"All of your six followers? Absolutely not. You are a transparent fraud. Never contact me again!"
Classic Ann. At least he got a response, though. I've never really heard back from her whenever I've sent in a question or comment.
No matter, though. She is fun to read, and often ahead of the curve. For example, she's one of a growing number of people who supports monarchy.
So, let's dive in by addressing those people who are horrified at the idea of being ruled over by a king. Perhaps today's modern democratic mind sways libertarian, believing that peace is achievable by lending liberty to the masses to do what they will, just so long as they hurt no one. Basically, "Let everyone be a hedonist, and everything will be fine."
I, of course, disagree with that concept of liberty. As I continue to repeat, liberty is not an absence of restraint on hedonism and material possessions. Liberty is a good life of virtue, a secure possession of truth--both privately and publicly. Liberty is freedom from the bondage of sin for the sake of eternal felicity. Ensuring liberty is best accomplished by a Catholic monarch.
"PEACE IS THE PERFECT APPLICATION OF GOD’S JUSTICE."
But let's not beat around the bush. Let's get to it. Barnhardt quite specifically extols monarchy and tears at democracy:
And now a truth that many of you will find deeply unpleasant. Democracy is a terrible system that rapidly devolves into the tyranny of the mob who then, without fail, install a tyrant. The founders of the now-dead American republic were quite open about this. Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Yup. And the American republic didn’t even survive 240 years. The best system of government is a meritorious aristocracy that elects a monarch. Think about it. Shouldn’t the good, moral, intelligent people be elevated to positions of power irrespective of their family ties? And then, shouldn’t those people elect from among their ranks a “chief executive” who serves as a final authority when needed? Because as we all know, SOMEONE has got to be in charge; the buck has to stop with someone or else utter chaos ensues. Remember the term “subsidiarity”?
So, there you have it. She's bluntly stated it as early as 2013. Barnhardt is quite unimpressed with our "republic," and I'm sure she would agree that we are pretty much ruled by an oligarchy at this point. Disgruntled with the current state of things, she loves to tear down our current system. As do I.
I look out and see an entire culture of people who have absolutely no sense of the fact that they might, just might have brought all of this shitstorm upon themselves, deserve every bit of what is coming, and that any sort of repentance or extreme behavior modification is needed. Whilst angrily INSISTING that they are depraved, proud of it, and that the depravity is unanimous, and no one had better DARE suggest otherwise.at Level Jonah. She is like Jonah outside the city walls of Ninevah, waiting and wondering when God will destroy the city. The self-destructive policies and tendencies of our people come as no surprise to her, largely because she believes (as I do) that American society is going about it all wrong. She knows that there is something better out there--a more edifying system than this--but we stubbornly refuse to consider it. We are like the dogs who eat their own vomit.
The far left is all about totalitarian control by a cadre of oligarchs. There really isn’t any such thing as a true dictatorship, because one man cannot physically force an entire government or people to do his will. He will always have a cadre of enablers and henchmen around him, and if he loses the support of that cadre of henchmen, they will kill him. Thus even the most seemingly solitary dictator is really just a frontman for an oligarchy. Dictatorial oligarchies use brute force to impose their will and have no respect for the Rule of Law. They consider themselves to be the law. If they want it, they take it, and if you don’t like that, they kill you. On the left, the most brutal thug with the worst case of psychopathy wins.
The far right is the same thing. The far right is anarchy, which means no government. This sounds good on the surface, especially when you’re face with the truly satanic government we have now, until you realize that also means NO RULE OF LAW. Every man for himself. In this environment, the most brutal thug with the worst case of psychopathy wins.
While the philosophical paths may differ, the ends are exactly the same. No matter which arm of the doughnut you favor, if you move away from logic, reason and truth, proceeding out of which is charity in the true sense of the word, meaning love of neighbor, not just throwing “free stuff” at the nebulous conceptual mob of “the people”, or as with anarchy a total indifference toward neighbor, you are going to end up with exactly the same end: an elite, minuscule, ruling class with a massive, brutally oppressed underclass, and lots and lots of dead bodies. In both the far left and far right, to quote Obama’s Manufacturing czar Ron Bloom quoting Mao: All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
That is only partially true. All political power in a godless regime, either far right or far left, comes from the barrel of a gun. In a Godly monarchy, the power comes from God Himself. The same could possibly be said of an early Godly republic, but history proves that republics never last long.
Subsidiarity is not exclusive to democracy, representative republic or parliamentary republics. Subsidiarity can be executed in many systems of governance, including hereditary monarchies. This is why Christ did not call out a specific form of governance, because He knew that many forms of governance are feasible, so long as subsidiarity is observed. History has shown us that a Godly man can reign as a king, living as a humble servant to his people. In the Old Testament Good Kings included Asa, Hezekiah and Josiah. In modern times, King St. Louis the ninth of France, King St. Stephen the first of Hungary, and King St. Casmir of Poland are examples of Godly monarchs who ruled in a spirit of subsidiarity.
A Godly monarch is the ideal vessel for exercising subsidiarity. Other government systems are possible, but clearly, Barnardt is set on the former as being the most ideal.
Ann Barnhardt is but one of a growing number of Americans who are giving monarchy a glance. While she is often at the butt of many jokes, she is typically proven correct, given the fullness of time. Heck, at this rate, it may turn out that Pope Francis is actually called out for being an anti-pope in the near future, completely vindicating Barnhardt on the issue. Should that day come, I hope it will increase her street credibility. She's an insightful figure who is locked in an interesting situation during an interesting time. I wish she'd write a book.