with the reader for one purpose
only. To share with you my firm belief it
is actually possible for men to think they can replace Christianity by
influencing a generation, perhaps two, of the youth in their care, mandating a
particular dogma be taught in public schools, and in a short period of time, confidently change the world’s viewpoint, whether it is to a new messiah, or no
messiah, or simply a faith in common human values that would hopefully unite
the world and ensure peace. Religion as
it is, after all, is what causes most wars.
At least, that’s what we are told.
So if you can end any rivalries between faiths and promote the idea that
we are all nearly the same in our aims---peace, unity, equality, a fair
distribution of wealth, a reasonable formula to control the world’s population,
and unite all with a love for something no one can reject, namely the viability
of mother earth for future generations, then you will also be able to nudge
people that much closer to not just accepting, but actually embracing a global
government that will benevolently look after all our needs and keep us
happy.
If you want to keep your religion, you can keep your
religion as long as it is not offensive to others and the troublemakers within
your ranks are brought to heel.
Today, if you believe in manmade climate change, and if
you believe that ecumenism is the only way for peace in the future, then you
are almost there. All that’s left is to
destroy capitalism, the Catholic Church, and the USA and you have accomplished
your goal. We were well on the road to
having that happen and the funniest thing occurred. Donald Trump won the election.
In Chapter Eight, Ureta quotes an article by Jean
Baudrillard, Jacinto Lageira, and Alain Brunn published in Encyclopedie Universalis:
“Modernity is neither
a sociological, political nor properly speaking a historical concept. It is a characteristic mode of civilization
that opposes that of tradition, that is, all other previous or
traditional cultures…
Inextricably entangled in
both myth and reality, modernity is specified in all fields: modern state, modern technology, modern music
and painting, modern customs and ideas---as a kind of general category and
cultural imperative. ……it is unstable
and irreversible except as a value system, a myth
Ureta continues, “From
what Tradition did modernity seek to free itself and thus become the
dominant ideology and historical path trodden over the last centuries? Clearly,
it was Catholic culture and civilization that prevailed in the Middle Ages. Pope Pius XII succinctly described the stages
of this philosophical and religious emancipation when he spoke of a subtle and mysterious
enemy that has sought to effect the
intellectual, moral, and social disintegration of Christendom.”
Several popes tried to warn us about the errors of
modernity. Pius IX and Pius X in
particular strongly condemned the idea that Christianity and modernity could go
hand in hand. The conflict came to an
end at Vatican II when John XXIII officially abandoned the fight and
proposed a “dialogue with the modern world.”
Paul VI said at the end of the Council,
“A wave of affection and
admiration flowed from the council over the modern world of humanity. ……… Instead of depressing diagnoses,
encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the council to the present-day
world. The modern world’s values were not only respected but honored, its
efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed.”
We’ve been on a very slippery slope ever since. If you have studied communism, you know the
belief is that a revolution is inevitable and that a force moves man toward this utopia of unity and oneness. Francis today believes in this Revolution of
thought, Revolution of economics, of politics, of nation states into regions
and then into one body, all for the “common good” of man. Obviously, we will never get there if the
Roman Catholic Church doesn’t stop preaching that to be saved man must first be
baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That has to go. According to Francis, it is time to recognize
that many people have other ways “of relating to God.”
He wants us to let go of our rigid past and embrace the Revolution,
move with his own interpretation of where the Holy Spirit is taking
us.
Well, communism sounds nice in theory, but it isn’t
what we know is the truth given to us by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Francis believes this Revolution is
inevitable. He accepts the idea that it
will take time but firmly believes it WILL HAPPEN and it is foolish for us to
resist. We aren’t just talking about
redecorating the Sistine Chapel here.
This is throwing out all we know is true of our faith and making of
Jesus simply a nice man with some good advice about how to get along, but primarily
how to treat poor people.
 |
(A close examination of this gives
us a clue as to why indigenous people are
revered and included in the final design)
|
Quoting the author:
“Consistent with Guardini’s
criterion, Pope Francis predictably sympathizes with each stage of the
Revolution in the context of its time.
His goodwill toward its
first stage (the Pseudo-Reformation) is evident in the already mentioned
statements and gestures regarding Luther.
His position regarding the second stage (the French Revolution) is
ambivalent. He approved State secularization
and the human rights it enshrined, but, on the other hand, the pope reckons
that the democratic, bourgeois, and liberal political regime it promoted has
turned against the lower classes and has been superseded by the ideal of
participatory democracy. He believes
further that nationalism is now a hindrance to the ‘dream of a new European
humanism’ and to the new, globalized, multiethnic, and multicultural
humanity. Lastly, he believes that the myth of progress promoted by
Enlightenment philosophers in the revolutionary salons of 1789 has been
overcome by a green worldview. [My thoughts: Communists love changing the names of things.]
By contrast, his appeal
for the utopias of the third stage of the revolutionary process
(Communism), and even for those of the Fourth Eco-tribalist Revolution, seems
to be increasingly expressed by his efforts to bring together all popular
indigenist movements in the Vatican-sponsored World Meetings and collaboration
with international bodies to promote ecological global governance.
In a meeting he had with the founder of La Repubblica Francis said, “I will not
have much time to finish the work to which I must dedicate myself, which is the
fulfillment of the goals prescribed by Vatican II and particularly that of
having the Church meet with modernity.”
Finally, Ureta says,
“Thus, I conclude that this pontificate can be
characterized as attempting to carry out a definitive ralliement of the Church with the Revolution and its secularized
humanism. Moreover, that this surrender
of the Church to the Revolution is being done while the latter is at an impasse
because, in its current stage, its final steps, the Revolution can no longer
disguise the full stench and evil of its ultimate goal.”
No comments:
Post a Comment