Featured Post

The "Rights of Englishmen" Series

This is a list of the posts from my "Rights of Englishmen" series, as well as some others: - The Rights of Englishmen Part 1:...

Thursday, December 1, 2016

The Kingdom of Católica America Part 5: Arguing For It

Perhaps it's due to Advent and the approaching Christmas season, but I've felt compelled recently to attempt to plant the seeds of an idea.  I want to help make it conceivable for the people of our time to direct our collective minds towards an American Monarchy.  Hence, this ongoing series called The Kingdom of Católica America.

The Kingdom of Católica America
The Kingdom of Católica America: Part 2
The Kingdom of Católica America: Part 3
The Kingdom of Católica America Part 4: A Review of Star Spangled Crown

Naturally, being a gadfly and proposing this concept earns immediate scorn.  But oh well, what can you do?  After all, let us on the Alt-Right not forget point #12: The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.  And I certainly don't care about being an outlier.  So let's charge forward.

A Difference Of Opinion Is Germinating

For whatever reason, I thought that Vox Day and my fellow Dread Ilk were free-thinking types who would at least entertain a notion for the sake of conversation.  But upon mentioning an American monarchy, contempt ensued.

I really should have known better.  According to Vox, "[T]he primary principle of any Western society should be maximizing net human liberty within a structurally sound society capable of sustaining itself."

I heartily disagree with this.  A fan of Aristotle's advice on rhetoric, it's sort of a surprise to me that Vox didn't take up other Aristotelian ideas, such as this statement from Politics:
"[A] state exists for the sake of the good life; and not for the sake of life only...[P]olitical society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of living together."
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.

The Origin Point

The arguments originated on Gab, I suppose.  In promoting one of his posts, Vox stated this wildly popular--and agreeable--statement about Constitutionalism:
Pain is the path to truth. If a fact bothers you, if it triggers you, if it makes you want to shy away from contemplating it, that is the signpost indicating the way you will have to go in order to find the truth.
It was a very exciting thought, and I decided to contribute to the discussion:
It has recently been said: "Pain is the path to truth." If that is the case, then I challenge you to explore the most painful path for any American: the path to an American monarchy.
Vox Day's reply: That's not painful. That's just irrelevant.

And so it began.

My arguments with Vox Day and some of the Dread Ilk took place in the comment box of a great post on his blog, titled: The Party of Reagan is Dead. He stated: 
Conservatism and Constitutionalism are both dead because both completely failed in their primary duty of protecting the nation and securing the blessings of liberty for the posterity of the Founders.
Quite agreeable, that. But then, the rift began:
Some of you whine that there are Nazis and ultras and neos and extremists in the Alt-Right. That's right. There are. And those are precisely the radicals who will rapidly come to the fore if Trump, the nationalist elite, and the Alt-Right fail to reduce the internal stress, the globalists return to power, and the balkanization scenario begins to play out.
The nationalists, the white nationalists, the Alt-Right, and Donald Trump will fail to reduce the long-term stress that has been building in this country since its inception.  There will be an explosion in this country that is inevitable, and it is due to the nature of America's founding.

I attempted to explain how this was so.  Here is how that conversation went.  

The Arguments With Vox Day  

VD: "Some of you whine that..."

LH: Shrug.  Race war, cold or hot, just isn't the epitome of thrills and achievement for some of us. Forgive us for mistakenly thinking there was something that transcended that. Our brand is irrelevant.  

VD: Some of us don't base our analyses or our strategic opinions on "thrills". We prefer to pay attention to the observable facts. What are you, a child? Do you think this is all a cartoon or something?  The world is fallen. We do not live in an ideal world of Forms. Deal with it.

LH: One of the things that has always made you a fascinating commentator is the fact that you've always been able to keep the macro-scale, long term picture in mind.  Fighting the decline of the White West is a fine thing. I have no problem with it at all. Your tactics, suggestions, actions, observations--all fine.  

But this damned thing that faces us, Vox--it's like walking on the edge of a knife. And frankly, I hardly know anyone able to walk it.  I've agreed with 95% of what you say. But now, maybe 90%. Universalism--what we will witness if we get to Heaven--is not an enemy. It is a side effect of getting closer to God. 

The Left has bastardized Universalism, turning it into an end in and of it self. It is their tool. You are fighting their tool, Vox Day. They push bastardized universalism on is in an unholy way, the same way they push anti-smoking on us.

I think we ought to recognize the above facts, while still maintaining the battle strategy and tactics.

We will never return to the ancient boarders of the post Flood. God knew that Mankind would reach this stage, and to think otherwise is a sort of faithlessness. 

"What are you, a child?"  Get over yourself. I've followed you for years, and have been kicked out of many circles because I've put into practice what you write about. Save rhetoric for your enemies. I was trying to have a damned conversation.

VD: "But this damned thing that faces us, Vox--it's like walking on the edge of a knife. And frankly, I hardly know anyone able to walk it."

You may be right. But that is the only path I see out that does not involve the usual solution to these scenarios. Which, of course, is why I assume there will be war in the USA, and, to a lesser extent, in Europe.  The prize is where the power lies.

"Get over yourself. I've followed you for years..."  (laughs) Oh, the irony. The point is that your feelings, and my feelings, are totally irrelevant with regards to the strategic and grand strategic situation. So resist the urge to let your emotions color your rational mind.

LH: Okay, you're wrong. Feelings are not irrelevant, especially when it comes to the strategy. That is why God gave us rules for when we are not at war with one another. Speaking with charity, for example--particularly to allies. Besides, this isn't the military. It's your personal blog, and you know a lot of us. 

Look, keep laughing. I know where this is going. If you want people to just keep agreeing with you in the com box, then I'm just being an annoying gadfly. You say "that is the only path I see," and yet you dismiss fresh new ideas as irrelevant. You're older now, more set in your ways. I'll just take Fenris Wulf's advice and "speak as an observer" from now on. I was mistaken to think I could contribute any ideas. At all.

So just keep calling us whiners. Not a good way to keep allies, if you ask me. But I'm irrelevant. Clearly.

As to this post's topic: Constitutionalism failed. So why continue to return to it? Or why even return to what the Founders had in mind? Is it even possible to consider the next step? Something different and better?

Salt: "You may be right. But that is the only path I see out that does not involve the usual solution to these scenarios."  When has it ever been done? A path that did not involve the usual scenarios? Threading a needle with rope or making an omelet without breaking any eggs.

LH: Dunno, Salt. I don't know everything. But I can look it up. 

VD: Yes, I'm laughing. I told you to stop being a child, and you responded with "get over yourself". That was a childish response.  You aren't presenting any fresh new ideas. You're snowflaking and emoting. Stop it.

LH: "You aren't presenting any fresh new ideas."

True. My ideas are rather dusty. And, an American Monarchy is not a new idea at all, now that I consider your remark. Many of the Founding Fathers asked King George to rule the colonies directly. And, in fact, Adams, Hamilton, and Wilson believed that Parliament had usurped the King's powers. I suppose at that point, they felt justified to usurp even more power and just take the colonies. 

However, American Monarchy is an idea that is new to you and most other people.

A king could dismantle the oppressive governmental leviathan, return power to civil society, ensure national unity, and strengthen religion and tradition. A monarchy can become an integral part of the non-governmental elements of national life, and many good and constructive changes will succeed because the king will be in the job for his entire life and because he will be handing this nation over to his offspring. It will be in the interest of the Royal Family--and, really, every American--for such a king to lay good long-term policies in a way that no mere politician with even eight years to play with could or can do.

Warped: There are many examples of high IQ and well outstanding brown people. Ted Cruz, does not have the temperament or education to be a leader, but as a foot soldier he is more passable than 75% of congress. However, he did not come around to it by being stuck in hellish ghettos. If anything the solution to breaking the identity politics of brown, black, or other skin colors is probably to make sure they don't congregate in one area. All the crime happens when those who would prefer identity to anything else are congregated in small pockets. Make them disperse first then watch the good ones rise to the top. The others will fade away. It is no coincidence that all the big cities voted blue and the places with lowest population density per square kilometer were entirely red.

LH: "If anything the solution to breaking the identity politics of brown..."  Fine. That's fine. Just realize that there's something even bigger than that battle that we can focus on.  Although, with a good king and a decent culture, we can have a type of universalism that isn't a fake piece of shit, like we have now. We can have something tolerable and even pleasant.

VD: The fake-Nazis not only make a better case, they are considerably more based in reality. And they're only 70 years out of date.

LH:  You would have to link to their premise, as I'm unfamiliar with the fake Nazi movement. I suppose you think that every ancient idea is worthless. And yet, it was you who said that "the inescapable conclusion is that one simply cannot separate religion from culture, much less from civilization."

peter blandings:  @lame hirsch  anybody who utters the word "inclusive" is a cuck and needs to be excised.

LH: So, would you like all the browns here to continue to be ostracized and kept on the outside of society as outliers? Or are you hoping to kill them all off?

I tire of thug culture, myself. Reign them in. Have a king reign over them.

VD: "So, would you like all the browns here to continue to be ostracized?"  More than ostracized. Repatriated.

LH:  Vox, while I'm not laughing as you say you were, I cannot help but grin at this thoughtless and truly childish idea. You propose that all brown people--the 74.5 million blacks who have been here for centuries, as well as the 56.6 million Hispanics, some of whom have been here just as long--that they should all be sent to their "native" territories? They are going nowhere, and to think otherwise is a true fantasyland.

VD: "Reign them in. Have a king reign over them."  Imperialism is dead. Your ideas are not new. They are very old and they are irrelevant.

LH: You are wrong, and you are using a strawman. I am not talking about imperialism. My idea is not irrelevant. In fact, I will not be surprised if, within two decades, we learn of discussions about a return to monarchy coming out of Europe. You will, of course, be the first to hear about them, since you have chosen to leave America.


Talking With The Dread Ilk

Bumbaru:  An American Monarchy would be a good idea but it cannot be done.  Monarchies are established through conquering means.  Also monarchy=ethno-nationalistic religious dictatorship. USA is too diverse for that.

LH: It can be done. We just need to spread the idea of it. We just need to think about it and ponder it more. Openly. 

At this point, most Americans have an almost genetic hate for monarchy. But look at how the Alt-Right came about. We can do it. As Vox has often said, think about the long game.

Bumbaru: USA has become a great technological power because of its practicality in incorporating ideas.But also its diversity of ideas it is what corrupted it. There are so many whacky ideas in the USA, what makes you think people will consider yours any different. USA is a relativistic society, it does not take anything seriously.  The only way to install monarchy is through conquering.

LH: People will take it seriously once things have collapsed utterly. This is the long game I am talking about. When population centers have become feral dens of hedonistic zombies, when every police officer and military man is compromised and on the take, and when we have presidents and senators shooting at one another in Congress or the White House--without fear of arrest--when that day comes, and the remaining remnant of "pseudo" leadership decides they'd rather keep the country together than be torn apart in the streets...that'll be the day people turn to monarchy. 

I argue that it is at this early stage that we need to put the idea out there and to let it germinate.

Bumbaru: When things break down and chaos ensues, then Pablo Escobar type figures appear, you know the warlord that is also a man of the people, he will seize power and then after murdering all of his rivals you will get your monarchy.(Btw he will probably be mexican, because by the time USA crashes whites will be a minority in USA)

LH: Then let the whites have our own Escobar. But I say, this man should have good virtues. Let this man go in the direction that I am putting forth here, this morning. Let what I am talking about be his ultimate end.

* * *

VFM #6306: What part of God-Emperor is anti-monarchist, Laramie Hirsch?

LH: Hey, I'm loving Trump. This was the best damned election cycle I've ever seen. If he does any part of what he says he's gonna do, it will be glorious. We'll get to take away something for a change. 

However, Trump will not fix everything. Our problems are only going to become more compounded. I mean...consider the fact that Vox keeps warning us about racial civil war. If Trump was the savior of American history, we wouldn't be worrying about that.

VFM #6306:  "It's a model based on the government of Heaven itself."  There is already a model based on the government of Heaven in place. Or don't you trust the Monarch of the Air?  My point is your model can be on Jesus Christ's sovereignity, and you'll still end up with a model in a fallen world. That is the bit about "no ideal forms..." only broken ones.  The best way forward, therefore, is Alt-Right with nazis.

LH: "My point is your model can be on Jesus Christ's sovereignty, and you'll still end up with a model in a fallen world."  Perhaps. But as we Americans say, "It's the best government out there." I mean, when we argue for the West, we are arguing for Christendom. And what sustained Christendom for a millenium? Catholic Monarchies. A thousand years isn't a bad track record.

* * *

Elder Son: Will our new king be White, Black, Brown, Yellow? And will we get to call him "Your Majesty"?

LH: That's where Vox's strategy comes in. I never said anything about not having white dominance in America. Only to recognize that universalism is not the enemy, but a side issue. A major one, yes. But a side issue. 

An American king must craft a new narrative that is far more inclusive than the narrative of the old United States. Soverigns have often presided over radically different and even hostile ethnicities, religions, and cultures. But it will have to be that new narrative--that new culture, and a specific religion (not generic Christianity)--that will bind the people together.

The browns wanna play the identity politics game, fine. Oblige them. But it's a tactic, not a strategy. Encourage whites to stop being degenerates and to start breeding virtuous families. Yet don't condemn people who aren't uptight about the race issue. 

We've never seen Universalism in a good way before. It's an abused trick by the Left. Disarm the identity politics tricks of the left by installing a truly universal identity and culture. Not this bullshit we have now.

Elder Son:  [Tells us the story of Babel...]  This was God's doing. And no one has any business undoing God's work. Anyone who is an advocate of restoring Babel, is doing the Devils work, who is always trying to mimic God into his own image. There is a time and place for bringing the nations and tongues together into Gods Kingdom, and that is on Gods term, not yours, not the devils. If God wanted E Pluribus Unum and Novus Ordo Seclorum diversity, He wouldn't have done what He had done at Babel. Jesus changed none of this.

LH:  When it comes to Babel, please refer to what I said to Arthur Isaac.  

As for Christ teaching us, Christ came to inform individual men--as individuals. He did not come to give political advice and to sway governments. This is an important distinction in the Bible that many people never realize: The Old Testament mostly focuses on how governments and populations are to conduct themselves, while the New Testament zeroes in on how we are to behave as individual people. For example, exercising charity in our conversations.

* * *

dc.sunsets: This OP & discussion are very instructive as an illustration of not what, but HOW people think.  Everywhere we see a search for, or people clinging to, a single underlying paradigm that will make coherent the chaos they see around them.  We had communism, then The God That Failed. We had democracy, then Democracy, the God That Failed.  We had Muh Constitution, and Constitutionalism, the God That Failed, and of course we had Progressivism, which might be called God, the God That Failed.

The tumult of life now is simply the normal increase in chaos occurring when one prevailing monocultural belief system transitions to a different one in the long sine-wave curve of human social behavior. The monoculture doesn't drive actions, it simply rationalizes them.

I don't know any more than the next man what comes next, but I concur with VD that those who cling to past forms (the Universalist Cult or its faux competitor, constitutionalism/"conservatism") not only are doomed, they're doomed to portray the Keystone Kops version of defeat.

LH: "Everywhere we see a search for, or people clinging to, a single underlying paradigm that will make coherent the chaos they see around them."  Christian Monarchy, I tell you. It's a model based on the government of Heaven itself. It can get us out of this hell.

dc.sunsets:  Christian monarchy. Fine. I'm all good with that as the next monoculture, but if you look at history (again) you'll see that it still fails to fulfill the point I'm making. 

There is no set-and-forget, get-this-right-and-we're-set-forever kind of monoculture. It's just the window dressing on whatever much-deeper condition is operative at that time. These swings play out across time frames far too long for a man to grasp, given his life will occur entirely within a trend, or (if he's "lucky" like us) with one foot in a dying trend and the other foot in the chaos of an emerging trend.

To me, this OP is all about suggesting people stop arguing about the specific Narrative and grasp the deeper context of trend change. The twenty true neo-Nazis on the Internet are but a dust mote on which fools focus and over which fools argue. 

The real answer, the one about which I obsess, the one I can't yet see, arises from the question: "What social phenotype will emerge when society's DNA (genotype) shifts from manic optimism & inclusion to the rage and fear of its polar opposite?"

LH: "It's just the window dressing on whatever much-deeper condition is operative at that time. These swings play out across time frames far too long for a man to grasp."  Yes. Which is why I propose we aim for something that's been tested for a thousand years, which was my previous point.

"What social phenotype will emerge when society's DNA (genotype) shifts from manic optimism & inclusion to the rage and fear of its polar opposite?"  Here, you're talking about those snowflake feelings that Vox earlier said are totally irrelevant. I say, a king and his enforced culture can guide that rage and fear away from something destructive. Noble, gallant, measured conduct that was proscribed to us in Scriptures can guide us away from a zombie apocalypse. A reliable and regal culture can instill such behavior.

Avalanche:  "Noble, gallant, measured conduct that was proscribed to us in Scriptures can guide us away from a zombie apocalypse. A reliable and regal culture can instill such behavior."  Yeah, cause that's worked SO well for ... what, all of human history?! Do you think if WE act gallant and regal, why the MOSLEMS will suddenly take that up?! 

LH: Hell, yes, it did. It definitely worked during the Reconquista. And such conduct will create noble fighters who will effectively defeat any muslim who doesn't convert--when that war commences openly. Just like the Battle of Lepanto.

Avalanche: (Isn't that why women are being raped by the hundreds in Europe? All that regal gallantry?!) 

LH: Don't be stupid. The Christendom we're talking about is not present in Europe right now. Just ask Vox. Europe is mostly secular. 

Avalanche: How about those 60-IQ Congonese? Think THEY will see the light?  "There's something even bigger than that battle that we can focus on. "  You sound like a libertarian! "Why, if only we focus on the promised land, on utopia, on freedom and non-aggression for all -- everyone will suddenly, magically,turn libertarian too! And everything will be wonderful!"

And how are you going to convince a couple BILLION people to play your game? 

LH: By implementing what Vox Day has taught us. I'll start small. With you. Though I'm a subversive now, I'm in it for the long game. I assure you, this topic will come up again--and not from only me.

* * *

Duke Norfolk: I never, ever (ever, ever) thought I'd say this, but I'm actually entertaining the idea of monarchy in the U.S. (or whatever future country houses our nation). I'm far from sold on it, and I have much study and thinking to do on the concept, but it's intriguing, to say the least. Any good reading you can recommend? I know Hans-Hermann Hoppe touched on it.

LH: This "irrelevant" book, here: http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-kingdom-of-catolica-america-part-4.html

* * *
LH: Okay, I'm out. Checking back in in about 14 hours. Hope y'all had fun.
* * *

Cail Corishev: The Romans had an even stronger aversion to kings than Americans do, yet they happily made Caesar more powerful than most kings, as long as he didn't wear a crown and call himself one.

There's probably a good chance that we end up with a tyrant or tyrants, whether we call them kings, presidents, or something else. That would be a far cry from the kind of limited Christian monarchy Thomas Aquinas favored, though. I don't see a path directly to that from here, but perhaps after partition it could happen somewhere.

LH: It can be done. We just need to start talking about it as an option. It's worked before. It will work again. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, monarchy is inevitable. This era of republics was a fad. A trend. It will be those obsessed on race as the issue who will ultimately be seen as irrelevant and impeders to stability.

Cail Corishev: We've just had eight years of a president who ruled a great deal through unilateral executive orders. Many medieval kings had less power. People who hear "monarchy" and think "all-powerful tyrant" need to learn a little history (I used to be one of them).

wreckage: exactly right. Look around the world right now; Presidents cause WAY more trouble than Kings, and definitely take a shorter term view.

Plus, with kings, if they fuck up, you can kill them. It's traditional! ;)

* * *

Chris Mallory: Before the Second Yankee Invasion during the "Civil Rights Era", Jim Crow worked quite well. Like it or not, the races should have different societies. Separate but equal worked.  Yeah a few negro criminals were turned into wind chimes, but it worked. Inclusion does not work. Desegregation does not work.  No King but King Jesus.

LH: Yes, perhaps in the beginning and beyond, separation can work. However, I object to different societies. For the West to survive, we cannot have different cliques with their own subversive cultures like this. We must have one, single, overriding culture that everyone should be homogenized into. Not the globalism that we know now. But something else. Everyone will read my words and think I'm a globalist--but I said that this issue is walking a fine line. The MultiKult that comes to your minds is NOT what I am advocating. If the blacks wanna stay with blacks and whites with whites, that's fine. But there should be a non-relativistic culture that is actively promoted by a ruler, and no one should be left out.

* * *

Dave Narby: @VD "However, American Monarchy is an idea that is new to you and most other people."  Not I, but if you'll indulge (perhaps in a new blog post?) how is that materially different than a strongman?  I still hold a little Balkanization is a good thing. Moderation in all things, y'know.

LH: I'm actually going to be putting up a synopsis of Charles Coulombe's Star Spangled Banner on my blog soon, so maybe that can give you some direction as to where I'm headed with this. I think I agree with you on the balkanization, though. Moderation in all things.

* * *

Natalie: Anyone wanting to build inclusive Christian monarchies is an idiot. The very fact that Heaven is (presumably) a place where God can order and rule all the peoples together in a happy city is PRECISELY why I tremble to think we could do it down here. 

This wasn't an order given to the Apostles. There is no "inclusive melting pot on earth" mandate in Scripture. 

God has put the co-mingling of nations at the very end of our history AFTER Satan has been defeated and cast down. This is the time when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and only when I see the Heavens and the New Earth will I think it's time for the Syrian and the Chinaman and the Russian and the Nigerian to live together in perfect peace. What God has appointed as the culmination and pinnacle of history I tremble to think we can implement here on earth with our own fallen hands in our own timing and of our own will.

LH: Then do not imitate Christ or His apostles, since you think you will fail in the attempt. 

The most idiotic thing that I can think of is to think that we'll have an even better chance under the rule of oligarchs who only every now and then give token salutes to generic Christianity. That's gotta be the stupidest goal of all. Also, I've said nothing about there being an inclusive melting pot. Read what I've stated in this com box, and you'll see that I agree that in such a proposed Christian monarchy, the different ethnicities should be allowed to desegregate--as they cannot handle proximity. Whatever instances of Universalism that spring up ought not be disparaged, either. 

Basket of Deplorables: "Let him have good virtues"  He won't because he can't. 

There may be a monarchy phase in the cycle. If your aspirant has good virtues, he will be among the rivals wiped out. With power consolidated into a unitary, the fight for it becomes all or nothing, and no holds barred and the victor can absolve himself of all sins, at least in this life. There is a reason men as brutal as Stalin rise to power in such regimes, and virtuous men cannot. That is the fundamental conflict of marxism with human nature that turns the utopian vision into a hell hole with gulags and no toilet paper. At best, the victor's grandson may be virtuous, but not the way to bet. Monarchy may still be better than what we have, but don't mistake the reality of what it means with an idealistic gloss. I prefer radical decentralization and division of powers, like the founders envisioned, but also recognize it has failed.

LH: "He won't because he can't."  Sure he can. Have you ever heard of saint kings? It is quite possible. We should be fostering virtuous leadership in our young people so that this can happen. 

St. Ferdinand III, King of Spain
And besides, do you prefer failure? Something that fails? This "radical decentralization" that the Founders tried has led to an evil oligarchy. As I've said before, in an oligarchy, "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 coming of the great monarch will be very close,
when the number of légitimistes (Royalists)
 remained really faithful will be so small that indeed we will count...
Prophecies of the abbot Souffrant (1828)
michaeloh59:  I suspect that our host's point may be that there IS is difference between the neo nostalgists and the Muslim Conquistas. That difference is that only one of them will help you oppose the Muslim Conquista horde.

LH: It will be a Christian Monarch who conquer Islam. He is known as The Great Monarch, and he has been foretold for a long time by many saints. We'll see just how irrelevant monarchy is when that time comes.

* * *

Arthur Isaac: God ended globalism at Babel. The globalist is fighting the same friction that every empire builder has faced since then, trying to build a civilization out of multiple nations. The only way to do it through conversion to the Body of Christ. They've tried to throw out Christ and hold onto Christendom. The reason we have so many moderates is because we are up to our necks in Churchian heretics.

LH: "God ended globalism at Babel." The sin of Babel wasn't that the people were coming together. That is what the Alt-Right is getting wrong. The sin of Babel is the same sin that the globalists are committing: They are trying to reach to Heaven, and "become bigger than Jesus." THAT is what we are fighting. Vox is missing the forest from the trees.

"Don't screw with me."
Solaire Of Astora: I've seen a few claims that nationalism or tribal separation contradicts Christianity. That myth is based on people mistaking the figurative for the literal. Being one under God does not mean there aren't different groups. The tribes of Israel were set up that way for a reason. The four images around God's vessel in Ezekiel were also four standards of four different tribes of Israel. The elect are separated by tribe. The millennial kingdom obviously lets nations remain separated, so much so that the Dragon is able to raise an army from among them. In Micah it is said that other nations are allowed to go their own way when the Messiah rules the world in the future. Unity without distinction is of Satan, not God. God creates life with actual diversity (aka not the leftist kind), but separate does not HAVE to lead to hatred. So for people who think the future of people looking out for their own is somehow bad for Christianity, just remember that there is a hierarchy of love, God > family > extended family > tribe > nation > humanity.

LH: I agree with Solaire. Don't disagree with him one bit. But for this mess of people on the North American Continent, I have proposed what I think will keep the people unified--even if they remain in their own segregated ethnic camps.

* * *

Sheila4g: As usual, every response I was going to make to Laramie Hirsch has already been made, and well, by others. He's foolishly trying to promote a Christian brotherhood of man under a God-King here on Earth, and because he envisions this as "Christian," calls it good. 

@112 VD: "No. With VERY few exceptions, they clearly cannot be trusted. The smarter and more effective they are, the more damaging they will be."

This is VITAL, and is always ignored by those advocating a one-sided miscegenation campaign to "improve" the Negro race, or others. The Negro with the largest percent of White blood is generally the angriest, with the largest chip on his shoulder, and the most virulently anti-White. Enough intelligence to realize the darker part of his heritage is intellectually and civilizationally inferior, and furiously angry about it. Just "white" enough to see a few things clearly, but not white enough to be White, and therefore determined that no one else should be, either. Same goes for Indians (dot) and Chinese. For all those parents insisting their miscegenated children look and/or identify as White, I could present dozens of opposing examples. Especially once they marry and have children of their own. Every Jewish/Christian marriage I've been aware of began with the Jew claiming religion didn't matter, until suddenly the kids were born and then having a Jewish identity did matter, big time.

LH: "The Negro with the largest percent of White blood is generally the angriest, with the largest chip on his shoulder, and the most virulently anti-White." Read E. Michael Jones' The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, and there you will learn that the blacks have been judaized for the entire 20th Century until now. A monarch will be able to excise Judaic influence from the public square, and we can be our own rulers.

* * *

kfg: (Dude!): "So, you propose that there is a black Heaven, a white Heaven, a Hispanic Heaven, and so on?"  So, you propose that Earth is Heaven?

LH: If we are to imitate Christ, should not our society? There is no black, hispanic, and white Heaven. The people there are one. America has a ton of people in it--so many who are different subspecies from one another. If we are to survive, we are forced to imitate Heaven in such a way--lest the "race war wet dream" everyone wants occur.

* * *

J.M.: As someone who has lived in Hispanic America (South America to be accurate) I can say that this needn't the be case. South America is not example for anyone but it's obvious that you are incapable of correctly assimilating race mixed people into the white genepool (ethnic subsumption) partly because your culture is sick. At least its modern iteration of it. Someone like Obama had he being born in let's say Brazil or Colombia would have never identified himself as Black but as a Mulatto or coloured and assimilated to the Western culture. The same goes for many Mulatoes and others that claim to identify themselves with the non-white part of the family.

American culture is a disease. And no, I don't advocate for the mixing of races or mass immigration before you or another fool starts asserting so.

LH: Yup. American culture is sick. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself. The whole damned continent is ill, and a return to "Our Founders wanted to look out for posterity, so we should all be white" is an ill-formed idea from a sick culture. The idea avoids reality. "We do not live in an ideal world of forms. Deal with it." Lol!

* * *

Snidely Whiplash:  So, by your accounting, the goal of Nationalism should be to abandon the traditions of our fathers by selecting a dictator, excuse me, KING, and make sure he's of a different faith from both the founding stock of the country and the majority of the citizens.

And this proposal will save our country from the modern onslaught like all the kings of Europe saved their peoples from the onslaught of Marxism and Fascism.

LH: Yes.  It happened before.

Snidely Whiplash: It takes a special type of idiot to make such a hare-brained proposal. I mean, even the neo-Nazis understand they're talking about a dictatorship. They don't talk in terms of freedom, but prosperity, peace, order and duty.

LH: Then I guess Constantine and Charlemagne were special kinds of idiots. I suppose the Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England and Scandinavia were a dream. You'll have to now tell Vox that his fawning over Christendom has been based on hare-brained ideas. 

Also, I haven't rambled on about freedom at all in this thread, though I have been discussing prosperity, peace, order, and duty. Frankly, I'm surprised you aren't calling ME a Nazi for proposing this idea.

Snidely Whiplash: The single most deeply held cultural attitude of Americans is the absolute rejection of rank. How many people refused to support Jeb! Bush simply because the Bush family was becoming a Dynasty? Americans HATE dynasties.

LH: Yup. Makes the job tough. We'd better get started talking about this idea now, then. Although, you aren't making it any easier.

Snidely Whiplash: Go on fantasizing. The multi-culture is going to be broken out by race, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Appealing to the rule of Heaven is simply asinine. For one thing, Heaven doesn't have any sin.

LH: No, you go on fantasizing. Continue on, thinking that turning your back on the Almighty is going to somehow solve your problems. The West has been in the process of doing that for over 500 years. And though we have nice shiny baubles that distract us, courtesy of Science!, we are the worst, least courteous, shittiest people that may have ever existed.

Snidely Whiplash: The good thing is that you are so far outside the realm of rational thought that it's impossible for you to have any effect in the real world.

LH: Actually, deep prayer effects far more than what my words could do here--as God is limitless. That being said, I wouldn't conclude that this discussion is without fruit. Baby steps.

* * *

Night of the Mourning Son:  Great article.

Nationalism is tribal. Biological. Higher order managerial concepts--constitution, conservative, Christian, capitalist, socialist--are only useful to the extent that they serve the tribe.

I'm a nationalist. I would happily support any of those managerial arrangements, as long as they're founded on natural racial/tribal nationalism.

The problem with today's Hollywood Nazis seems to be their clinging to retired symbols which have been thoroughly poisoned by the (((media))). The symbols discredit the naturally valid objectives of all nationalists. Other than that, what's the problem?

A bit shocking to see a fine article immediately jumped by violent moderates (heh). Their nazi terror seems best interpreted as a reaction to Hollywood Nazis naming the Jew. These "Christians'" violent fantasies are not a reaction to the bad PR the alt-right suffers by association with fringe nazis; it's existential fear. Plane tickets to Israel are cheap, and spare you the risk of punishment for high treason.

Infiltrators have often convincingly posed as Christians to cast equalist spells.

Or if it's just suicidal altruism or fear of conflict (the two have converged), then get it into your cuck head that "Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not."

LH: "Infiltrators have often convincingly posed as Christians to cast equalist spells."  I hope you're not referring to me, as I haven't said a damned thing about all men being equal.

* * * * *

LH: Well, this was really something. 

To use Vox's own words: 
"Christendom has already been subverted. There is no power center left untouched by the anti-Christian entryists. Those trying to cash in on being shocking and subversive are simply too late; it is now those of us who reject the shiny, post-Christian secular technotopia who are the subversives."
I know that I appear quite alone in this idea for the moment. I know that, here in this group, I am the one who appears subversive. But an American monarchy is a growing idea, I assure you. I can promise that you'll see more on this issue in the future. And I can also promise that it will cure all of these problems that have blinded the Alt-Right--and frankly, everyone else. 

jOHN MOSBY: Laramie, Laramie, Laramie.  Give me, and rest of us a damn break. Enough with your sernmonious self already.



Makin' friends is what I do.







5 comments:

  1. Long post, Laramie, haven't got through it all yet.

    Vox says that ideology is over and politics is now about identity. I don't really get this. Ideology and identity are practically the same thing; at least, every ideology brings an identity with it, and every identity has an associated ideology.

    The point is, that the problem with the USA is lack of ideological cohesion. It's not just about race. The Founding Fathers thought they could have a nation where everyone would have their own religion and identity, and that order could be maintained by balancing many competing interests off against one and other. The problem is, that the Left has exploited this weakness of Liberal society to invent countless revolutionary sects that divide society further and further apart and create social chaos, and the government can't do anything about it because freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of religion are set in stone. Lady Liberty is powerless to stop her liberated children from massacring one and other.

    Dividing society up by race brings more problems than solutions. What kind of society is the pure White American race going to have? A weird mix between the Constitution and old German racialism?

    These people are just begging the question constantly. The question is: who, in heaven and earth, is the ultimate authority. The people, the white race, the state, the banks, the corporations, the press? Who is the legislators of legislators? Of course, every sane society in history has acknowledged that the ultimate source of law and authority is divine. So it's a matter of once more seeking the Kingship of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And the problem with the Kingship of Christ is that it absolutely requires bishops and priests to function. So civil society as a whole must convert to Catholicism, i.e. a new Constantine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If I'm not mistaken, one of the core principles of the Alt-right, from Vox's list, is upholding Christianity as the foundation of Western civilization. But Christianity is synonymous with the Catholic Faith, and the Catholic Faith teaches that governments should be subordinate to Christ the King. Central rule based on divine virtues and wisdom is essential to government, and is synonymous with the idea of monarchy in all its forms.

    So I salute Laramie for highlighting monarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've been shooting some ideas around lately with my Catholic Alt-Right buddy and I have a couple questions I'd be curious of your opinion on.

    1. Races aren't equal. In the prior Catholic monarchies, it was ethnicities with similar genetic profiles living under one king. The distance between Europeans and blacks is massive. Between Europeans and Aztecas is closer but still very large. Iberian colonies managed this with a rigid caste system. Would you support a similar arrangement?

    2. Most people aren't saints in any age. Under a Catholic monarch we could do much better to promote sanctity, but the majority would probably not be saints. Tribalism however, needs something to give identity to the in-group. Identity as a particular people is what allows those who may not be as religious to still feel apart of the nation. Poland is a good example. My question to you then is, can two radically different races as blacks and whites think of themselves long-term as one people?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good questions, Beren. Stay tuned later this week, when I answer this question directly. You are the second person to ask me about how a monarch could handle race/tribalism.

    ReplyDelete