Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

The Kingdom of Católica America Part 7a: Race

When it comes to the race issue in America, many questions arise that never get answered.  So, perhaps the racial divide in America could be solved under a Catholic monarchy.  That's the direction Beren was headed with his questions to me last month:

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?

These are excellent questions.  I have been pondering these questions for several months, long before Beren asked them.

"How come you whiteys got such a tight ass, man?"
The issue of race is a tremendous dilemma for the West at this point in time.  I do not believe that we shall solve our multicultural problems in the manner that 20th Century hippies propose.  We will not solve the race issue if we give in to every demand of the Jewish-created NAACP.  We will not heal the different races in America by making whites feel perpetually guilty and paying blacks reparations.  Even if we purify ourselves to the same standards of the America of our Founders, we will still not overcome this problem.

It is my opinion that Catholic Monarchy, however, can solve this issue.

My answer to Beren and this dilemma will come in at least a 2-part series.  This first post actually stems from some arguments I had on another blog.  I submitted the question to Tumblar House, and I was pleased to hear a response from Charles Coulombe on the matter.  So, for your evening's amusement and consideration, I present you with Off The Menu: Episode 13.5 - Monarchy and Multiculturalism.  I have also included a transcript below the video.


Laramie Hirsch:  In your book, Star-Spangled Crown, you said that sovereigns have often presided over radically different and even hostile ethnicities, religions, and  cultures.  Could you list some examples of this, and how do you propose an American monarch would best handle the racial dilemma in the United States?
Charles Coulombe: Well, of course the easy answer would be to read the book, but I won't give an easy answer!
Where do I begin?   Alexander, the Persian Empire, Alexander's Empire, the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire--every empire that has ever existed, with the few exceptions like the American Empire and some smaller countries like Rwanda, Ethiopia (Ethiopia was an empire, too), anyway...the reason being that they were monarchical, and the monarch had to be above ethnicity, above race, and to a degree above religion.  
Now this is what's interesting, because every monarchy is legitimized by a particular faith.  Not by several at once.  And yet, nevertheless, they do have to maintain a connection if there are people of other religions of their own.  They do have to retain some sort of connection.  
In Thailand, the king of Thailand is the head of the Buddhist community (in Thailand, which is the largest [religion] of the people).  But he also maintains a set of Hindu priests at the court in Bangkok who perform certain particular Brahmin rituals for the monarchy.  And he's the protector of the Christians.  That's his particular title.  
Now, obviously, if (as was the case with Christianity in the Roman Empire) if the monarch feels there is a irreconcilable difference between himself and a member of a faith, the members of that faith are going to feel it.  The way we did!  
But, at any rate, generally speaking, there are so many examples of monarchs who have presided over this kind of diversity, the real question is: who are the ones who didn't?  Which is a harder one to answer.  
You'll find very very few--or even, today, Belgium for instance...I mean, the Flems and the Walloons really dislike one another, even though they've got the same faith.  But the monarchy and the Church were the two great bonds of union in Belgium.  And it's interesting that the country's begun to fragment as the Faith has become far less prevalent among them, and as the monarchy has lost its influence over the workings of power.  So there's that element of the question.  
How an American monarchy would deal with it: presumably, if such a person existed, the way any other monarch stuck with that kind of setup would.  He would somehow be father of all the different races and peoples within the country.  But on a very particular level.  
So in other words, where he might be--say I'm a citizen of California, and he's  my king because he's the king of California...to the Indian Reservation down the road, well he is the supreme chief to all the tribes.  And for the blacks, he might play some other role.
That's one of the interesting things about monarchies--is the number of titles that monarchs generally have.  They very often go on and on and on because they're not just the king or the Emperor.  They are different other things that have a relationship with different subjects according to those other offices.  
So the king would have to be, as it were, above the race issue.  
Vincent Frankini: How can he not play favorites?  I mean, if you have people on two sides of an issue...you have to pick one side, don't you?
Charles Coulombe:  Not necessarily.  I mean, you're presuming that somebody has to win.  Somebody doesn't have to win.  
Vincent Frankini: Okay, how about pro-life vs pro-choice?  
Charles Coulombe:  That's a different thing.  It's a good question.  It's a good thing to explore.  The difference is this: Let's say you got a father of a family.  Pretend for a second that you've got a father and his family.  And pretend the siblings have very different personalities, very different interests, and very often have a lot of friction with each other.  (I know it's hard to believe.)  Pretend there's a family like that.  There really is never any "victory" in this.  
The father always has to maintain his place, and the kids will always be doing the same stuff with their little "boo-boo woos" to the big Thanksgiving dinner where they're bringing all their children from all over the country to settle down with Dad.  They do the same stuff, they fall into the same bloody roles, and the father is stuck having to try to figure it out.  Does he play play favorites?  Uh, maybe.  Especially when  one's stupider than another.  Or nastier.  Yeah, he may play favorites in that sense, but it is not something that can be "won."  The family is just "the family as it is," until all of the members are dead--in which case, it changes.  With that dynamic it gets very different.
But with a basic ideological question, that's totally different.  That becomes whether or not there's gonna be a family at all.  You couldn't have a family where, as I described, you got the difficult, problematic family.  But they all accept that dad is dad.  And at the end of the day, he's going to lay down the law.  They may wheedle, they may try to get their way this way or that way, they may want this or that--all kinds of things may go on.  They may lie to him, they may try to conceal things from him, they may rat each other out--all kinds of things can happen.
But at the end of the day, there's certain basic rules.  They're all stuck playing with one another whether they like it or not.  Dad's dad.  And Dad has his own personality issues.  Yeah, he might be drunk, he might be quick to punish and slow to question, or vice versa.  He might be too indulgent.  You know, anything might happen.  That's a particular structure.  
But if one of the kids says: "I don't wanna recognize my sister is a member of this family.  She's not real."  That's a different problem.  And what the abortion issue is really about is who is human and who isn't.  Who is a member of the family, and who isn't.  The pro-abortion people are saying that the pre-born are not members of the family.  "They're not real.  They're not people."  "This sister of mine, she's not my sister.  She has no right to be here, and you, Dad, are wrong for calling her your daughter because she doesn't even exist."
That's a whole other story.  That's a whole other framework.  And that's the difference between the two.              
A proper monarch would have the obligation to try to defend the unborn because they're his subjects, too.  Same as the elderly.  Same for the productive.  Same for the unproductive.  
Another blog post on this matter shall follow.



14 comments:

  1. America as a republic wasn't that bad before 1861.(the CSA existed for 1 full year before the War started.)
    Maybe monarchy is better,I don't know.However I do know that even during our *civil war* immigrants were still showing up by the boatloads.America had to have some good qualities for that to happen!
    Who knows I don't have the answer?
    One thing is for sure,we should've listened to and taken President Monroe's advice & sent the 5% of slaves in America directly back to West Africa.(with help from America to build up Liberia)

    ReplyDelete
  2. An interesting point of Coulombe's metaphor is that the brothers and sisters in the family (representing the nation) are different groups within the family rather than the individual citizens. That seems more in line with the rhetoric I hear about different groups in society. Most nations these days, however, wish to view each citizen as atomic and therefore the ceremonial state metaphors have the individual citizens be siblings.

    The monarch having different titles and relationships to differing groups of subjects within the monarchy is also interesting (its in line with polycentric legal ideas). It also complicates the task of establishing the monarch as there would need to be founding metaphors and narratives for each of the different groups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you honestly think non white liberals would go for monarchy? (In large numbers)

      Delete
    2. Not sure monarchy is a white/non-white issue--lots of current monarchies where the monarch has power are in non-white nations. I'm mixed (and previously liberal) for what its worth. Also liberals don't really reproduce so their opinions are largely irrelevant in the long run. The non-white liberals who have and treasure their children are probably more allies of liberals than actual "liberals" in the ideological sense of the term. For example ideology doesn't really explain the prop. 8 voting patterns in California a few years ago.

      I think the establishment of a Catholic monarchy (or indeed any Catholic government) would be a miracle and a sign of God's hand. My guess is that we will have to undergo some painful chastisement and repent before we are graced with such leadership.

      Delete
    3. "Do you honestly think non white liberals would go for monarchy? (In large numbers)"

      Absolutely not. In fact, most people in the United States would not go for monarchy at all.

      However, once people are beaten down within an inch of their life, most major cities are a smoking ruin, and you can't have anything nice because everyone around you has become a barbarian who is only interested in tearing you apart and taking what you have--then, after that, people will be CLAMORING for such leadership.

      "Not sure monarchy is a white/non-white issue"
      It is not, Cahill. Quite right.

      However, this series of blog posts is about monarchical control of the United States. And anyone who seeks to control this nation will ultimately have to deal with this central issue that has been facing us all.

      Delete
    4. I stand by view that America the republic wasn't too bad pre-1861.

      Delete
    5. Not being sarcastic but if monarchy was truly superior why did the monarchs of Europe fall into oblivion never to return again?
      I know there are symbolic monarchs but none with any type of authority.
      America was never a monarchy after 1776 and this nation was decent up until WW2.

      Delete
    6. "If monarchy was truly superior, why did the monarchs of Europe fall into oblivion never to return again?"

      Excellent question.

      1. They will return again. People don't realize that, and it may seem hard to believe right now, but I assure you, this entire "Democratic Republic" scheme is going to be turned on its head, and the entire paradigm will change.

      The engine of this change will be oiled with much blood that the nations will shed themselves--in the form of invasion from outside forces and internal revolutions.

      2. How was monarchy subverted? Two words: Martin Luther. His rebellion against the Catholic Church (which was the stabilizing factor of Europe) fueled and empowered the political classes who wanted to overturn the authority of everyone around them. It began with the Protestant Revolts and The Reign of Terror, and it transformed the world into the Freemasonic forest of republics that you see today.

      Once secularism fails in a horribly bloody fashion, there will be a return to heavily organized religion--specifically, Catholic religion. And with this resurgence of Christendom will come the resurgence of monarchs.

      When I talk about monarchy on my blog, I'm merely getting ahead of the curve.

      Delete
    7. Fair enough as many people are coming to this conclusion.
      Why do you think America as a "republic" functioned somewhat properly & cohesive until WW2?
      Yes 1861-1865 was an ungodly terrible barbaric time with much death suffering and punishment.
      1865-1880 was not good but every territory is a mess after war.
      Again no sarcasm intended this discussion is interesting. I used to be all for Monarchy 100% until I realized the U.S. as a republic functioned just as well as any monarchy 1775-1941.(well Franklin Roosevelt was when the Zionist communist revolution began so say 1775-1930)

      Delete
    8. Why do you think America as a "republic" functioned somewhat properly & cohesive until WW2?"

      Geography.

      We've had two massive global oceans guarding us on each side. Plus, should a problem have ever arisen, all we had to do was to expand into the seemingly unconquered frontier, save for the Indians who were already there, and easily displaced.

      Now that America has filled out, we will start experiencing many of the same problems as the rest of the world, as there's now nowhere to run. "White Flight" is running out of places to run to.

      Delete
    9. I think its the collapse of Christian white rule and the infiltration and subversion by Anti-Christian Anti-White Zionist Bolsheviks.
      Geography is a good point I hadn't thought of before.

      Delete
    10. "I think its the collapse of Christian white rule and the infiltration and subversion by Anti-Christian Anti-White Zionist Bolsheviks."

      Wait, this is confusing. You're answering a question never asked.

      Is this an answer to: Why did America go downhill?

      Delete
    11. Yes its an answer to my own question.
      I enjoy seeing what others think.

      Delete
  3. Thomas Aquinas following Aristotle named monarchy, aristocracy, and polity as three best acceptable forms of government.

    The Republic functioned so well after the Civil War and before WWII because the the government in Congress was basically an aristocracy. The House of Representatives was always elected because they represented the people, but the Senate represented the interests of the states. All senators were appointed by the states, not elected. The body of the Senate was an aristocratic body. This all changed and started going downhill with introduction of democracy with the direct election of senators by the people. Opportunists and special interests took over Congress. It is no longer an aristocratic body with a sense of duty seeking the best for the Republic.

    ReplyDelete