Monday, July 17, 2017

On the Human Disposition: An Inquiry into the Aims of the Different Dispositions of Contemporary Culture (Part I of II)


We ought to have a great deal of gratitude for the fact that there are many who seem to recognize that there are deep flaws in the contemporary West. Because of this recognition, many youths have sought remedies to the maladies of the West in the culture which has been handed down to us by posterity. This has manifested itself in secular culture by what seems to be a renewed interest in the so-called great men of times past. Consider the popular programming, like the biopic drama on the life of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK; the recent popular Spanish language series on Queen Ven. Isabella the Catholic and the succeeding series on Emperor Charles V & I of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain; the series on Louis XIV; the Russian series on Empress Catherine II the Great; programs on Queen Victoria of the UK; the list goes on. In addition we have the proliferation of popular historical-fiction in the realm of video games like the Assassin’s Creed series, the Total War franchise, or Europa Universalis. People were captivated by the fictional Pope Pius XIII, masterfully played by Jude Law, because of his traditionalism which was both gaudy and mystifying. In the religious sphere, it seems that devotion to more traditional forms of worship, whether in more reverent Novus Ordo Liturgies or devotion to the Ancient and Venerable Roman Rite, known to us as the Extraordinary Form, is on the rise. At best, this trend reveals to us that people long for a time which seems to have had a different disposition, and want to make that disposition a reality. At worst, it is people playing at a fantasy, with some rather peculiar clothing, living the same kinds of degenerate lives their peers are said to be living.

In the midst of this phenomenon, we find a vast array of voices calling the disenchanted peoples of our age to different solutions and promises of a better world. Their appeal is that they provide a community (a hallmark of traditional society) which contemporary society is said to have lost. And some show this by adopting and repurposing symbols of days past. Even we here at The Counter-Revolution have done this with the double-headed eagle! It cannot be that each of these groups really are right in their thinking, indeed that would be an impossibility. Some of these groups are nothing more than passive observers to the cultures (playing the games, watching the shows and films, wearing those clothes which are in vogue), others are only interested in discussing and sharing the commonly held historical interests, and still others are interested in changing the disposition of those with whom they dialogue and, after a manner, forming the minds of their interlocutors. What ought we to make of this?

The golden age syndrome which seems to have gripped our society is not all that unusual. We see this in many epochs, whether it be Francesco Petrarca, Victor Hugo, Oscar Wilde, or myself. Many people in many ages have longed for a time which they believe to have been better than their own. Yet, there seems to be something different in our times. We are not just lamenting the change of architecture, art, government, or fashion. No, there seems to be something else at stake. Unlike the first two phenomena, the last holds within it a great tension. As one part of our society looks ahead toward a utopian future, against which many seem to be reacting, there is a claim which holds that the perfection of human society is not in what lay ahead, but rather its perfection has been in what has already passed. Thus, we shall dismiss the first two phenomena as points inquiry. Our point of inquiry shall be the last of the phenomena we have given, that which treats dispositions. Before we go any further, I ought to explain what I mean by disposition. By this, I mean to explain the manner in which we receive and understand the world; the way that the world is read; in a colloquial way, the world-view. It seems to me abundantly clear that the disposition of an individual toward the world is the way that the individual lives life. The manner in which we receive the world forms our responses to it. What, then, are the dispositions which we shall treat? Those which we have already named: the claim of the utopian future and the claim of perfection having already been attained and lost. We shall begin by briefly treating the former and, as seems most reasonable, subsequently treat the latter.

The utopian claims of our contemporaries, who call themselves progressives, is rooted in the belief that humanity, as it is, is fundamentally evil and in need of transformation. This is, manifestly, contrary to a true Christian understanding of humanity, which holds that the nature of man is fallen and in need its redemption, which it has received in the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That the self-named progressives hold that man must be transformed, immediately betrays its intent: they wish to create something which is no longer recognizably human. Or, at the very least, something which has never before been understood as human. Let me explain. What I do mean is that so-called progressives desire to make the human disposition something entirely different from what it has been in its history. It seeks to shift the means by which the cosmos is understood, from the cosmos as itself to the individual. That is to say that the individual understands the cosmos as a projection of his mind, rather than being a system unto itself. We have treated the origin of this system and the reasoning which undergirds this shift elsewhere, so we shall not delve into it too much here. What we shall say is that this shift has happened and it matters a great deal. It is the actualization of the erroneous existentialist belief that existence precedes essence. That this shift in disposition has happened ought to startle us. So many of the horrors of Modernity and post-Modernity are rooted in shift articulated by Jean-Paul Sartre, though by no means is this his own invention. The worship of race, the evils of Marxism, the Soviet and Maoist experiments, and Smithian Capitalism, are all rooted in this disposition which is now continuing its march forward in the errors of transgenderism, transhumanism, abortion, public acceptance of sodomy, divorce, and unfettered capitalism. How these are all rooted is a topic we shall explore in greater detail another time. By all of this, I do not necessarily mean that a human-animal hybrid is lurking around the corner, nor a human-machine hybrid, although things like artificial intelligence are certainly being discussed. However, take, as an example the poor misguided soul of a man who calls himself “Eva Medusa,” and believes himself to be “transitioning” into a dragon. This man, whose self-identity would have been considered nothing short of madness in an age now past, is accepted as a peculiarity, certainly, but somehow worthy of acceptance. These are the fruits of the progressive disposition. The utopia which is foreseen and desired by the progressives is one in which all possible mutilations of the human person and body are the norm.

Unlike these aforestated desires, those who hold to what is called traditionalism wish to unite themselves with the way of receiving the universe as did their ancestors. No doubt, a laudable desire. Here, we do not mean that any antiquated way of thinking is to be held as a model for our disposition, rather, understanding and receiving the universe by the Light of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the model and means. The traditionalist seeks to read and understand the universe through the Word Made Flesh, for through Him alone can the universe and the individual human be understood correctly. This is not merely returning to an antiquated system of society, on the contrary it is being immersed into the eternal which gives form to the structure of community. It is this immersion which alone gives life to authentic culture, for culture is more than dead museum pieces. Indeed, the disposition of the individual which is born from the Divine Light is that which receives all that is seen and experienced as a sign for the Eternity which awaits. The traditionalist disposition, which we can simply call the Catholic disposition, recognizes the participation in the eternal by the material substance in which humanity receives its existence. Our disposition seeks not the transformation of the individual, nor the community, into something wholly new. No, it seeks to refine itself, so as to reveal the Good, the True, the Beautiful, and the Eternal which dwells within. And this, we shall take up in Part II.

fra Israel-Sebastian

“Dominus regit me”

The First Carlist War and the Rothschilds



Ramón Cabrera (The tiger of Maestrazgo) and his troops break the lines of Morrella (Castellón). Painting by Augusto Ferrer Dalmau

The Carlists rebelled many times against the Spanish throne for good reason. The Carlists fought to preserve traditional, Catholic Spain and to rescue it from social and economic liberalism that has largely ruined the West up to the present. In order to fully understand Carlism, we need to go back in time. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz stated in the book, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism: The Borderlands of Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries:
“No country in Europe resisted the influence of the French Revolution more steadfastly than Spain. In the 1790s the Spanish people went to war against the French Convention with great enthusiasm. In 1808 the nation rose up en masse against Napoleon and his revolutionary troops that confined King Ferdinand VII (1808-33) to house arrest and invaded the land. For six years Spaniards fought tenaciously in the Peninsular War for their freedom and for their traditional world view and way of life. The most common mottos embroidered on their banners and printed on their manifestos sum up their motives: 'Altar and Throne' and 'God, Fatherland, King.'"[1]
Joseph "Pepe Botella" Bonaparte

The French Revolution occurred in 1789, and afterwards the ideals of liberalism spread all across Europe. Napoleon Bonaparte, whom takes over France in 1799, would invade Portugal and Spain in 1807, overthrow Ferdinand VII (Spain was ruled by the Bourbon dynasty), and installed his brother, Joseph Bonaparte, as a puppet ruler. Napoleon’s brother Joseph would rule Spain from 1808-1813 and was known as José I. Many Spaniards did not accept this and the Peninsular war occurred in which many Spaniards resisted Napoleonic rule and wanted Ferdinand VII to come back (Ferdinand VII was imprisoned in France under Napoleon). In 1812, the Cortes de Cádiz established a constitution that reflected the ideals of liberalism. It supported a constitutional monarchy, gave way for economic liberalism, reduced Church influence in society, and supported national sovereignty. It was Spain's first constitution and the most liberal during that time period. In 1813, when Ferdinand VII regained the Spanish throne, he rejected it and arrested many Liberal leaders who approved of the constitution. However, Spain would never be the same again after the Napoleonic occupation. Chodakiewicz stated in the book, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism:
“After Spain confronted the revolutionary French directly in two wars, an aggressive minority of homegrown liberals inspired by the French Revolution emerged. They caused Spain to split: proponents of the new revolutionary, or liberal, regime faced defenders of the old order.”[2]
The Spaniards would thus be divided politically, as there were those who defended Spanish traditionalism against those who became liberals and revolutionaries. Many Spanish liberal politicians during this era were freemasons, such as Rafael del Riego (who sought to restore the 1812 constitution), Francisco Espoz y Mina, Cipriano de Palafox y Portocarrero (Spanish noble who fought for Joseph Bonaparte during the Peninsular War and was later honored by Napoleon himself in Paris), etc…


Ferdinand VII was slowly dying by the 1830s, and issued the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830 to allow his daughter, Isabella II, to become queen of Spain upon his death. This Pragmatic Sanction removed the right for his brother, Don Carlos, to become king of Spain. Ferdinand died in 1833 and immediately Spaniards were divided on who should inherit the throne. Once again, Chodakiewicz states in Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism:
“In 1830 King a Fernando VII and his wife, María Cristina, became the parents of a baby girl, Isabel. According to principles of the Salic Law, which the Bourbon dynasty from their own French heritage had introduced into Spain during the eighteenth century, no female could inherit the throne. Such a posture was alien to Spanish history, nevertheless there had been no queen reigning in Spain since Isabel I more than three hundred years earlier. Thus, Fernando VII named his infant daughter heir to the throne, as Princess of Asturias. Upon the king’s death in the fall of 1833 Isabel became Queen Isabel II, with María Cristina serving as Queen Regent for her young daughter until 1845.” [3]
British historian Henry Kamen wrote in his book, The Disinherited, about the birth of the Carlist movement:
“At the king’s death in 1833 the country was effectively thrown into a period of dynastic civil war, between on the one hand the partisans of young queen Isabella and her mother the regent María Cristina, and on the other supporters of the late king’s brother, Don Carlos. The followers of Don Carlos, known as ‘Carlists,’ backed his right to succeed to the throne, and set in train a powerful armed movement that played a significant part in the politics of northern Spain for nearly a century.”[4]
Those who supported Don Carlos to the throne were Carlists while those that supported Queen Isabella II were known as Isabelinos (or Cristinos due to her mother that acted as regent). Chodakiewicz mentions how Christina sought the support of liberals to save Queen Isabella’s claims to the throne, and as a result, the monarchy that would rule Spain for many decades to come was intertwined with liberalism, which Carlism strongly opposed:
“Queen María Cristina promised to the liberals a free hand in transforming the government if they would support Isabel’s shaky claims to the crown... For the following one hundred years, the throne in Spain would be identified with liberalism and contested by banished members of the royal family who refused to make their peace with the Revolution. Thus, in the early 1830s political traditionalism was enriched by a new element: legitimism. Spanish traditionalism became known as Carlism or Carlismo when it acquired a leader of royal blood named Carlos.”[5]
Henry Kamen goes on to explain the political doctrine of Carlism and how it was supported by many Spaniards such as Basques and Catalans and thus had a broad base:
“Their central doctrine was male dynastic legitimacy: the Spanish throne should go to the male line heirs of Ferdinand VII, namely his brother the Infante Carlos, rather than to his female-line heirs (who included Queen Isabella II). Beyond the dynastic question, Carlism was in essence a traditionalist movement that developed both reactionary and revolutionary tendencies. It supported the Catholic Church against Liberalism, called for the restoration of the Inquisition, and defended regional rights (the ‘fueros’, mainly of the Basques and Catalans) against central government. The broad base gave it immense support throughout northern Spain, and triggered several small civil wars.”[6]
The First Carlist War broke out in 1833 and lasted until 1839. The Carlists were supported by the Portuguese at first (Miguel I of Portugal, a traditionalist monarch, supported the Carlists until 1834 when he was overthrown and exiled) while the Isabelinos were supported by Great Britain and France. Chodakiewicz discusses many facts surrounding the First Carlist War:
"The First Carlist War was the most serious of the five major fratricidal conflicts of the nineteenth century. Traditionalists fought against an international coalition of four states bent on transforming the Iberian Peninsula. Portugal, Great Britain, and France of Louis-Philippe sent men, weapons, ammunition, and funds to Regent María Cristina's government (1833-40) in Madrid. Portugal and France patrolled their respective borders with Spain, and the British navy blockaded the coasts controlled by the legitimists. The Carlists received moral support from seven or eight governments and token financial aid. The two most generous European rulers were from small Italian states. No foreign troops were sent to help the Carlists. Nevertheless, several hundred Realist volunteers from different countries made their way to Spain individually to defend Europe's old Christian order on the Spanish front and to serve the pious Carlos V. Many were Frenchmen-sons of veterans of the Vendée and former officers in Charles X's Royal Guard who retired when their king was deposed in 1830. A good number of this small group were Portuguese who arrived after King Michael I lost his throne to his revolutionary brother Dom Pedro and little niece Maria II da Gloria in 1834. The efforts made by four governments were not able to defeat the Carlists. Well over half a million Spaniards alone fought the legitimists over a seven-year period. Some 100,000 of these men died in battle. The Carlists finally lost the war because they were sold out by one of their own key military commanders."[7]

Portugal joined Great Britain and France against the Carlists once Miguel I was overthrown in Portugal. The Carlists did receive aid and assistance, but the liberals received even more. The Rothschilds, the richest banking family dynasty in world of Jewish origins started getting increasingly involve in Spain. Irish Catholic priest Denis Fahey wrote in his book, Rulers of Russia, the following:
"The Rothschilds were anti-Carlist in the war of succession, which was going on, because they feared that the success of Don Carlos would mean that they would lose the famous Almaden quicksilver mines. By a ‘bear’ operation on the stock-exchange the Rothschilds sent Spanish securities tumbling down. The Prime Minister, Count Toreno, was forced to resign, and the Rothschilds realised a profit far beyond the amount of the bribe they had given him previously. Count Toreno was succeeded by Mendizábal, a Jew by race and religion. He had been speculating in Spanish securities but had ‘got the tip’ from Nathan Rothschild when the Rothschilds decided to bring about the slump. Mendizábal increased the Spanish deficit. All that and more can be learned from Count Corti’s Reign of the House of Rothschild. It will serve as a commentary on the laconic information we get in the Catholic Encyclopedia (article on Spain) wherein we read: ‘…the Liberals ruled, except in the provinces occupied by the Carlists, and the moderate ministry of Martinez de la Rosa… was succeeded by those of Toreno and of Mendizábal, who put up the possessions of the Church for sale (1836).’ The Catholic Encyclopedia omits to say that all the convents, with some exceptions, had been confiscated in 1835. It makes no reference to the collusion between Rothschild and Mendizábal.”[8]


Rothschild family coat of arms

The Rothschilds supported the Isabelinos against the Carlists from 1834 and 1840 due to economic interests and they were lenders who had economic influence in both Great Britain and France. The money that the Isabelinos received from these two nations helped them a lot in winning the First Carlist War. And Mendizábal, Jew and Rothschild agent, issued decrees known as the ecclesiastical confiscations of Mendizábal that suppressed and dispersed Religious Orders along with disestablishing the Church in Spain and selling Church property. He served as prime minister of the liberal regime under Queen Isabella II in Spain. Chodakiewicz wrote in Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism:
"Massive confiscations of municipal and ecclesiastical property and a new form of taxation helped launch capitalism. Many bishops were forced into exile, most male religious orders were outlawed, social services provided by the Catholic Church disappeared, peasants were driven off their lands their families had farmed for generations, and the clergy and modest classes were disenfranchised for lack of property. Carlism emerged during this difficult time, essentially, as a defense of the legacy of the past."[9]
These liberal reforms launched Capitalism, destroyed the influence of the Catholic Church in society, and hurt the poor and modest economically. Carlism was seen as a movement to fight against these changes. As such, Carlism was actually supported by many Spaniards compared to Liberalism:
"Unlike liberalism, Carlism had a strong popular base. Legitimist leaders and thinkers were responsive to the concerns of the modest sectors of society."[10]
Chodakiewicz wrote in Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism of how Carlism appealed to many Spaniards:
“It is generally agreed that in the 1830s, Carlism was a multi-class movement with particular strength in rural northern and northeastern Spain, with pockets of support among artisans and journeymen in the smaller cities and towns of the region.”[11]
Carlism was supported by many Catalans, Basques, the lower classes and other groups because Carlism actually appealed to many Spaniards. The Catalans and Basques appreciated Carlism's concept of Fueros, which is regional autonomy while the Liberals wanted a strong centralized state. The lower classes appreciated Carlism for Carlism sought to ensure that the poor were protected economically. During the First Carlist War, the liberal regime actually expelled many Carlist supporters to Cuba and Puerto Rico in order to break their morale. Henry Kamen states once again:
“The government tried to root out its popular support by deporting activists to the New World. In 1836 there were around 2,200 Carlists languishing in Cuba, most of them young peasants from the mountains of Navarre. Prisoners were also sent to Puerto Rico. In theory they were meant to serve a six-year exile to allow them to cool off, after which they could make their way back.”[12]
The Isabelinos won the First Carlist War in 1839 and as a result, many Carlists were exiled. Kamen wrote:
“At the end of the First Carlist War in the summer of 1839 possibly over 30,000 left the country and crossed the Pyrenees into France, but most were ordinary soldiers with neither the resources nor the inclination to stay in another country, and they returned in 1840 after the queen issued an amnesty.”[13]
Don Carlos, Isabella II’s uncle, fled Spain after losing the civil war. Kamen stated: “…Don Carlos himself, left Spain in 1839 and spent the rest of his life in exile, first in France and then in Italy.”[14] The Carlists lost and their movement was stopped by the Liberal forces, who emerged victorious after the civil war. However, the Carlist movement did not die out and the second and third Carlist wars would break out throughout the 19th century and Carlism would still be influential in Spanish politics during the 20th century.

References:
[1] Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism, pg. 9
[2] Chodakiewicz, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism, pg. 10
[3] Chodakiewicz, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism, pg xi
[4] Henry Kamen. The Disinherited. Pg. 188
[5] Chodakiewicz, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism, pg 11
[6] Kamen. The Disinherited, pg. 211
[7] Chodakiewicz, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism, pg 12
[8] Fr. Denis Fahey, Rulers of Russia, pg. 89-90
[9] Chodakiewicz, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism, pg 10
[10] Chodakiewicz, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism, pg 12
[11] Chodakiewicz, Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism, pg 120
[12] Henry Kamen. The Disinherited, pg. 212
[13] Kamen. The Disinherited, pg. 212
[14] Kamen, The Disinherited, pg. 212

Bibliography:
Chodakiewicz, Marek. Spanish Carlism and Polish Nationalism: The Borderlands of Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries. 1st ed. Charlottesville: Leopolis Press, 2003. Print.
Fahey, Rev. Denis. Rulers of Russia. 3rd. ed. 1940. Print.
Kamen, Henry. The Disinherited: The Making of Spanish Culture, 1492-1975. 1st. ed. Harper, 2007. Print.


Thursday, July 13, 2017

A Simple Argument for Monarchy

“A Man is a Democrat because he himself wants to rule, a man is a Monarchist because he wants to be ruled well”

On Authority: It is absolutely essential to begin not by speaking in terms of different systems and natures of governance, but by examining the very nature of authority itself. Where does it come from? If we examine the animal kingdom we find examples of leadership, but no authority; no one animal holds any position of judgement over another, conclusively authority then does not come from nature. Limiting the inquiry to man itself, we can deduce down to a question “Can two people give a person a right that they themselves do not possess?”. The obvious answer is always no. I do not have a right to take things that belong to you, and my neighbor does not, so we can’t give a chosen representative of ours the said right. If we take it even further and have 100 people all consent that said representative has this right over you, it still does not endow him with the legitimate authority to do so. No matter how large we make the base of people affirming his action, it does nothing to legitimize his authority exercised. Authority then clearly does not stem from man, but only from God. Christ tells Pilate in his trial that “Any power you have comes from God”. God himself assures us of the natural truth we can so easily find evident in our natural logic. In nature, we see one strong leader emerge among groups of animals. The lion, the so-called king of the jungle, do not operate among democratic groups. Among every group, weak and strong, an alpha male emerges, and different groupings of animals keep generally to different areas. We see a natural case for nationalism, and taking pride in where one happens to be born and reside. What we see in the natural world clearly reflects the supernatural world. God as creator and King of the universe, and see among the ranks of heaven a hierarchy of supernatural beings and men arrayed under the headship of God. The most natural state of man is indeed monarchy.

The Role of the King: First of all, in discussing a monarchy we must clearly define the role and nature of a king. The king is first and foremost the guardian of the Church. The King is coroneted by the Church, and has a responsibility to create and guard an environment where evangelization is easily done, and a nation for the faithful to live in with moral standards that make it much easier to go to heaven. The King represents the natural familial headship. God is the King of the universal family, the Pope as the earthly representative of God and leader of his flock on earth, the King is the head of the family of the nation, the priest is the father of his parish, and a father is the head of his family. Each has a unique leadership role, and a special responsibility not just for the care and wellbeing of his family on a physical level, but also sacred duty to help guide and lead their souls on the journey to Heaven. The King and the royal family have a noble responsibility to be an example to the whole nation. They are to, at all times, act with dignity and respect. In the very traditional notion of monarchy, the royal family has an obligation to strive to the ideal of family life. Everything in right order, the way they live their lives should be an example to the whole nation of decorum and proper function. The king is also the protector of the commons. The King by nature of his authority can prevent oligarchic rule by the wealthy by curbing their influence on behalf of the common man. We see time and time again this is the case. Ivan IV of Russia, also known as Ivan the terrible, at one time got fed up with ruling and threatened to abdicate. Russian oligarchs had to come and convince him to retake his throne, for they could not continue life without he protecting them from the common people. He did return, and subsequently destroyed the power of the Russian oligarchs in protection of the common people. Another time, the Russian serfs formally plead Catherine the Great to reject the restrictions the nobility and oligarchy were placing her under, and assume the role of an absolute monarch, because they knew with a monarch in power, they have a course of recourse against abuses by the oligarchic class. The King also serves as a physical embodiment of the nation; a unifying figure that people across all social and economic classes can look to, and identify with. One of the most astounding examples in history of this is the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which united 13 different lingo-ethnic groups into one nation, which relative for the time, was unitive and successful. The Kaiser had a huge role in holding the nation together, as citizens of all backgrounds could look to him, and see the nation. The king and the royal family have a responsibility to be a lead example of secular morality, and refrain from public disorderliness, so that all citizens may look to them, and model their own lives off that of the monarchy.

Nobility: One supremely unfortunate consequence of the enlightenment is the hatred espoused for even the idea that there can be distinctions among men, such as nobility, yet it is instinctive of every man to recognize they exist. One has only to look at the throngs of citizens and tourists alike who line up to catch a mere glimpse of a monarch anywhere in the world, or how a common man instinctively respects another more when learning he possesses a title.  The very fundamental need of a soul is order. The Venerable Pope Pius XII said “Social inequalities, even related to birth, are inevitable. Benign nature and God’s blessing to humanity illuminate and protect all cradles, looking on them with love, but do not make them equal. On the other hand, to a mind instructed and educated in a Christian way, these disparities can only be considered a disposition willed by God with the same wisdom as the inequalities in the family. Hence, they are destined to bring men more closely together on the present life journey toward the Kingdom of Heaven, with some helping others in the way a father helps a mother and children.” Pius XII gives us an exceptionally beautiful examination of the role of the Nobility: to guide the common man. As the king serves as the father figure to the nation, one should consider the nobility to be an older brother. As one does not only look to the father, but older siblings for guidance end example, one should also look to the nobility. As Christ tells us “To whom much is given, much is expected”. The role of a traditional nobility would be to replace the new pagan pantheon of celebrity gods, which idolizes people the more degenerate they act. The idea of a nobility is antithetical to the modern error that preaches no distinctions among men, yet a man need feel no more indignation that he is not born part of the nobility than he feel at not being born king, or even an eldest sibling. One might even feel relief that he is not born into such a position of responsibility. To briefly list a selection of noble responsibilities: to live a moral life of exceptional quality and raise your children and heirs to do the same. To be a regional representative of the King and all he represents; the King, as the font of honor, has a sacred duty to appoint men who exemplify virtue and are pillars of the community and are strong protectors of the faith. Things for which he rightly deserves honor. It can be pointed out that these are responsibilities of a good family, and they are, but in the context of nobility there is an accountability system where one can be stripped of their rank for failing to live to the standards so outlined.

Monarchy and the Church:  A common symbolic emblem often used in the past is that of the double-headed eagle, representing the Church and the state. As God’s representative body on earth, the Church in the past would have been understood as the only body besides God who places authority over the monarch. The idea of an absolute monarch free to do whatever they wish, so often presented as a defense of republicanism, is a picture only made possible by removing the Church from the picture. This is not to say that some absolute monarchs did as they please, but those always did so outside the scope of the Church. The monarchy has a sacred duty to protect the Church and enable its salvific mission to all mankind, and the Church in return consecrates the monarch, and endows his rule with a certain authority otherwise much lacking. The Church, as with all men, has a strict set of laws governing the actions of the monarch. He cannot order unjust actions without the condemnation of the Church, and is bound to act within certain parameters or risk losing support from the church, and his throne.

Monarchy and the death of man and Tradition: The 21st century has been an era of exceptionally rapid change. In only 10 years, we have gone from the United States Supreme Court upholding the natural law, to acting as if the only law is the constitution. In the past year, there has been an active campaign to deny that there are even differences between men and women, seeking the active abolition of gender and gender roles. In the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima, she tells us that the last battles of satan will be over marriage and the family. We have seen the institution of marriage destroyed through contraception, state ownership, no-fault divorce, and the legalization of same-sex “marriage”. Pew research says that 74% of millennials support same-sex marriage. The next target to bring down, and how satan subverts the family, is by attacking men. Men will always fight for women and children, so they must be brought to heel first. Think of every speech in a war or an action movie where the protagonist is trying to inspire men. Without exception, every single one mentions their women and children. There are lots of reasons that can all be accurately sighted as to the reason of the downfall of men, such as the declaration of every pro-man thing as sexist, the hook-up culture promoting free love without commitment, feminism convincing women that tradition is to be spat upon, and the use of contraception and abortion destroying the very summit of a married life: these things are all true however one concept rarely considered is how the abolition of monarchy has influenced men and the concept of what it is to be a man. The King has the unique role as the patriarchal head of the nation; he leads the family of the nation as a father leads his household. The king’s authority does not come by some mandate of the governed, just as a father’s authority does not come from consent of the whole family, but both are divinely ordained by God to bring people closer to him. We have seen in the past few century’s a rejection of the notion of divinely ordered authority, and the rise in the notion of popular authority, that if you get enough people to consent to something it becomes true. The abolition of monarchy, and the king’s authority as patriarch of the nation ex officio, has diluted the duties of a father and weakened his authority to create a strong family unit. With a monarch in place, guiding the nation and acting as the patriarchal example, men will have an example to emulate in their family lives, and will be more united in the common purpose of raising a family. Monarchy and fatherhood go hand in hand in strengthening the nation.

The Demand for Monarchy: Often in our modern, defeatist culture, we tend to make jokes about things that are decidedly not joking matters. You often hear people say things like “I’ll see you in hell” or use demonic influence as a joke, forgetting the terrifying power that satan and his minions have over this earth. One such thing that has been treated this way is the illuminati. We have come to see them as something only nutty conspiracy theorists would believe exist, and make movies such as National Treasure, which use them as the “fictional” villain, forgetting completely that, in fact, they do exist, and the nature of influence they have over our world. In Italy, for the bicentennial of the founding of the freemasons in 1917, there were a rash of masonic riots so severe the papal guard encouraged the Pope to flee for his own safety. Among the reasons we have made such a joke out of the illuminati is we forget their founding ideals. Adam Weishaupt, founder of the illuminati, set forth these goals for his society: Overturn throne and altar, destroy all religion, abolish private property, deify sensuality, repudiate marriage, state control of children, and establish one world government. Some would vehemently insist that it is pure happenstance coincidence that in the time since Weishaupt, this is exactly what has happened. Using our modern American culture as a sounding board, one is labeled as backwards if he believes in any higher power. The only god people worship anymore is sex, and we have seen the oversaturation and obsession of sex in our culture, from children’s movies to the billboards on the highways, to the non-chalance and casual hookup and free love culture, sex has become a god, and replaced the position of the One True God in our world today. Marriage has been attacked relentlessly, through no-fault divorce, and contraception, to the endorsement of homosexual unions as a valid marriage by the state, and even some protestant churches now, in all of this we see that the millennial generation is getting married at terrifyingly lower rates than the previous generation, preferring cohabitation and slipping between sexual partners to an actual lifelong commitment, and especially over raising children. We see how parents are perfectly willing to abandon their children to state indoctrination for most hours of the day, selfishly pursuing their own desires in the void of time left, and how the state relentlessly pursues domination over children and the elimination of parent’s choices and natural rights such as the decision to vaccination, as seen recently in Californian legislation. The state ravenously devours the natural parental rights, seizing authoritarian control of the up-coming generation. We see the emergence of the United nations, and how it levels punishes countries not following its globalist agenda. We have seen marxism infect all corners of the globe, and even the secular culture calls millennials the entitlement generation for its embrace of Marxist ideals, and feeling the world owes them something. All of these things we see in our modern culture can naturally be traced back to the very first of the ideals: topple throne and altar. Throne and Altar, Monarchy and the Church, often represented by the double headed eagle, each half looking out and protecting the other. To institute the rash of changes outlined by weishaupt, the first thing to go always has to be throne and altar, for the arrangement of the two will lead a society to a greater freedom to be holy, and create an environment ripe for sanctification, and a morally strong culture. Monarchs are free to act for the greater good of the people, and not slaves to changing opinions and whims as politicians. Monarchs are free to act for the salvation of souls, rather than slaves to mere human whim. The only way to save our world is through Christ, but accepting a leader who proceeding from supernatural authority, governs with the laws of the Church and eternal salvation, not just for himself, but for the whole of his nation in mind, brings us that much closer to embracing the Sacred Heart of Jesus. All things to Christ, through Mary.




x

Monday, June 26, 2017

Reaction and Tradition



The fight against modernity is a war against an army of vipers: liberalism, nihilism, materialism, corrupt social-betters, and a multitude of institutions stand in our way. With this in mind; how are we meant to return to the old social order? The most common error is simply to react, rather than return.



Many see modern ideas as a given and aren't able to successfully defend against the progressive swarms -- the defender has resigned to fight on the attacker's territory. This is certainly the trouble with libertarianism and the ideological struggle with progressives: they still share the core belief that truth is relatively subjective. But to fully conquer the evils of the modern world, one must refuse it and take the correct path to salvation. A path of objective truth.

In contrast, modernity is built upon relativism. If truth is not objective, it is far easier to promote ideas through emotional argument. Rather than God and His Church, the media instead becomes our overlords. Thus the will of people is put above what is truly righteous and good, and general consensus becomes the moral code.


Perhaps the greatest example of this is 21st-century view of fascism. I can honestly admit, after studying Mussolini, Dollfuss, Franco, and Degrelle - I have a much harder time defining fascism than I did before. For the sake of clarity, I can no longer use "fascism" to describe any specific set of ideas, as you can have everything from the atheist Mussolini with a Jewish mistress to the clerical Austrofascists. Nevertheless; The ideology is used the ultimate insult by the Western left, being used so often that actual fascists often escape a great deal of persecution.

The many people instead called "fascists" are mainline "conservatives". Usually this term means someone who is nominally conservative, mildly libertarian, and a fairly strong supporter of the Republican party. They have made no attempts to refine their political philosophy, and their most dedicated act of praxis is sharing a meme from Uncle Sam's Misguided Children to start a Facebook debate with their liberal aunt.

A step beyond this is the basic libertarian, most commonly a fan of Ron and Rand Paul. These individuals read a few books on politics and finds that the state is almost certainly a source of most ills, regardless of how the state is applied. This is a very prevalent and temporary phase, as this group feeds into neo-reactionary politics through Hoppe, minarchism and anarcho-capitalism through Rothbard, or God-forbid a young man slips back into common conservatism with a focus on Keynesian economics. Another common transition is to adopt an idealistic classical liberalism, with a love of the Founding Fathers and the greater use of aesthetics. It serves as an ideological purgatory, where the enemy is rarely defined unless it is a road or an involuntary action. 

All adopt tradition to some degree, but it is not capital-t Tradition. Some take on an Anglosphere individualist sort, some a set of ideas used to justify authoritarian government; and most often just defending their father's brand of Baby-Boomer worship of American corruption and the cult of Ronald Reagan. While this is certainly an individual tradition, it is not a sacred Tradition that we possess in the West.

True Tradition is built upon natural law, and a set of primal truths which was imbued from the first moment of Creation. The Apostle John that all was created through the Word, the Logos, and evidence of this is found from the earliest days. There were elements of truth to even the pagan philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, and the fullness of Truth was brought to the temporal world with the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This Truth is known through the teachings and Tradition of His Church. 


To be line with Tradition, one must recognize the need for a single leader. A figure for a nation to look up to, whose legitimacy comes from God, this is the only successful guide for the state and people. As pawns to political parties, special interests, and the desire of the mob, presidents and prime ministers consistently fail to implement meaningful -- much less positive -- change within their terms. In fact, it is often said a benign dictator is always the ideal ruler; a this sentiment echoed from Plato, to Aristotle, to St. Thomas Aquinas. 

How this ruler comes to power is a question which causes the Falangists to bicker with the Carlists. One side cites the shortcomings of individual monarchs, while the other has a strong rebuttal in the lifespan of authoritarian regimes. Regardless; without the stability of monarchy, the regime likely collapses after the first generation and initial leader fall out of power. With monarchy, due to its hereditary nature, these movements could go further. Old blood and clerical backing is a boon to any political movement.

The religious element of reaction cannot be ignored. It is the ultimate source of unity and morality, the foundation of European Tradition, and the source of all legitimacy. Having the support of the Bishop of Rome or a Patriarch is the greatest possible endorsement. A devout Christian leader is one certain to act in great virtue, and this monarchs reign will only serve to better his population. A pious monarch will breed great piety in the population.

The eternal truth of the Faith will survive regardless, but nonetheless thrives in this king, tsar, and so on.

Thus the only living force which supports truth above all is Tradition. Ardent defense of truth and morality is rarely found outside the Church, much less independent of its teachings. Beauty is hardly found outside of Cathedrals and artwork of the past, and support for a good state last found in the coronation rites of the Mass and Divine Liturgy. We must accept the truth as a whole, such is Tradition, as any error or diversion from it will send back down the path to disorder. 

We cannot assemble our own form of "truth" based on what delights us. We must relentlessly study, pray, and act with virtue to find the truth. We must consume all the writings of Church Fathers and Doctors, read of the great heroes, and most importantly, emulate them. There is no cafeteria for the Truth, it must be taken wholly or be completely abandoned. Using modern ideas to fight modernity will not reap any meaningful fruit.



Because of this, we cannot adopt any aspect of the Enlightenment. At its core, it is the ultimate expression of relativism and rebellion. We cannot assert the state is the sole cause of woe or the only salvation of man; we cannot assert that capital must be fully enslaved or free. A philosophy must form organically, from the lives of good people worthy of living out their goals. Order can only exist in a righteous society, as good philosophy can only come from a man with his passions and vices trampled by his own desire for morality, service, and salvation. We must begin reforming on our own lives before we can successfully lead the world to looking to past for a better future. 

Recite the prayers of your fathers and patriarchs, read their words, and imitate their acts of heroism. We cannot find salvation in anyone but Christ, and we're without any help without Him and His Saints. The ultimate revolt against the modern world is to make goodness, prayer, study, and service an ideology above any -ist or -ism. To organize, we must leave the screens and form the righteous mannerbund, and build up our fellow right-wingers into men by crushing their vices as well as our own. We must lead each other towards wisdom and action rather than apathy. All ideology and aesthetics are slaves to truth, and we must run towards the objective of holiness above all.

We must fight and restore the virtue and the systems which retain the goodness, and it starts with turning fully from modernity and any part of it, finding redemption in Christ through the Sacraments and pious living. We must first support the Social Kingship of Christ, before we can rebuild our own Kingdoms.