While reading G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”, I came across a section that I believe could have been written this past year about the state of our popular media doing the bidding of a tyrannical president. I know many would not say that President Obama is a tyrant or dictator, but his record is building. Currently, he has said he would not recognize the law safeguarding traditional marriage, he has forced American dollars to fund abortions here and abroad, mandated church leaders to marry soldiers, he is forcing contraception and abortifacient mandates on the religious through his HHS mandate, giving billions of dollars to terrorists or terror-states, dividing people by race and economic status, and so on…
His record is building as one who has absolutely no respect for other thoughts and beliefs than his own. His will must be done according to Mr. Obama. And, in his corner, is the news media that will do anything, including lie and hide facts, figures, and important information from the public.
Of course, many who read this will think I am being some right-wing conspiracy theorist or radical, but I would like all to know that I don’t affiliate myself with a party as much as I do with God’s truth. Killing babies, disenchanting married couples with the willful breakdown of traditional marriage, forcing people of faith to go against their deeply held beliefs, to enforce “change” for the sake of change and not to progress to a higher ideal. These things are not only disordered, they are dangerous.
G.K. Chesterton knew all this and a lot more in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As one of the greatest thinkers of the previous few generations, Chesterton had his finger on the pulse of reality. He understood that man’s nature was “the fall”, and man would repeatedly make the same mistakes unless he truly wanted to follow after the ideal.
Chesterton drew the greatest representation of those of little faith in God and much faith in man as people who instead of changing their selves, change their ideal. Christians know the ideal and change themselves or the way they must do things to obtain the ideal (this ideal we can call “Eden”). One man’s ideal is to paint the planet blue, down to the very stripes of the tiger, knowing all the work involved and sacrificing time and body for it. The other man’s ideal to paint the world blue is changed to orange the next day, then green the next, until the whole world is a crazed, frenzied, distorted substance.
Much the same can be said about liberalism, our president, and the modern media. They grasp at things temporary because they have nothing permanent. A young black boy is killed in Florida and they create a holiday for him, even without knowing the facts, that he may have been the aggressor and was killed in self-defense. These people support Occupy Wall Street movements that quickly degrade into riots and mass stupidity. One day they are propping up eating whole grain; the next, they tell you not to reap grain to protect the environment.
Liberals create division and class/race/sex/sexuality warfare. They have nothing eternal, so they amass confusion of the temporal. They are like fallen leaves that are swayed by the north winds, then again by a breeze from the east, and again by the vacuum of a passing vehicle where they are crunched between road and rubber.
I have given you more than you likely wanted of my own commentary. The following is something much more intelligible by Chesterton:
“But, as a fact, men have almost always suffered under new tyrannies; under tyrannies that had been public liberties hardly twenty years before. Thus England went mad with joy over the patriotic monarchy of Elizabeth; and then (almost immediately afterwards) went mad with rage in the trap of the tyranny of Charles the First.
So, again, in France the monarchy became intolerable, not just after it had been tolerated, but just after it had been adored. The son of Louis the well-beloved was Louis the guillotined.
So again, we have almost up to the last instant trusted the newspapers as organs of public opinion.
Just recently some of us have seen (not slowly, but with a start) that they are obviously nothing of the kind. They are, by the nature of the case, the hobbies of a few rich men. We have not any need to rebel against antiquity; we have to rebel against novelty.
It is the new rulers, the capitalist or the editor, who really hold up the modern world. There is no fear that a modern king will attempt to override the constitution; it is more likely that he will ignore the constitution and work behind its back; he will take no advantage of his kingly power; it is more likely that he will take advantage of his kingly powerlessness, of the fact that he is free from criticism and publicity. For the king is the most private person of our time. It will not be necessary for any one to fight again against the proposal of a censorship of the press.
We do not need a censorship of the press. We have a censorship by the press. This startling swiftness with which popular systems turn oppressive is the third fact for which we shall ask our perfect theory of progress to allow. It must always be on the look out for every privilege being abused, for every working right becoming a wrong.
In this matter I am entirely on the side of the revolutionists. They are really right to be always suspecting human institutions; they are right not to put their trust in princes nor in any child of man. The chieftain chosen to be the friend of the people becomes the enemy of the people; the newspaper started to tell the truth now exists to prevent the truth being told. Here, I say, I felt that I was really at last on the side of the revolutionary.
And then I caught my breath again: for I remembered that I was once again on the side of the orthodox.
Christianity spoke again and said: “I have always maintained that men were naturally backsliders; that human virtue tended of its own nature to rust or to rot; I have always said that human beings as such go wrong, especially happy human beings, especially proud and prosperous human beings. This eternal revolution, this suspicion sustained through centuries, you (being a vague modern) call the doctrine of progress. If you were a philosopher you would call it, as I do, the doctrine of original sin. You may call it the cosmic advance as much as you like; I call it what it is–the Fall.”
I have spoken of orthodoxy coming in like a sword; here I confess it came in like a battle-axe. For really (when I came to think of it) Christianity is the only thing left that has any real right to question the power of the well-nurtured or the well-bred.”
The only thing I might dare to add to Chesterton’s words is this: the Catholic Church is the only institution on earth unchanged, true, and willing to be in the world but not of the world. She has seen, stood with, stood against, and watched the creation and fall every nation, leader, and government in the last 2,000 years without herself being corrupted by modern novelties. She is on a mission to paint the world – maybe not blue, but I suspect in colors of gold, silver, and purple. She remains tireless in her work until that day when Satan’s world is returned to its rightful owner, our Blessed Lord. Until then, every new age will bring about its tyrants and principalities. And, in every new age, the Church will be the beacon of hope, the light, the truth, and the way, for she is the Body of Christ.
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith) (1994-05-01). Orthodoxy (pp. 112-113). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.