The Gospel Truth

The Loss of Innocence

July 8, 2015
Leave a Comment

The May issue years of the St. Louis Cardinals’ Game Day Magazine featured a nostalgic look at the old stadia in Brooklyn and New York I used to attend as a young fan. Every time I see a photo of the Dodgers’ Ebbets Field I am reminded of an incident that happened the team’s final season in Flatbush. Our grade school had provided tickets for several “patrol boys” for a game with the Cardinals. I sat in the upper deck with boyhood friend Eddie Smith.

Eddie was a mischievous lad who constantly pushed the envelope of civility.   This chilly May afternoon he started throwing peanuts at the fans below us. To our horror a seedy looking usher with a clip bowtie, dangling from his open collar and a pencil thin mustache, emerged undetected out of the rafters and yanked poor Eddie by his coat collar. My last sight of Eddie was his pleading eyes as he was dragged backwards down the steep flight of bleacher steps.

Several years ago, while visiting him in his Long Island home, I reminded him of the incident. Little did I realize that his six-year old daughter was absorbing every detail of my story! I will never forget the tearful look on her face when she said, Daddy you threw peanuts?

These many years it has been hard for me to get her sad and puzzled face out of my mind. I had unintentionally crumbled her image of her dad as a model of sober perfection.   By exposing his adolescent prank, I might have had stripped his poor little girl of her innocence way before her time.

It’s a different world today. The peanuts story is mild by comparison with what we are doing to our children today, especially our little girls. Thousands of parents cannot wait to shed their daughters’ innocence and usher them into a world, filled with the corrupt environs of a troop of seedy ushers, just waiting to drag their daughters down the winding stairs of despair.

We live in a culture that is hot-wired against purity and self-restraint. Many of our schools teach our kids the basic mechanics of reproduction without any concern for its moral, emotional and sociological aspects. Catholic girls seem no better than the rest of their peers.   All this makes me wonder just has happened the past 60 years. Some will suggest the usual suspects, namely Vatican II or the failure of Catholic couples to heed Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vita.   My thoughts conjure up something much more sinister.

In the 1920s Antonio Gramsci, one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party, remarked that Communism as an economic force was doomed to failure. He said too many Italians were tied to their culture, especially their Catholic faith. The way to defeat the West was by a long march through its Christian culture.

The best way to do this was through its women, the custodians of the culture. Since the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world is still a reliable truism, his plan was designed to lure future generations of young women away from their morality and religious faith by whatever means necessary.

While Gramsci died in prison, his ideas were embodied in the Frankfurt School, a Marxist research institute in Germany. Herbert Marcuse, its leading advocate and his associates eventually transplanted Gramsci’s ideas to American culture through its university system. One of his disciples, Betty Friedan, convinced millions of suburban housewives that they were wasting their lives. Her Feminist Mystique launched the feminist movement with its legacy of working mothers, feminist empowerment, abortion rights, and a hatred of patriarchy.

For three generations millions of American mothers, even many Catholic mothers, have weaned their daughters on a steady diet of prepubescent sexual freedom and distaste for the country’s religious and moral traditions. As a result fatherhood has lost its luster and has been relegated to the dusty archives with reruns of Leave it to Beaver and his sage dad, Ward Cleaver. The apocalypse may not yet be here, but one thing I can say with certainty, things are far worse than when Eddie Smith was tossing peanuts in Ebbets Field.


The Marriage Wars

April 30, 2013
7 Comments

I have done a lot of research on cultural Marxism.

It was Antonio Gramsci who recognized in the 1920s that the best way to undermine the West was to start a long march through its culture.

He also recognized that Italian women were exceptionally tied to their families, homes, children and their Catholic faith.

It fell to the survivors of the Frankfurt school, a number of expatriate Jewish scholars who escaped to the United States and taught in several of this country’s universities to put Gramsci’s ideas into practice.

I am talking foremost about Herbert Marcuse who exhorted his students in the 1960s to make love and not war.

Herbert Marcuse in Newton, Massachusetts 1955.jpeg

Undermined marriage

His protegé was Betty Friedan whose book The Feminine Mystique did more harm to marriage and the American family than could be imagined.

I compare her book to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

I say this…not because I think women were slaves but because as Lincoln has been quoted as saying when he met Mrs. Stowe…Oh, you are the little lady who started the Civil War.

As a virtual marriage abolitionist…at least in effect…Friedan’s book did help ignite the culture war.

Perhaps Friedan can be regarded as the little woman who started the marriage wars!

Betty Friedan 1960.jpg

Marriage was her battleground

The Roe v. Wade decision and the feminist movement, which followed her book, have greatly hurt traditional marriage.

Now on its heels is the Rainbow Movement of homosexuals who march under the banner of marriage equality.

They have made it a matter of individual autonomy and equality of choice, similar arguments as used by the radical feminists.

No one is free to marry anyone or anything they want.

License over tradition

I once argued with a young friend several years ago about this subject.

He was all in favor of same-sex marriage.

I asked him what if one of the spouses was 14-15?

Oh no he said.  That would be wrong.

Why would it be wrong, I countered.

It just is, he said.

By whose standard?

Because one would be too young, he said!

But what if they  both loved each other and had consented to this sexual union?

He had no answer.

This smart young man could not accept the fact that by letting the nose of SSM into our national tent, he had inadvertently had his logic turned on him to allow its less than social parts into our tent.

That’s why liberals lose most arguments on facts and logic and have to resort to ad hominem attacks and emotional pleas.

In ancient Greece and Rome the left usually dispatched reasonable and logical people because they threatened their aggressive agendas.

Death for the logical

Personally I think the age of consent is the main reason that this is an issue.

I believe there are many in the homosexual community that don’t want any age limitations on their sexual activity.

And age is a relative number isn’t it?

I read a headline in a gay newspaper in San Fransisco many years ago that lamented...if no sex by eight…it’s too late.

If they get their way on this aspect of marriage, I’ll bet there are a few former priests in prison who would be muttering…if I had only waited!

If one can change the original and essential terms of the definition then everything is possible.

Russian writer Dostoevsky noticed that in the 19th century.

Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg

Knew what would happen

A man then can marry several women.

Or a woman–several men.

I am certain there are pockets of this going on in Utah and other places.

Did they not make a series about that on HBO?

Big Love I think it was called.

I have noticed some people seem to have what may be delicately described as an intense relationship with their pets.

Many people leave their wealth to their pets, such was their affection for their animals.

So why not a bestial union with one’s loving companion?

A new tradition

PETA doesn’t like the word Pet.

So in essence there can be no such thing as a gay marriage.

The marriage wars have also caused a deeper rift within the Republican party.

Many of the Party’s so-called stalwarts have already abandoned ship.

Many of the moderates, who date back to the Republican Roosevelt sense that this will be a losing issue that it is also wiser to choose political expediency over moral principles.

Think Karl Rove and his spineless moderate approach to winning elections!

President Theodore Roosevelt, 1904.jpg

Gave us Karl Rove

It has also been interesting to read the many different opinions on how gay marriage is natural.

There was one bit of cotton candy for the soul that appeared in the New York Times, pointing out a handful of different animal and insect species which on occasion had crossed the line of sexual difference.

Canadian conservative David Frum, though probably not the best one to defend the sanctity of marriage or any other conservative principle for that matter, gave the most obvious argument that same-sex marriage severed the institution’s connection to the two inter-related realities of gender difference and procreation.

In doing so they would replace the traditional building block of society that was more family oriented  with a broader, thinner, more adult-centric view, which would ultimately be less likely to bind parents to children, husbands and wives.

Andrew Sullivan, a long-time homosexual activist countered that heterosexuals had already severed marriage from procreation.

Andrew Sullivan cropped.jpg

Pushing the agenda

This is not exactly true!

While millions of couples have sought to limit the number of children in their families through a combination of natural or artificial birth control, as well as abstinence, the vast majority still bring any where from one to three or four children into their families.

There is not a complete severance.

He also gave what has become the party line in his circles of trying to prove that homosexual unions would bring a new stability to marriage, sending a firm message about matrimonial responsibility and mutual caring to gays and straights alike.

That would be risible if he had not been so serious.

The forces at the Times are trying to advance the capstone notion, held by the gnostic liberals of our day that marriage is not about families any more.

Now they see marriage as a celebration of adult achievement, which they think this seems to work out better for Americans in the long run.

I guess this micro-management of traditional marriage is just another example of Barack Obama’s idea of the new normal.

The man said he was going to change things, didn’t he?


An Era of Hard Feelings

March 7, 2013
2 Comments

One of the lesser known periods in American history was the time that historians call the Era of Good Feeling.

It was delineated by the two-term presidency of the fifth president of the United States, James Monroe, who served from 1817-1825.

Monroe was the third straight Virginia Democrat to hold the highest office in the land, having succeeded Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Both his predecessors had also served two full terms of office.

Long for the good old days

It was called the Era of Good Feeling because at least on the surface there was little of the party bickering that has come to characterized American politics today.

Monroe’s Electoral College score was almost unanimous.

In fact it should have been unanimous since he won all the states, having presided over the virtual extinction of the only other viable political party, the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.

Monroe would have been ranked forever with another Virginian, George Washington, had not one elector voted for someone else out of deference for the country’s first president.

By default Monroe had become the leader of a one-party government.

He had only the Constitution to prevent him from effecting his will on America.

Fortunately Monroe was a Jeffersonian or small government type of Democrat.

I wish we had a few or even one of those today!

I sometimes wonder if we are at a similar juncture in our nation’s history.

Monroe enjoyed many of the benefits of the youthful exuberance that drove the nation’s spirit in the early 19th century.

Territorial expansion was rampant.

Technology was booming and the raw individualism of a free people was pushing the nation toward generations of unimagined prosperity.

Monroe’s party was beholden to the slave interests of course but for the most part they were not interested in accumulating great personal power and advancing an agenda that would not only limit individual freedom but dampen the American spirit as well.

Are we not entering a period of hard feelings in which our president will rule the American people, not in freedom and individualism but in a collectivist philosophy garnered from the pages of Marx, Gramsci and Alinsky?

A founding father

Since taking office in January, 2009, this president has not governed in any real sense of the word.

In fact in a brilliant piece of political analysis, Rush Limbaugh recently explained how a president like Obama with the worst economy in generations, worst recovery ever, high unemployment, stagnant job growth and a declining popularity abroad could have won re-election.

Rush believes that throughout his presidency, Obama has been the perennial outlier.

He has given the impression that he is not governing, so how can he be responsible for any of the ill effects of his policies.

Gets it right most of the time

All the bad things that have happened are the fault of the Republicans, who despite their inadequacies are the only adults left in Washington.

Obama and his partners in crime have run away from virtually all the hard choices.

The infamous sequester, which according to a once-revered liberal, Bob Woodward, he of Watergate fame, was his idea.

Some on the left even want him to die

He even refused a game-saving gift from the Republican House for flexibility in making the cuts.

It is as if Obama has worn gloves throughout his presidency.

His mark is on virtually nothing of any serious consequence.

Hard choices are for the losers!

The country is rudderless and heading for the iceberg.

And to make matters worse, Mr. Obama will have to make certain that the worst effects of the sequester do cause a great deal of pain on the American people.

To do otherwise would make him look bad after all his apocalyptic posturing.

If there are long line at the airports and we have to wait for any kind of government service or program, you can bet your next social security check that it has happened under the instructions of the White House.

E-mails are surfacing that gives instructions for department heads not to diminish the impact of the sequester cuts in any way, so as to make the president’s predictions look false.

On the energy front, he still equivocates on the Keystone pipeline, while trying to extract a carbon tax on every ounce of energy the American people use.

Boehner: No reason to block Keystone XL pipeline

Can’t offend his Greens

His selection of Gina McCarthy, the author of many onerous regulations as a deputy in the EPA should be seen as a warning shot across the middle class bow.

But he is also not a true democrat with respect for our supreme law and anyone who dare oppose him.

So he will try another end run by hamstringing the middle class and our economic system with more debilitating rules and regulations that will just pile more debt onto the American burden.

Nominee for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy in Washington

The end of coal?

Obama was a perpetual campaign that really has not halted since 2009.

Obama II seems to have as its agenda…if one can believe Rush Limbaugh and I do…the solitary goal of literally destroying the Republican Party as a viable political entity.

Think what would happen if the Democrats regain the House of Representatives in 2015.

The Washington Post all but confirmed this Rushian Theorem the other day.

What will those final two years bring?

More false hope or just plain despair?

And if they fail to accomplish his grand plan of changing virtually everything good about America does not come into fruition will he actually leave and hand over the reins to another Democrat…presumably Hilary Clinton?

How many times have we heard him say that the Constitution was a great obstacle for his change…for his reforms?

He has circumvented it several times using executive orders, and by intimidation as with the bond holders for GM.

Remember his corps of impudent czars?

The people who elected him might demand his return in 2017.

I am talking about blacks, homosexuals, Greens, the unions and all his bought-and-paid-for cronies on Wall Street.

He will still be vital.

Does anyone think that Hilary will be up to it in 2017?

Hilary before the job got to her

She looks ill now…even worse than her husband.

And just who would oppose him?

I fear blood would run in the streets.

He has voiced his regret that he is not a dictator –I would add a king but I think he would like to be either.

But from his extra-constitutional actions, policies and attitude, it is no more than a distinction without a difference.

In a past blog post I explored the reality that to be a liberal is to be mentally ill.

With Mr. Obama I see the visions of grandeur in his arrogant strut to the bloody pulpit.

He’s got the sickness of power.

I see it in his facial expressions, and his shortness with any form of question of opposition.

I see it in his inability to govern…compromise or ..or go off message.

More articles are appearing that make him sound like the ultimate invader…from another planet whose sense of self-importance has alienated him from the rest of us.

Oh to be so smart, handsome…a leader without peer…I can hardly stand the emotion.

Obamamania makes me  pine for the days of good feeling because we are deeply mired in the Obama Era of Hard Feelings.


The American Taliban

February 4, 2011
13 Comments

At first glance a reader might think I was writing about the so-called religious right, or maybe even the Muslim push to rule America by its repressive Sharia laws.

No, I am writing about liberalism’s 100 years war against the traditional culture of the United States that is as repressive and destructive to the American way of freedom as either of the other two other religious extremes.

View Image

Not as destructive as liberalism

Firstly, I must point out that liberalism is not just the anti-religion but a religion unto itself.

The reason I say that is because the basic definition of religion is man and his relationship to a Superior being.

Even the pagan religions bowed to the natural gods of the sun, the moon, the forces of weather and sometimes natural rock formations.

Though primitive in form, they all recognized that they had to show respect for the power and the majesty of nature.

With the coming of Jesus Christ and the foundation of the Christian Church with its long history of schism, separation and fragmentation, by the 19th century the religious instinct had submerged itself in doubt, skepticism and virtual denial.

These organizational traumas gave rise to an atheistic way of thinking that not only denied God of the Jews and the Christians but sought to replace Him with a new religion of man.

For want of a better name, Marxism is that new religion of man, replete with its own orthodoxy, rules, regulations and superior attitude.

And what has been the cost to mankind?

It was Marxism, whose philosophy had emanated from the ashes of 18th century French society, that led to a century of human destruction, unparalleled in the history mankind.

Ever since the proponents of the universal idea of a progressive evolving state that will eventually fade away when the human and secular utopia finally becomes a reality.

The late Father John Hardon, S. J. was a self-taught expert on Marxism.

He first began reading Marx when he was 14 years old.

Members of his family have died under Communism in the profession of their Catholic faith.

View Image

First read Marx at 14

He says that the best single source in understanding Communism is the Marx and Engels’ the Communist Manifesto.

When President Obama is attacking the rich, the wealthy and all those who earn more than $250,000 a years, people should be aware that it was Karl Marx speaking through the president.

View Image

Their manifesto became a quasi religious document

The Manifesto helped to establish governmental policies that undermine and reduce the human freedom to acquire and retain private property, through the Estate Tax and the Progressive Income tax.

Father Hardon has reduced the collective effect that Marxist thinking to 15 different sections.

Since not all of them relate to the concept of a Marxist religion, I will limit my post to those that fit my Taliban theme.

The best single analysis of Marxism is the encyclical on Atheistic Communism by Pope Pius XI, in which he identifies Marxism as a Utopian Messianism.

According to Marx mankind should look forward to arrival of a Messianic society in this world, which they believe is the highest ideal that mankind can work toward.

In the wake of the election of Barack Obama in 2008, this idea seems to have materialized for commentators like Chris Matthews, and others, who spoke of Obama as being the Messiah who would carry them into their secular Utopia of universal equality and fair play.

But their Marxist Messiah had no connection to God or and after life.

This Messiah had the religious trimmings of a secular saint, who miraculously appeared to lead his Party to the Promised Land of eternal electoral power.

View Image

Into the Promise Land of eternal power

Our time has come cried president-elect Obama.

The left’s messiah had arrived to complete the dismissal of organized religions from the public marketplace and replace them with an autocratic secular philosophy that has no need or want for a God above.

With religious superstitions out-of-the-way, the left was free to speed ahead with their utopian goal of insuring man’s perfectibility on earth.

In truth their thinking is based on the perversion of the religious principle that man’s desire for happiness will be fulfilled on earth in some future generation of history.

Whereas Christianity has taught individual salvation for nearly 2000 years, Marxism teaches the primacy of the group and a more collective idea of humanity than any sort of individualism, which mitigates against the true spirit of Marxist salvation.

With a community organizer in the White House the left has its catalyst for a Marxist praxis and collective unity.

It is no surprise that President Obama cut his bones with the Saul Alinsky machine in Chicago and has tried to apply that thinking to the United States government.

Instead of the pie in the sky, Obama’s Marxism is offering a cake on earth.

The final religious tenet for my purposes has to do with Father Hardon’s 11th principle, which is the Emancipation of Women.

Women have always been the target of any kind of Talibanic faith because they are often more closely identified with religion than men.

Religion supplication flows from their motherly instinct to nurture and serve others.

It was Antonio Gramsci who argued from his Italian jail cell that the most direct way to undermine Christianity and with it–Western Civilization— was through its women.

Strip them of their Catholic faith, mostly through early and promiscuous sex and the Marxists can bring down the entire edifice of Western society.

His ideas have been working their toxic magic for over 80 years.

A main result has been the Feminist Movement, which has risen out of the Marxist ashes of hearth and home to give us an angry and destructive way of thinking that has deprived millions of families of two parents, as well as giving rise to a multi-billion dollar abortion industry over the last 40 years.

View Image

Heard Gramsci's call

Women has not only heeded the Marxist clarion cry to leap off their respective pedestals of dignity and maternal respect, they have outdone their male counterparts in their determined crusade to lower the moral standards of our culture.

Couple the ungodly rage of Feminism with its politically correct storm troopers and you get an English language, so deprived of a fair and honest right of self-expression that is as controlling and a betrayal of freedom as anything found in Afghanistan.

While the American people will never bend to any national dogmatic religion, such as the kind that ruled the Massachusetts Bay Company in the 17th century, it has been primed and readied to accept a secular religion based on a culture that does not just separate religion from state but subjugated it in such a way that its traditional morality has no mooring or anchor in the entire culture.

View Image

No American Taliban

America’s new Taliban of the left proclaims that Americans should never impose their morality on others while doing the same with their moral prescription.

In rejecting America’s traditional morality its citizens must paradoxically embrace a morality that is even more imposing than anything proposed in this country since the 17th century.

This is the state we are fast approaching and the new liberal American Taliban with its dogmatic Marxism are the ones preparing the cultural chains that will bind us to Karl Marx than any Sharia law could ever do.


About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at bbprof@sbcglobal.net

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds