Featured Post

Why Catholics Don't Tithe As Much As They Used To

One thing I can clearly recall from my days as a Southern Baptist youth was that people often tithed ten percent or more of their income to ...

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The Kingdom of Católica America: Part 3

Last month, I took issue with Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus' assertion that more oligarchy is a good idea for America.  In his blog post, Cincinnatus took a look at monarchy and oligarchy, and he actually decided that oligarchy was a better idea.

Has he not been paying attention to what's already happened to America in this current oligarchy?

I disagree with him.  He is wrong.  I continue to argue that a Catholic Monarchy is the best solution for America's future post-apocalyptic period.  An all-out oligarchy has the potential to become a ravenous, mindless zombie that seeks to feed its own appetite.  To recap: 
Should things become terrible, you will not know who to blame. Depending on the number of oligarchs, they could shift blame from one person to another, until you've reached the point that blame could never be properly assigned to one person. It could be "a committee's fault," or "the fault of a process," or "there was no good communication between individuals." Oligarchy keeps the individuals involved in a safe and nebulous bubble that no one can pin down. The best example of this is Hilary Clinton and her endless list of scandals.

And worst of all, as corruption grows within an oligarchy, and no one is able to pin down culprits and root out corruption, somehow power becomes more and more centralized under these oligarchs. Case in point: America in the 21st Century.
So, one more time, what's preferable: oligarchy or monarchy?  Monarchy, of course.  To further expand upon this point, I brought this matter forward to Charles Coulombe in the last Off the Menu episode.  Below you can enjoy the video and transcript yourself.

Vinnie Frankini:
Laramie Hirsch writes: "It seems to me that as oligarchs rule, things become more chaotic.  And as a population grows, power seems to solidify into an untouchable central authority. Charles touched on this in his book, Star Spangled Crown, when he discussed the boroughs and the burghs of the British Isles. A more modern example of runaway oligarchy, I think, is America's current untouchable political class.  But for your on-the-street layman, what is the difference between an oligarchy and a monarchy?

Charles Coulombe:
Well, the difference is actually pretty big.  A monarchy is, of course, a form of government.  We have a single monarch, usually but not always hereditary, which is at once legitimized and limited by tradition, and religion, and various other factors.  An oligarchy is a ruling class which may or may not be responsible to someone or another.  You can have a monarchy and an oligarchy at the same time, and you can have a Republic and an oligarchy at the same time.  You can have any form of government you'd like with an oligarchy.  But the question is: how responsive is that oligarchy to the actual needs of its subjects? What kind of check is there on its power?  
In some societies you can—oh, like Venice, for instance, which was a republic of sorts (although they had a duke, the Doge)—there was an oligarchy who--they were the ones who voted; nobody else did.  But both their religion, the almost crushing weight of custom in Venice, and a number of other factors, kept them fairly efficient as rulers for a long time.  
What you really have a problem with—and this, I think, has happened in our own country today--is when you get an oligarchy that is untraveled by any kind of tradition, has no effective check out its power, and no real belief in anything save itself.  When you have an oligarchy that no longer cares about the welfare of its subjects, then you acquire a parasite. A parasite that will kill the host unless they're overthrown, and we get a new oligarchy.
Vinnie Frankini:
 Okay.  What would be an example of a good check on an oligarchy, so that they're not a parasite?
Charles Coulombe:
Well, as I said, I brought up Venice.  But usually, when you've got an hereditary king, you've got a good check on the oligarchy, partly because it's hereditary, partly because he may rule through them, but he also has appealed to the people below them.  You see.  The King has to try to be father to all his subjects, not just those on top.
Vinnie Frankini:  What about our system? 
Charles Coulombe:
Well, in our system there is no check on the oligarchy at all.  And the oligarchy, moreover, have no belief that would restrain them.  They have a belief structure of sorts, but it's completely self-aggrandizing. The problem with it, though, is that it doesn't really confer the legitimacy of them.  What Mrs. Clinton was going on about last night was really the credo of the oligarchy.  The so-called "woman's right to choose"—infanticide—and so-called "marriage equality"—sodomy--these are what our ruling class are in to.  And it's such sexual stuff.  I mean, that's small potatoes, really.  But it's all economic, all "this worldly."  
You know, Donald, who certainly has been a member of that oligarchy, at least in financial terms for a long time, identified a couple of other members of it—George Soros, Warren Buffet.  And really, George Soros, alongside Rupert Murdoch, is like a poster child for the modern oligarchy.  Because he's not this, and he's not that.  It's not an oligarchy that's based on any ethnic unity.  It's not based on anything other than money and power.  That's why it's so hard to identify.
But, you look at a man like Rupert Murdoch.  Now, Rupert Murdoch is a world player like Soros.  He knows no boundaries.  He gave up his Australian citizenship. In Australia he is the bankroll of the Australian republican movement. In the United States, he is your Fox News and so-called Republican. But then, in Britain, he was Tony Blair's paymaster and the "mother bountiful" of the Labor Party.  These are very different roles!  And you would say: "Gee, what's his ideology?" Well, his ideology is Rupert Murdoch.  
The problem, though, is that you cannot sustain over a long period of time an oligarchy that's like that.  If all they see is themselves and their own power and their own—whatever it is going on inside those little pointed heads of theirs—then it's time they be replaced, or the fabric of society crumble.  One or the other.
I mean, to bring it down to its most basic: a society that cannot sustain itself via population will die.   You have to have bodies to bleed for you and to be milked for your treasure.  If you don't have them, then you don't have them.  The problem, of course, is that the way these folk see to remedy that is to abolish nations and to bring in all sorts of immigrants to take up the slack. When you can do that, then you change the nature of the country.  And the problem is, too, the people you bring in will not have the habits of obedience to the oligarchy that your native born did.  So, you play with fire.
You know, the old joke about the woodman who was sitting on the branch and the treme (assistant?) is busy sawing it!  And they didn't understand why he fell down and broke his neck. It was a little too tough for them to catch on to!   Our oligarchs are the same way.  They don't realize that they're doing in themselves.  And they don't care!  So!  What's not to like?

Read about how wonderful an American Catholic Monarchy can be in Charles Coulombe's book: Star Spangled Crown.  



And you can find many of Mr. Coulombe's books and free talks--as well as many other wonderful books and articles--at the Tumblar House website.  


3 comments:

  1. According to Thomistic thinkers, monarchy is inherent in any political system, even one's that don't have an official monarchy. Rule by one central person. Its built into the nature of society to have a government with a central head who ultimately decides the toughest questions. The US presidency is in a way already a kind of monarchy, or it could in theory be treated that way.

    Aristotle said the ideal government is centered on aristocracy. Whereas oligarchs rule mainly from wealth and power, aristocrats (who are still usually wealthy and powerful) rule from "wisdom and virtue."

    For traditional Catholics promoting the Benedict option, I think the key is for traditional Catholic leaders of business and industry, who are really devoted to Catholic wisdom and virtue, to lead the rebuilding of Catholic communities. To be true aristocrats.

    And, according to Aristotle, a monarch comes organically out of aristocrats, often through trials of war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Benedict option as in St.Benedict or Fr.Ratzinger (Benedict)?

      Delete
  2. If only all of this dialectic was comprehensible to the Left.

    "They can throw around 'Thomistic' thought and 'subsidiarity' and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they're talking about."
    -Message from John Halpin to John Podesta


    Bunch of TL;DR fools, they are.

    ReplyDelete