By Theodore Shoebat
The mob mentality is inundating the United States. The first people that will be suffer the most, are the ones pushing mob ideology, filled with its self-satisfied sense of false empowerment, which acts as a cover for the enslavement of the very mob that supports it. Just look at what happened in Seattle. Bernie Sanders, at the very beginning of his speech, praised the city as being “one of the most progressive cities,” and then right after this, a mob of black supremacists took the stage and drove Bernie out of the stage, and used it as a platform to preach their “black lives matter” agenda, with mobbish theatrics at all:
Bernie Sanders deserves what he got. He pushes this garbage, and is now being oppressed by the very movement he supported, just as Robespierre suffered the guillotine under the hands of the revolution he helped lead. Here is a video of Bernie speaking in support of the “black lives matter” mob:
Here is an observation that I think we should all ponder on. In America and in the West there are certain groups who talk the most about being empowered: the feminists and the black liberation supremacists. They speak the most about being self empowered, which is nothing more than weakness covered with a sense of superficial self-satisfaction. While they speak of being empowered, they are in reality enslaved. Women have careers equal to men makes them feel empowered, when the reality is that all it is is them refusing to work for their husbands and instead working like a slave under a boss who doesn’t give a fig about them.
The black supremacists go around with their fists up in the air, acting as though they are overthrowing the system, when in reality they are slaves to the system. They demand reparations from the government that once enslaved, further enslaving themselves. The wretch in the video screams that she just wants to say “black lives matter” with her fake tears, but she would never go against the abortion movement under which the majority of babies killed are African American.
The ones who talk the most about how empowered they are, are the most enslaved.
The great French philosopher Joseph de Maistre, a survivor of the French Revolution who witnessed how the deist rebels slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Christians, gave the cause of the violence when he said:
What folly it was to grant everyone freedom of speech! This is what has ruined us. The so-called philosophers have all a certain fierce and rebellious pride which does not compromise with anything; they detest without exception every distinction they do not enjoy; they find fault in every authority; they hate anything above them. If they are allowed, they will attack everything, even God, because He is master. (De Maistre, The Saint Petersburg Dialogue, eight dialogue, p. 269)
This is the absolute and ultimate truth as to the cause of evil: it is when absolute license is given to human depravity when the depths of the abyss arise in their fullest capacity to attack and enslave the Church, and destroy Christianity.
There is no quicker way to create an evil society than to convince people that the world owes them something. Be it Muslim terrorists, Satanists, social Darwinists, communists, they all have one thing in common: they believe that the world owes them something. They are brainwashed to believe that they are special because they are depraved, or because they hate God, and they are then told that for centuries people like them have been persecuted by the Church.
They then go out maliciously insulting, scoffing, and blaspheming Christianity. From maliciousness comes violence, and so then they commence violence against Christians, be it killing them or burning down their churches. They will then say that their violence was merely a reaction to all of the persecution their people suffered under Christianity, and that this was due justice. And all the while they will say that they are for freedom and liberty. This is the mindset of these evil people. And this is why in the glorious age of Christendom, the state suppressed, and even at times, killed such evildoers.
As the great Maistre said, “those who talk or write to deprive a people of the Faith, should be hung like housebreakers!” This is what I believe as well, and I could care less as to what you moderns think. It is because of their deplorable license, and the freedom given to their ways, that we are in the mess that we are in.
Absolute freedom is the root of all evil. The only true liberty is the freedom to do good, anything else is the tyranny of the devil. To the reprobates liberty is anarchy; they take the word liberty and soil it! They use it as a disguise for license to cults and violent and reckless groups. They will never tell you that by liberty is not meant liberty from righteous law, but liberty from being enslaved to sin. For Christ tells us, “whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (John 8:34-36)
To be free is to choose good and reject evil, and therefore the law does not prevent liberty, but guides man to liberty by providing the condition to partake in this freedom.
The Scriptures say, “And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.” (Psalm 119:45) This is true liberty, the one that remains within the Law of God, and from the tyranny of the absolute toleration and license given to evil. For this reason law should never be cast away, and secular government allowed to triumph, for even St. Paul upheld the Law of God when he said, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)
Law directs the citizens to good, and does not give them to an environment for wicked practices. Even in the Garden of Eden, where our first parents were free from the fetters of sin, God gave them a law that was so be enforced. For, in the words of St. Robert Bellarmine, “Adam was created free, yet a law was imposed on him not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2).” (Bellarmine, On Laymen or Secular People, ch. 10, ed. Tutino, pp. 38-39)
All law is here, not to tolerate wickedness, but punish it, and thus to enable true liberty, or to use the words of Augustine, “Every punishment, if it is just, is punishment of a sin”. (Augustine, Retractationes, 1.9, in Bellarmine, On Laymen or Secular People, ch. 11, ed. Tutino, p. 44)
But the heretics will interject, and say freedom of conscious, which is a fancy way of saying, “freedom to do whatever we want,” is upheld. The freedom of human will is upheld as a god in the society of these heretics; they are obsessed with “freedom,” and all this leads to is a fixation on the freedom to make others miserable.
The wills of wicked people must never be made equal to the wills of the righteous, for the latter lives in true liberty, and cannot bend the knee to the former who is a slave, and will only enslave others. They will say that this “unloving,” but in fact it is the most loving thing you can do for the reprobates, for the punishment they endure is tremendously less severe than the distorted state they are in. As we read from St. Augustine:
But we also have to do many things, even against the will of people who need to be punished with a certain kind harshness, for we have to consider their benefit rather than their will (Augustine, Letter 138.14, trans. Roland Teske)
Even John Chrysostom, though a mild man who did not believe in the killing of heretics, said that “He [Christ] doth not therefore forbid our checking heretics, and stopping their mouths, and taking away their freedom of speech, and breaking up their assemblies and confederacies” (St. Chrysostom, Homily 46 on Matthew)
This is what must be done to these evil and disgusting people. We should not allow them to have their parades of “pride,” where they flaunt their effeminate and sadistic ways; we should not allow the subhuman feminists, who are no different than nazis, to have their rallies in support of massacring babies for their devilish god of freedom. They worship a god, and they call it freedom, but in reality it is the demon of anarchy. But what are these gods that they worship but the spirits of the abyss?
As the glorious Apostle tells us, “the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.” (1 Corinthians 10:20) And what association does civilization have with the promoters of devils? These feminists who promote the killing of innocent babies should not have a moment of freedom to speak their deceptions! They should be arrested and punished, or better yet, executed for their inculcation of violence against the most innocent of human life.
One cannot speak of violence against born people without provoking an investigation against him. Why then should these wretches be allowed to speak of murdering the most helpless of beings?
What should be the fate of these agents of the homosexual agenda? They should be arrested, tried as disturbers of the peace, and put to the sword. And what of those who promote Islam? The same: the sword and nothing more. Islam should be utterly uprooted in the society, because for one, it is a heresy, and it is dangerous to society. The Muslims must be brought to Christianity, and those who promote that horrible heresy and jihad, need to be extirpated.
One can even say that the American president Andrew Jackson was implementing a form of inquisition when he signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, in which all Indians who did not fully assimilate to American society were to be removed west of the Mississippi. The Creeks and the Chickasaws complied while eight million Cherokees were forced to journey two thousand miles from Georgia to what is today Oklahoma. Twenty percent of them died of starvation, or from rain, sleet, and snow. (See Winston Groom, Patriotic Fire, ch. iv, p. 55, note; ch. xviii, p. 255, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006)
But I will not reiterate the common jargon and say that I am ashamed of such history. I will not ignore the fact that the Americans were suffering from attacks by the Indians similar to those which the Moors afflicted upon the Spaniards. I will not ignore that in 1813, just sixteen years prior to the signing of the Act, the Creek Indians executed a gory raid on Fort Mims in Alabama where they butchered two hundred soldiers, massacred two hundred and fifty old men, women and children by fire and tomahawk, and murdered another one hundred friendly Indians. (See William Burdick, Political and Historical Register, vol. i, p. 191; A Copy of a letter from Captain Kennedy Brigadier-General Claiborne, dated Mount Vernon, September 26th, 1813, in T.H. Palmer, The Historical Register, vol. ii, p. 332)
I will not ignore the words of an eyewitness to this horror, which state that “blood and brains bespattered the whole earth. The children were seized by the legs, and killed by batting their heads against the stockading. The women were scalped and those who were pregnant were opened, while they were alive, and the embryo infants let out of the womb.” (In Winston Groom, Patriotic Fire, ch. iii, pp. 46-47)
Did America, after such an atrocity, strive for a policy of toleration? Did America throw the event under the rug to preserve relations with the Indians? No–America conducted a stern inquisition on the Creeks and commissioned the then Major General Andrew Jackson to crush the threat. When he arrived at a Creek Indian village suspected of having violent intentions toward America, he burnt it to the ground, and if anybody resisted, he ordered them to be seized and executed. (In Winston Groom, Patriotic Fire, ch. iii, pp. 47; ch. iv, p. 48)
But again, I will not condemn Jackson for taking this measure due to the violence and savage raids of the Indians, just as I will not chastise the Spaniards for their expulsion of the Moors for their continuous terror attacks. The infamous Davy Crocket fought under Jackson and when describing the killing of the Creeks, he writes that “we shot them like dogs”. When a Creek squaw, who was guarding a hut hiding many Indians including several dozen warriors, killed an American lieutenant, Jackson’s men shot her down and then burned the entire hut, killing one hundred and eighty Indians. (Winston Groom, Patriotic Fire, ch. iv, p. 49)
Sixteen years later, after the Creek War, Jackson passed and advocated the Indian Removal Act which, in a way, could be compared to the sentiments of the Spanish inquisitors. The Inquisition in Spain was done for the establishment of Christian supremacy, in that it wanted the people to integrate into Spanish culture and become Christian, and in comparison, Jackson himself said that one of the purposes of the Indian Removal Act was to have the Indians who refused to assimilate into American society to convert to Christianity. In his own words on the Act:
It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. …He [the Indian] is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement. (Transcript of President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’ (1830), found in ourdocument.gov)
I have heard so many times how Ronald Reagan was America’s greatest president. While Reagan is superior to anything we have now, I would contend that Andrew Jackson was America’s greatest president. In 1978, when some righteous conservatives were trying to pass The Briggs Initiative, a measure that would have fired any teacher in California public schools who was homosexual or supported homosexuality, Reagan went against it, writing in one editorial
Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this (Reagan, (1978-11-01). “Editorial: Two Ill-advised California Trends”. Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. p. A19)
When the dangers of homosexuality were arising, Reagan did not combat it head on. Jackson, on the other hand, fought the evils of the pagan Native Indians, who were slaughter Americans, head on. This is the righteous way of fighting evil: not to compromise with it, but to destroy it. This is true freedom: to have the liberty to resist and destroy evil.
No one can deny that the expulsion of the Indians made a more peaceful society for the Americans, and that this security still exists today: no one worries anymore about Indians raiding one’s town. This freedom from the capricious hand armed with the tomahawk could only be attributed to the expulsion of the Indians–and as harsh as it sounds, this is only the honest truth that most are too afraid to confront: American civilization would have been impossible to build if Christian Europeans never settled on the land in the first place. Is it Christian supremacy over Indian religion and culture? Yes, it would be dishonest to deny this, but since when were we ever obligated to lament over this very fact? Those who point the finger and look down upon any part of Western history which illustrates Christian supremacy should realize that there is no nation on earth which does not have supremacy.
If Christian dominance was never made in America, then this nation would be ruled under the supremacy of the savage religion of the Indian. Whether or not a nation has within its society religious supremacy is insignificant, what matters is what type of supremacy. What man, living a civilized life in America, would decide to leave his homeland for a country ruled under Islamic supremacy?
If the people who complain about Christian supremacy have their way and the major influence of the Bible was gotten rid of, they would never bicker about a nation adopting atheist supremacy. Just look at America in the present day: we have torn down the Christian supremacy of Jackson and have now allowed ourselves to be yoked by a socialist supremacy, where children can be murdered in the womb, where financial success is punished by taxes worse than those imposed on the Colonies by the British Empire, and where the Bible cannot be brought in public without offending someone.
Nations cannot survive without inquisitions. France was overran by deist heretics in the eighteenth century, in what is called the French Revolution, in which hundreds of thousands of people were massacred. This could have been prevented if there were measures taken against the deist heresy. As Maistre, a survivor and critique of the Revolution and its deistic foundation, writes,
It is true, there is no longer, now, any reason for entertaining the same alarms. And yet, when we reflect, that the Inquisition, by its restrictions, and authority, would have prevented the French Revolution,–it is hard to say, whether the Sovereign, who, wholly, and without reserve, gave up this instrument, would not, in reality, be doing an injury to humanity. (Maistre, Letters on the Spanish Inquisition, letter 2)
Let Christendom arise, and let it transcend us from the slavery of darkness and anarchy, to the light of the Divine Law and the ever-flowing eternal justice.