Our Position on the Catholic Church

We have seen how “political correctness” is a set of political policies that are being promoted in Australia, New Zealand, Britain, the United States and Canada. These policies amount to the extermination or “ethnic cleansing” of the mainstream culture of these countries. On this page we will consider who is behind this “ethnic cleansing”. Specifically we will consider the evidence that the Roman Catholic Church is behind “political correctness”.

Part of this evidence involves circumstances that seem to show that the Catholic Church is innocent of promoting “political correctness”. We are not setting out with the goal of discrediting the Catholic Church. We are seeking to expose whoever is behind “political correctness”. If the Catholic Church is not guilty, then that would suit us very well. This is like a murder investigation, and we want to catch the perpetrator, not “frame” some innocent party. We will set out the evidence on this page, and you the reader can decide whether the Catholic Church is guilty.

The following is a list of circumstances that tend to indicate that the Catholic Church is responsible for “political correctness”:

  • The Australian Labor Party has always supported “political correctness”, and most of its members are Catholics.
  • The Liberal Party and the National Party have only supported “political correctness” since substantial numbers of Catholics have joined them.
  • Most of the Australian judges who have supported corrupt decisions such as the Mabo decision, that advance the “politically correct” agenda, are Catholics.
  • Politicians who attack conservatives like Pauline Hanson are usually Catholics.
  • The people who ran the “politically correct” pressure groups such as women’s liberation, the anti-apartheid movement and gay rights groups in the 1960s and 1970s had invariably been to Catholic schools.
  • One in every five Australian school children go to Catholic schools, and it is reasonable to suppose that people who went to Catholic schools would have different opinions to people who went to government schools.
  • Most people who went to Catholic schools in recent years support “political correctness”.
  • The Catholic Church does not excommunicate or dismiss people who support “political correctness”, even including gay rights activists.

The following is a list of circumstances that tend to indicate that the Catholic Church does not support “political correctness”.

  • Pope Francis has said he is against “political correctness”.
  • Many Catholics claim to be against “political correctness”, such as the Australian politician Bob Katter, who the media says is “ultra-conservative”.
  • Many Catholic countries have had governments which were against “political correctness” and which were supported by the Catholic population, such as the Pinochet government in Chile, and the Franco government in Spain.

The Pope has repeatedly condemned “politically correct” activities such as abortion and homosexuality. Most people assumed that the Pope was genuine and was using his influence to stamp out abortion and homosexuality. They assumed his lack of progress in stamping these out was due to the other influences which are really behind “political correctness”.

The Pope has a tremendous amount of influence in his own right. He controls the Catholic school system in Australia, which one in every five Australian school children attend. He has the power to depose or excommunicate Australian bishops and excommunicate the trustees of Catholic school property. This in turn gives the Pope the power to dismiss any Catholic school teacher who he disapproves of.

With the absolute control of Catholic schools that the Pope possesses, we must assume that most of what happens at Catholic schools in Australia meets with the Pope’s approval. There may be things about Catholic schools that the Pope would not entirely approve of. But these things are so insignificant that the Pope has not seen fit to do anything about them.

Since nothing goes on at Catholic schools without the Pope’s approval, and since the Pope claims to be opposed to homosexuality, we would expect students who have attended Catholic schools to be very much opposed to homosexuality. Other churches which are opposed to homosexuality have no difficulty in instilling their viewpoint in children. Catholic schools have no difficulty in instilling children with a hatred of the English, a hatred of wealthy people and a hatred of racists. Why is it that Catholic schools have an inability to instill a hatred of homosexuals?

Could it be because many of the Catholic clergy are homosexuals, and the Pope doesn’t want Catholic school students to be opposed to homosexuals? We know that many Anglican bishops support homosexuality. They seem to be able to reconcile homosexuality in their minds with Christianity, so why wouldn’t the Pope be able to? The Pope probably thinks homosexuality is only a very minor sin, like saying “Damn”. He probably thinks that it is cruel to persecute homosexuals, as the Nazis did, and so he supports the practice of his predecessors that Catholic schools must teach that homosexuality is all right.

If the Pope thought homosexuality is only a minor sin, then he must have been lying when he said he was against homosexuality. The public find it difficult to believe that such an important person as the Pope would tell a lie. On the other hand we have no difficulty in believing news reports that former American President Bill Clinton has pleaded guilty to essentially lying on oath about Monica Lewinsky, a crime which many Australians saw Clinton commit on television, in return for Clinton being suspended from being able to work as a lawyer.

People assume the Pope would have told people if he was in favour of abortion and homosexuality. But consider the consequences if the Pope did that. These things are regarded as henious crimes in many countries. If the Catholic Church said it was in favour of homosexuality, it would be banned in countries like Indonesia, India and Russia. In countries like Australia and the United States, many people would stop voting for Catholic politicians if they knew the Pope supported abortion and homosexuality. By telling a “white lie” that he is against abortion and homosexuality, the Pope is better able to promote these evils, which he considers to be good.

If the Pope was lying when he said he supported traditional Protestant values, this would explain why the Liberal Party no longer promotes traditional Protestant values. The Liberal Party would be under pressure from Liberal Party politicians who are Catholics and from media magnates who are Catholics. If the Catholic Church supported traditional values, their politicians and media magnates would be pressuring the Liberal Party to hold a referendum to ban homosexuality.

It would not take much pressure on mainstream politicians such as Queensland Premier Campbell Newman to get them to support traditional values. In his youth, Campbell Newman expressed support for policies which Pauline Hanson now promotes, which he described as “Liberal Party core values”. Campbell Newman would like to “do the right thing” and support traditional values, but he is under pressure from Catholic politicians and media magnates. Why else would his party not be promoting traditional values?

Some might say that politicians like Campbell Newman once supported traditional values, but that they have changed their minds because of the attitude of the Protestant churches. This view ignores the traditional Protestant attitude towards priests, that their function is to conduct weddings and funerals, and that they have no business in expressing political views. The attitude of Protestants towards the political views of ministers of religion is the same as their attitude towards the views of their employees. That is, the views of priests are “neither here nor there”, and there is no need to take their views on board.

The thing that led to many mainstream people abandoning traditional values and supporting “political correctness” was not the attitude of mainstream churches but the activities of the “pressure groups”. The “pressure groups” came on the scene in the 1960s and 1970s, like an outbreak of a disease. There were groups like Women’s Liberation, the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and the Anti-War Movement. When these groups came out, they were greeted by the mainstream population with extreme hostility.

These “pressure groups” went about conducting protest marches, and putting a case to the public as to why their views were right. Unfortunately there was no-one around putting the opposing case as to why traditional values are right. The public heard the case of the pressure groups, which seemed to make sense. Since no-one put forward an opposing case, the public assumed that there was no good opposing case. As a result many people took on board the ideas of the “pressure groups”, such as civil liberty and democracy, that no-one had hitherto believed in.

The public would have been much more reluctant to take on board the views of the “pressure groups” if they had known that most of the hippies and activists behind these groups were Catholics. These were people such as Germaine Greer, Jane Fonda, and Timothy Leary. The public was confused, however, because most of these people were atheists, and people made an unwarranted distinction between Catholics and atheists. The public failed to notice that these people had become atheists at Catholic schools, and that the ideas they were promoting were the direct result of what they had been taught at Catholic schools.

In thinking about the people who have been to Catholic schools, it makes sense to lump them all into one group and call them “Catholics”. This is in spite of the fact that many of them are atheists, or go to Protestant churches. The reason we can lump them together is that they all have similar ideas, which they all got from Catholic schools. So in talking about Catholics, we are also talking about atheists who went to Catholic schools, and Anglicans who went to Catholic schools. It is reasonable to call them Catholics, even though some of them are atheists, because their outlook on life was determined by the Catholic Church.

The Anglican Church eventually took on board “politically correct” ideas, but this was because of the activities of the Catholic “pressure groups”. So although the Anglican Church supports “political correctness”, it is not to blame for the spread of “political correctness”. Similarly, the Jewish community predominantly supports “political correctness”, but is so numerically small that it would not be able to spread “political correctness” on its own. The Jewish community only has the influence that it has because of the support of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church set up the “pressure groups” and got their policies adopted through its control of the Labor Party, so the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the spread of “political correctness”.

If we look at countries like Spain and Chile, we see that the Catholic Church has not always supported “political correctness”. Sometime between the 1930s and the 1960s, there was a change of direction, and the Catholic Church repudiated traditional values. It may be decades before we find out why this happened. But it is not difficult to guess why.

In the 1950s, the world was very different to how it is today, and was in the middle of the “Cold War” between the Americans and the Soviet Union. At the time, it appeared as though the Soviet Union might take over the world. If this had happened, Christianity would have been banned, and it would have been the end of the Catholic Church. As far as the Catholic hierarchy was concerned, the Church’s demise was not an acceptable option.

To get around this dilemma, the Catholic Church went to the Russians and said that the Catholic Church had decided to be on the side of communism, and that they would use their influence in the West to promote nuclear disarmament and other policies that would assist the Soviet Union to take over the world. At the same time, the Catholic Church went to the Americans and said that the Catholic Church had decided to be on the side of capitalism, and would use its influence behind the “Iron Curtain” to promote opposition to communism. So throughout the “Cold War”, the Catholic Church promoted communism in the West and capitalism behind the “Iron Curtain”.

This was the ideal solution to the Catholic Church’s dilemma. Whoever won the “Cold War“, the Catholic Church would be on the winning side. Now the West has won the “Cold War”, but the Catholic Church is still geared up to undermining traditional values in the West. This suits the Catholic Church, because most of the Catholics in the leading Western countries are of Irish origin. By undermining traditional values, Irish Catholics are persecuting the Anglo-Saxon (mainstream) majority in these countries.

The Catholic Church has been going around pointing out how terrible it is for ethnic groups to hate each other. The Catholic Church has said, “Let us put all this hatred behind us, and move forward”. When the Anglo-Saxons have gone along with this, the Catholic Church has said, “Now that we’re all on the same side, what about letting us run the country?” The Anglo-Saxons have responded, “Why not let them run the country, since they are just like us”, and have transferred significant power to the Catholics. The reaction of the Catholics has been, “Now that you’re in our power, we’re going to wipe you out, just like we’ve been wanting to do for hundreds of years!”

In other words, the Catholic Church is saying that it is against ethnic hatred, as a tactic to lull other ethnic groups into a false sense of security so that the Catholics can more easily “ethnically cleanse” them. In reality the Catholic Church is trying to do in the 21st century what it has been trying to do since it broke away from the Orthodox Church 1200 years ago. That is to make the Catholics the only ethnic group on the face of the earth.

The Popes have not done too badly in their bid to take over the world. They have got most of the nations of the world to sign up to “international human rights”, another name for Catholic values. Although countries like Japan and India have signed up to Catholic values, the Catholics have only tried to implement these values in countries like Australia. Ultimately the Catholics will run into the difficulty that 80% of the world’s people are strongly opposed to Catholic values. When they wake up to what is going on, the people of the world will smash the Catholics, just like they smashed the Nazis, and for the same reason.