Almost everyone knows Mr. Magoo. He's that harmless cartoon character who is always confusing reality as perceived with his squinty, dimmed vision. Naïve in his approach to life, he gives credence to the saying that "God looks after fools and drunks." Or something of that nature. What happens in cartoons is not always what happens in real life.
Reality, for all its reallness, is a most illusive something. It is a `something' because it is opposed to a `nothing.'
Despite the truth that `facts are facts,' there is nothing to preclude a faulty interpretation of the facts. A person's view of the facts is often called `perception.' Everyone has his or her `perception' of reality, or, fact.
Facts can be manufactured just as easily as perceptions can be deliberately altered to serve a specific purpose. It happens all the time. The thing both have in common at this stage is that they are both nothing but lies.
The only way to avoid falling into the trap set with engineered `facts' and stage artists modifying people's perceptions, is by mentally setting aside all the conflicting misinformation so generously circulated, and apply the laws of right reason and logic.
The Seraph frequently urges people to shed their questionable perceptions and `canned-facts' by focusing on reality.
The beauty of the Catholic Church is that She is completely dedicated to reality, while other religions offer a kind of `Mr. Magoo-type of spirituality that leads nowhere.
The adult person must correctly perceive reality and then have the courage to acknowledge it. Mr. Magoo is a symbol of all those people who cannot perceive reality. Unlike Mr. Magoo, however, they will not be excused on Judgment Day for their inaction. They are totally out of touch with reality because they are afraid to be perceived as standing up for what is right. Part of the problem is that they no longer know what is right or wrong.
The `Mr.Magoos' really believe that politicians actually know what's good for us better than we do ourselves and worse yet, that they will do these things for us.
The `Mr. Magoos' fail to see and evaluate the snide remarks and slurs made against the Catholic Church. They gladly support Public TV because they believe the ridiculous lie that "Public Television brings them the programs they want." They do? Like TIMES and NEWSWEEK, the only time you see anything on TV concerning the Catholic Church is when some slur can be made, or some priest made to look like a fool. Mr. Magoos abound in the Catholic Church because their clergy have become Ostriches instead of standing tall to be seen by everyone as genuine spiritual leaders. Without their clergy, the people have become like Mr. Magoo. They think that somehow God is going to straighten things out without any effort on their part. In this they resemble the Protestants who believe themselves to be saved even though may be living in adultery, and exploit the worker.
The Ostrich is far worse than the Mr. Magoo. The Ostrich knows the facts, but refuses to acknowledge them for what they are. What can be more pathetic than that? Is there no connection between these `human ostriches' and the gaining popularity of raising real ostriches for meat?
There is a third kind of person to be considered. He is the Liar. The Liar is truly the most dangerous of the three. The Liar perceives reality as it truly is but, for his own reasons deliberately hides the true facts. The Liar is not bothered with how he ought to act. Unlike Mr. Magoo and the Ostrich who either naively pretend that all is well with the world, or who hide for fear of reality, the Liar boldly promotes the lie. He does not lack knowledge nor does he lack courage: the Liar is bent on premeditated deceit.
Consider for a moment: If the Devil is the Father of Lies, who do you suppose is the role model for the Liar?
Kindly keep in mind that even though reality is outside of us, our perception of reality is inside of us. Everything written here is a perception of reality. Even those who read these lines are forming their perception of the reality that is presented to them. The reader may agree or disagree with the perceived reality presented here. In any case, if there is disagreement between the writer and the reader, only one of them can be perceiving reality as it truly is. Only to the degree that one of us is correct in our perception of reality will that person's perception become more and more positive. The one who is wrong will suffer negative consequences to the extent that his perception was wrong.
Independently of either the writer or the reader, one thing is absolutely certain: Our views will in no way affect reality itself.
To illustrate this important point, consider the Catholic attitude regarding the Holy Eucharist. Either Jesus Christ is truly and really present, Body, Soul and Divinity, in the consecrated wafer and wine by means of transubstantiation, or He is not. This is what we call the "Real Presence" as opposed to the "Real Absence."
What is our `perception' of this? The believing Catholic says: "I believe that Jesus is truly present." The Protestant says: "I do not believe that Jesus is truly present." Whose perception is correct? And, whatever the perception, does it in any way change the reality?
The consequences of the perception are worlds apart. But the reality is still the reality independently of the perceiving individuals. Jesus is not in the Blessed Sacrament because we believe Him to be there, any more than is He absent because the Protestant believes He is not there.
Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament because He determined to be there. We Catholics believe this and our belief is based on our Lord's declaration. The Protestant does not believe our Lord's declaration, and so, lost in his false perception of reality the Protestant is deprived of union with Jesus Christ and sanctifying grace.
When Roman Catholics made themselves `Mr.Magoos' and when their clergy made themselves Ostriches, the same serious consequences flow from their new, erroneous perception of reality.
There is a unique psychological phenomenon that takes place in the human soul by means of a very simple trick. The reason for spending so much time emphasizing this all-important understanding of fact and perception will now become evident.
By changing the perception of reality, not only is reality denied, but it takes on a completely new imagineered existence. If you walk down the many streets in Disney World, you will see walking down the same street with you such familiar characters as Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and any number of characters that are perceived to have real existence (They are presented as `realties) but, in fact, they only exist in the imagination. This is important!
Adults make a rational adjustment to what they perceive, while children awed only by the size of their familiar cartoon characters. To the adult, all this is understandably fictitious; to the children, however, all this is real. Only with time will the child come to the realization that these cartoon characters have no existence except in the imagination of their creators.
Whether cuddly ducks and playful mice, whether ugly monsters and slobbering giants _ all this is nothing more than the figment of imagination. A contortion of reality; but not reality itself.
The world has a perception of a man dressed in white, living in the papal apartments in Vatican City. He travels the world, preaches what he either mistakenly perceives to be fact, or deceitfully represents lies for truth. Because he is perceived by the masses to be a "Pope" _ the visible spiritual leader of Roman Catholics _ he is given a hearing that few other men are given.
No one would argue the point that in a match between this perceived Pope and an unknown priest in some remote corner of the world, if it came to whom to believe, the perceived Pope would win hands down. But, what if _ just hypothetically speaking _ what if this man perceived to be a Pope is not, after all, a Pope at all?
Remember: We want to know reality and not become victims of false, dangerous perceptions. It's all in the perception .. almost.
We know (Or we ought to know) that the invisible enemy of Jesus Christ and His Church is Satan. We ought to know that the visible, organized enemies of Jesus Christ and His Church are Jews and Freemasons.
No one should be offended by this simple truth. Nor ought anyone be surprised at this because by definition anyone who is against Jesus Christ, is clearly not for Him. Indifference is the same as being against. If you don't like the Buffalo Bills for whatever personal reason, you may be correctly considered "Anti-Buffalo Bills." It would be considered `unfair' if you disliked the entire team of the Buffalo Bills just because of one member of that team. You want to be `fair,' don't you? Of course you do, because you see yourself as a `good Christian.' Or, whatever. _
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, that is what your self-perception will be. You will admit that this is not very realistic, but it is true. It's even a lie, but you will believe it. You will believe it because you have been told that this kind of lie is O.K. We meet again that difference between `reality' and `perception.'
These organized people who call themselves "Jews" have been working to destroy the only true Church because this Church interferes with their particular plans. There is no need to go into details of their plans here. Others have exposed these plans elsewhere much better than can be done here.
Strictly speaking, our own perception of the Roman Catholic Church being the `only true Church' may be challenged. This is our perception, just as the Jews have their perception of their sect. Remember: Perception and reality are not necessarily the same. Reality may be totally different from its perception. Naturally, the closer one's perception agrees with objective reality, the closer one comes to the truth. Here is where manipulation of perception enters the game: By means of creating a false perception, people are led to believe in a non-existent reality _ a `no thing' a nothing. Here is how it works.
There are people out there who style themselves as `experts' and then _ besides demanding outrageous salaries _ proceed to that which made them `experts' to begin with: intimidation. By the way, a good rule of thumb is to be on your guard whenever anyone is introduced to you as an `expert.' The red caution flag should go up in your mind. This is the beginning of intimidation. You are never the expert, no matter how much you may know. The reason why you are never the expert is because your modesty is your greatest obstacle to "xpertise" status. Only the immodest make certain that they are introduced as `xperts.' Otherwise, they are unhappy. Their audience must first be `primed' to the idea that the person presented is an "expert". Impressive titles and backgrounds are essential to the mystique of the expert. And, where there is no background, it is easily invented _ like an object out of PlayDough: It is fashioned according to the need.
The first appeal of the expert is to get everyone to conform to whatever is the expert's program. The Rabbi builds a ghetto to keep his people close where he can keep an eye on them, then complains that the goyim won't let a Jew live wherever he wants. The Catholic priest has his parish boundaries where his ministrations are exercised. The Protestant Minister does the same thing. We also have Bhuddists and various other perception-awareness groups who follow a similar pattern.
Conformity is not all that bad when it is reasonable. Since we human beings are creatures of habit, it is imperative that our conforming habits be reasonable and virtuous. But, the conformity sought by the use of unreasonable conditioning is not virtuous.
Today, the buzz word for `intimidation through conformity' is `being politically correct.'
When you go along with a new fad, a new idea that has been hammered into your subconscious through the mass media _ you are conforming. You are a conformist whenever you do things just because everyone else is doing it. How many times have parents tried to keep their offspring sane rather than sorry by using that worn-out argument: "If everyone jumps off the bridge, will you do it, too?" The obvious response expected is: "Certainly not!" But they still do it!
Man is by nature a social being. Bluntly stated, man has a `herding instinct.' This can be good, and it can be bad.
The purpose of those who use intimidation through conformity is to force you to comply with their views and wishes. When you do, it is not because you have thought things out, but because your action is motivated by the fear of standing apart from the herd. Or, to put it in another way: "Theology books don't bite; Bishops do." So, the conformist will ignore what the teachings of the Church are and conform to his Bishop's erroneous position motivated by the fear of not only standing apart from the group, but even worse, being kicked out of the group.
This is where all the pious prattle of `obedience' first shows its ugly head. Before this, there was little need to invoke the virtue of obedience because things were going one's way. Now that a man must stand up and defend what he has been preaching _ yes, stand up even to his Bishop or Superior and to the entire world, if need be _ he shrinks from his duty to himself and to God because he has allowed himself to be intimidated through conformity.
The herd instinct has made it easy to conform. To do otherwise would open a man to be targeted as bad, stupid or crazy. Nobody wants to be thought of as `bad,' `stupid,' or `crazy.'
Conforming is the path of least resistance. It is very costly. First of all, it robs us of our self-respect. Then, too, it deprives us of an eternal reward because the only conformity acceptable to God is conformity to HIS will.
This is the first level of intimidation: instilling of fear through conformity. Fear to be different from the crowd. People who are `in step' with the world are generally `out of step' with God.
Another level of intimidation is intimidation through slogans. Slogans are clever phrases, sayings or adages, new or old, intended to effect a knee-jerk response from the listener.
Slogans are good or bad depending upon their content and purpose. The fact is, nonetheless, that all slogans are supposed to be the condensed version of a truth. Most slogans, as a matter of fact are intended to keep people in line.
Some examples of slogans, as taken from George Orwell's book 1984 are the following: War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!
Understand the purpose of these irrational phrases: They are meant by Orwell to convey the idea that people can be made to believe anything if they hear it often enough .
In his book, George Orwell shows that through slogans supported by traditional government force, all citizens in 1984 are whipped into line, conforming to the point where they become virtually mindless and prepared to accept any slogan as fact.
At this point, I would like to prove the above assertion. Apologizing for any slight imperfection in the quotation, while keeping the thought itself, look carefully at the following statement attributed to Adolf Hitler:
"If you tell a big enough lie and repeat it long enough, people will believe it." What is curious about this statement is that Adolph Hitler did not originate it. He was merely describing what someone else was doing, namely, that group of people who gave itself the name "Jew". It is they who were telling the big lie and repeating it often enough so that almost everyone believed it _ everyone with very few exceptions.
Now who do you think has the power to succeed in intimidating the people simply because they have the power of money to do so? Basically, governments can do this with the people's money. They have the money, the manpower and, if necessary, the guns to back up their slogans.
People begin to believe and accept the slogan without reasonable evaluation. They then react in the appropriate and foreseen manner of the sloganeers (Those who invent the slogans).
If you question the `holocaust' on academic grounds, you are "anti-Semitic." Any number of tragic things can suddenly befall you. You would be called a "Neo-Nazi" if you ask an honest question concerning the truth about World War II. Have you ever noticed that there is an annual hate-fest orchestrated against Germans? Yet, you don't hear anything about the millions and millions that Stalin ordered to be starved to death _ as in the Ukraine. But, Stalin was a Communist _ excuse me: He was a democrat. There is a concerted effort to hunt down individuals who have been labeled "war criminals". Has anyone stopped to ask a simple question: Who determines those who fit into this category?
This is intimidation through slogans. Once the slogan is thoughtlessly accepted, success of the sloganeers is rapid and assured.
We come now to another form of intimidation: intimidation through guilt.
The different types of intimidation work together like several phases of the same process. Let us say that someone wants you to conform to his way of thinking. He uses a slogan on you. By means of the slogans and other weapons, he hopes to stir up feelings of guilt. Achieving this feeling of guilt, he then succeeds in motivating you to do what HE thinks is right.
The Mr. Magoos of the world fall into this clever, but unethical scheme of intimidation. The raw material is already there: According to an old Korean proverb, "Even the cleanest clothes have some speck of dust on them." Better yet, it was Shakespeare who said "Conscience makes cowards of us all."
Here we come to the very nub of the matter: Conscience. This is where the reader is asked to keep in mind all that has been said about `perception' and `reality.'
Through the process of intimidation, the conscience of the individual _ and individuals _ is perverted.
The target group is subjected to a constant bombardment of repetitious accusations that eventually are perceived as reality. Rational human beings are also morally responsible beings. You cannot entirely destroy the conscience; but you can pervert it to the point that `good' is now perceived as `evil,' and `evil' is perceived as `good.'
There is no such thing as `collective guilt.' There is, however, such a thing as `guilt by association.' All guilt is personal guilt because guilt is a consequence following upon a deliberate choice to do what is evil.
No one can commit evil without knowing something to be evil; no one can be guilty of evil _ or anything _ without first being aware of the act and freely choosing to perform it and/or associate oneself in its performance, directly or indirectly.
This will become more clear after explaining what `conscience' really is, and not what some perceive it to be. (Please note that the words `perceive' and `real' are again used to re-enforce their understanding)
What is `conscience'? Conscience is the immediate judgment of practical reason with respect to the character of individual acts as being permitted, commanded, or forbidden. Conscience is the immediate subjective or manifestative norm of moral conduct.
Please refer to this definition whenever you feel confused or unsure. It is important for the evaluation of the most absurd and audacious blasphemy of Karl Wojtyla alias "John Paul II" that has yet passed his lying lips.
We have taken the time to prepare a rebuttal to the declaration made by the perceived "Pope" regarding the "guilt" of Christians for the alleged "Holocaust."
The front page headline of the Chicago Tribune flashed this message to the world: "Christians failed in Holocaust, pope says" and in the article it is stated that "the Roman Catholic Church apologized Monday for the failures of Christians around the world during the Holocaust, when Nazis killed millions of Jews." (Chicago Tribune, Tuesday, March17,1998).
Obviously, any honest court of law would be obliged to examine the evidence as to the actual existence of a crime. Irrational intimidation is no proof of either the existence of a crime or who the guilty perpetrators of the alleged crime really are.
Employing every means of intimidation and threat of violence, the promoters of the Holocaust idea have literally blackmailed and bribed governments and other institutions to blindly accept this `dogma' as a reality.
Regardless of what the Vatican did or did not do, it is those clamoring for this fraudulent `justice' who should be placed under an unbiased and fear-less scrutiny. The real causes of wars down through the ages should be scrutinized and the real guilty criminals brought to justice. This, of course, is a dream because the criminals are sitting on the judges' bench.
It is akin to a squatter who boldly imposes himself on the land of another and then demands rights of ownership as a matter of `justice.' A confused court inevitably ignorant of facts, and wishing to appear `objectively' just, begins to adjudicate the matter as if the squatter had some kind of right to invade another's private property and then haul the victim to court seeking `justice.'
Here again we encounter typically meaningless buzz words: "With ancient suspicions" _ No one has the slightest idea what these `ancient suspicions' might be; who entertains them, and why.
We are `reminded' that the "aging pope" was "himself a victim of Nazi brutality." Furthermore, we are `informed' that "Beginning with Vatican II, Catholic and Jewish leaders have sought to move beyond the suspicion and discrimination that has separated them for 1,900 years."
"Suspicion," "discrimination." These are important words. However, too few know anything about the circumstances that gave birth to this "suspicion" and just exactly who was discriminated against and why is not even mentioned. Again, we face alleged faults without knowing who the victims really were. We know who claim to be the victims.
One is reminded of St. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (circa 135 A.D.) St. Justin, was of Greco-Roman origin. The Dialogue is a defense of Christianity against Talmudism (more correctly termed than `Judaism').
Speaking to the `Jew,' Trypho, St. Justin says: " you have murdered the Just One, and His prophets before Him; now you spurn those who hope in Him, and in Him who sent Him, namely, Almighty God, the Creator of all things; to the utmost of your power you dishonor and curse in your synagogues all those who believe in Christ. 1 Now, indeed, you cannot use violence against us Christians, because of those who are in power, but as often as you could, you did employ force against us. For this reason, God cries out to you through Isaias, saying: `Behold how the just perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart. For the just man is taken away from before the face of evil. His burial shall be in peace, he is taken away from among us. But draw near hither, you wicked ones, see of the adulterers and children of the harlot. Upon whom have you jested, and upon whom have you opened your mouth wide, and put out your tongue?'(Isa. 57,1-4)"
Further, St. Justin says: "The other nations have not treated Christ and us, His followers, as unjustly as have you Jews, who, indeed, are the very instigators of that evil opinion they have of the Just One and of us, His disciples. After you crucified the only sinless and just Man (through whose sufferings are healed all those who approach the Father through Him), and after you realized that He had risen from the dead and had ascended into Heaven (as had been predicted by the Prophets), but you not only failed to feel remorse for your evil deed, but you even dispatched certain picked men from Jerusalem to every land, to report the outbreak of the godless heresy of the Christians and to spread those ugly rumors against us. As a result, you are to blame not only for your own wickedness, but also for that of all others. With good reason, therefore, does Isaias cry out: "Because of you My name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.'(Isa. 52,5)"
The Chicago Tribune states that "Jewish officials wanted the Catholic Church to reveal the details of what it did and did not do during the war, taking specific responsibility for its part." What the author of this article fails to express is the fundamental question of Who was really responsible for the war?
No intelligent and objective person is interested in the irrational accusations that keep the alleged-guilty parties constantly being used as `scape goats'.
It is our contention that it is not the Roman Catholic Church that must apologize for having defended Herself through the ages against a brutal enemy, but if there is to be any objective lifting of `suspicions' and `discrimination,' the only honest way that this can come about is for the Synagogue to humbly apologize to the Church. After all, it is the Synagogue that preaches "collective guilt" and not the Roman Catholic Church.
It is our contention, likewise, that Karl Wojtyla cannot be acting as a legitimate representative of the Roman Catholic Church because of his many heresies and deliberate betrayal of the Mystical Body of Christ into the hands of the Antichrist.
On Passion Sunday, we read in the Holy Scriptures which the Jews wish to out-law, that it was the Jews who accused Jesus of being possessed by a devil. This same mentality continues among them to the present day: Whoever stands opposed to their lies, is branded as "possessed." Their hatred for the Religious Orders led them and leads them to work at undermining them. With such slogans oft repeated by their duped lackeys, the perception of these dedicated men and women was dinned into the ears of the unsuspecting masses: "Monkish ignorance and superstition" was the slogan that destroyed the orderly life of England in the sixteenth century. That country has never regained its pristine glory.
The Catholic Church laments any and all forms of injustice. Any true and genuine disciple of Jesus Christ embodies in his or her life the injunction of Jesus to love one's enemies, to do good to those who persecute us. Our Lord has rebuked those who are tempted to earthly vengeance: "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay!" Truly, the only genuine martyrs for an ideal of goodness and truth have been Christian martyrs who have suffered at the hands of the Jews and their eager agents among Gentiles. One need only contemplate the positive note of Christianity to "Forgive one's enemies" as compared to the ugly and frightening slogan of the seekers of `justice': "Never forget; never forgive!" Can this truly be the expression of a people with even the slightest knowledge and faith in God? We ought to have the freedom to doubt it.
The rabbis and the scribes have kept their people in spiritual darkness and political bondage for centuries. Rabbinical feigned innocence has deceived more than one sympathetic, unsuspecting Christian.
The best and most honest path to mutual respect and the beginning of true religion would be for the Talmudists to cease the constant hate mongering against the German people under the guise of "Nazism." If the Rabbis would circumcise their hearts and abandon their ambitions to establish their evil empire over Christians, the way would be open for them to return to the true fold from which their ancestors have wandered.
While ranting and raving against the ghost of a National Socialist System which the Jews themselves helped to establish, these same Jews have fostered the millions upon millions of murders perpetrated by the Jewish Communists led by Stalin. It is a known fact that the atheist Jew, Karl Marx, and his Communist cronies were financed from New York to overthrow the Christian Empire of Russia. It is easy to recruit followers for Communism (Translation: "Zionism") because the appeal is best received by the rabble of society.
It is no wonder that rabbis boast of our times as a "Messianic Age" for them, while genuine Christians bemoan the moral decadence all around them. However, all subjective perceptions aside, who can their "Messiah" possibly be, if the real Messiah has already come? We Christians can only "hope against all hope" that Karl Wojtyla might stand before the Roman Catholic world before he passes on to Judgment and make his humble "Mea culpa" to the Church which he so diligently sought to destroy.
Unlike the tragedy of men like "Paul VI" and "John Paul II" who would try to make a deal with the devil, the only hope for the world for some peace and justice lies in Jesus Christ, the Catholic Judean.
The Jew is still guilty of murdering Jesus, the Christ, the Anointed One, because it is the Jew who has been conditioned by his rabbi to embrace the guilt of his spiritual leader for centuries. We, however, resent the rabbinical imposition of their false religion upon us Christians who cannot possibly accept the false idea of collective guilt without doing violence to our individual consciences.
We take this occasion to appeal to the entire world of men and women of good will to clamor for an open examination of rabbinical and Zionist claims of a secular, atheistic `Holocaust.' Instead of persecuting those whose perception of reality differs from that of the Jew, let them openly promote the show of all evidence in these matters.
We Catholics should feel outraged at the attempted rape of our conscience by Karl Wojtyla who, as a Pole, should have more courage to stand up to those who would seduce us with disarming hypocrisy.
Hypothetically speaking, now that the perceived `leader' of the world's Roman Catholics has `humbled' the entire Mystical Body of Jesus Christ _ which includes Jesus Christ Himself _ perhaps we might have some right to expect the spiritual leaders of the Jews to make a public apology for the centuries of intrigue, persecution and murder of our bishops, priests, Religious of both sexes and the millions of genuine Christians who have suffered and died?
It is suggested that no one hold his breath.
It has become a fad, an almost necessary tool of politics to emulate the Polish gentleman from the Vatican to make public apologies to whoever wishes to hear them. Jimmy Carter is the only one who made a stupid confession to the world that he actually `committed adultery in his heart' because he looked upon another woman. Did the world give him absolution? He probably could care less, as long as it served a political purpose.
It seems that we are entering an era of "mea culpa time". There is only one problem with all of this: No one is saying "mea culpa" to God Whom they have ALL offended!
1 That it was a Jewish custom solemnly to curse the Christians thrice a day is testified to by St. Epiphanius and St. Jerome.
Return to Contents
Return to Homepage.