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...

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Nonsense In North Carolina

If you check Drudge Report on a daily basis, as I do, then perhaps this headline on the left side of the page caught your attention:


The North Carolina rebel group known as the Association of Roman Catholic Women priests ordained Abigail Eltzroth at a nondenominational faith community called Jubilee!.

The woman "priest" said that "we expect that eventually everybody is going to follow us."  In today's circumstances, I'm inclined to agree.  Yes, many people will be following the lead of a group of crazed and confused--essentially Protestants, since they are protesting Christ's Church.  They will go, receive a cracker during a fake Mass, and feel great as they worship themselves and their liberal culture.

There's all sorts of trouble that's been brewing in North Carolina in recent years.  The one article that strikes me as the most descriptive was referred to me by a colleague.  This piece comes from The National Catholic Register The Fishwrap.

North Carolina 'Church in Exile' battles restorationists

Apparently, the Baby Boomers of western North Carolina are disgruntled that fresh batches of faithful, non-converged Catholic priests are being produced by the seminaries.  They would rather maintain their feel-good bastardization of the Mass and retire in peace.  

The awesome and worthy Father Christopher Riehl has stepped in to the St. John the Evangelist Church in Waynesville to take the reigns and steer the diocese back into the direction of actual Catholicism.  This has been occurring under the supervision of Bishop Peter Jugis, God bless him.

Naturally, the aging hipsters have followed the second law of Social Justice Warriors, and instead of turning from modernism and following their spiritual father, they are doubling down, as expected. The disgruntled parishioners have been seeking the removal of Fr. Riehl since at least 2015.

According to a 2015 ChurchMilitantTV interview with parishioner Mark Zaffrann, the entire effort to tarnish Fr. Riehl's name is originating from only five women, unsatisfied that everyone hasn't bought into the peace and love message from Vatican II.  It amazes me how such a small number--five--henpecking women can turn a local parish issue into a national story.  It really speaks to their monomania.  The CMTV article states the following:
"[T]hey gave him no opportunity to sit down as a group with these five individuals that essentially spearheaded this to actually address it directly with Fr. Riehl," noted Zaffrann. "It was sent directly to the bishop."
One rebellious parishioner cries in the Fishwrap article, "They look down on us. They want to go back to the 16th century."  Another parishioner moans, "We felt like the early Christians, gathering together out of fear."  I laugh aloud, because this is how Traditionalist Catholics have felt for decades.

At one point, the Fishwrap article states: "Others gave up entirely on their Catholicism and joined the Methodist and Episcopalian churches." And so, there you have it. Were these people even interested in being Catholic in the first place? Or were they more interested in feeling comfortable with their liberal community? Yet it makes sense that the parishioners of that community would prefer the Methodists and Episcopalians, as both welcome sodomy and female priests.

North Carolina used to have the smallest amount of Catholics.
Where'd the influx come from?

A hint about North Carolina's Catholic situation lies in this sentence: 
"North Carolina used to be the state with the lowest percentage of Catholics. Fueled by an influx of Northern newcomers, that has changed. The numbers of Catholics have risen..." 
 A-ha! So! The Catholics are not growing in North Carolina out of evangelization...but the Catholic numbers are rising because they are being imported. And from where? New England. I somehow doubt the orthodoxy of that Cardinal Dolan brand.  It makes sense that there would be this kind of a conflict of interest. 

Although, I could be wrong.  There may very well be some pockets of Yankee Traditional Catholicism up there.  

In any event, God bless Fr. Riehl and Bishop Jugis. They are doing the Lord's work, and they certainly have my support. I know they have the support of my colleague.  If the five or more angry people at St. John's are displeased with the services, I recommend they go elsewhere with the other rebels to continue their modernist rebellion against the Mass of the Ages. Perhaps they should join their friends who are in an actual open protest against all of it, the Protestants.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

The Rights of Englishmen 3: Catholic Europe Produced The Idea of Human Rights

This week, I have been discussing the recent use of The Rights of Englishmen by Alt-Right figureheads as a clarion call for white, English, Protestant primacy in the United States.

In one breath, a blogger argues that: "Liberty and the Rights of Englishmen, are concepts that belong solely to the posterity of the American Founding Fathers." Yet months previously, the blogger actually betrays how the English colonials would disagree with him, stating that the rebellious English colonials "believed it was universal. No one else did. Or does."

This is quite wrong. The blogger does not know his history. As Charles Coulombe pointed out in the last part of this series, the Rights of Englishmen derived from English Common Law--a medieval Catholic (Catholic, meaning universal) concept. And, in fact, the English Common Law is but one place where the concept of natural human rights took form. The realization of human rights had, in fact, taken bloom across all of Europe in several different places.

Such rights are not a concept held exclusively by English Whig oligarchs. Nor is it a concept held exclusively by English barons who force their king to sign a contract by swordpoint (as we see with the signing of the Magna Carta, a later installment for this series).

Many historians, such as Professor Brian Tierney of Cornell University, acknowledge that the idea of a natural human right existed far back into medieval times in the form of the ius commune, a combination of Roman and canon law which guided legal practice up to the time Columbus sailed to the Americas.  In his lecture, Natural Rights: Before and After Columbus, Brian Tierney reveals that natural rights did not enter political life "with a clatter of drums and trumpets of the American Declaration of Independence or the French Declaration of the Rights of Man." Rather, as Tierney states, "this central concept of Western political theory first grew into existence almost imperceptibly in the obscure glossaries of medieval jurists." That would be Catholic jurists.

The idea of an individual's rights did not explode onto the scene. They were not a fabulous new invention of the late 1700s. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin did not invent them. Human rights are a part of natural law. Natural law is what enables the idea of a right order of government on earth, and this is all a concept held in the medieval ius commune.

These rights we have under natural law are not there in order to put "choice" and "the sacredness of human life" on a pedestal. Instead, the reason these rights exist is to vindicate and promote God's plan for the world. Human bodies are temples. The human being is a special creation in the image of God. His justice through our lives is all a part of His plan for creation.

The historical idea of our natural rights lies in the jurisprudential foundation of Europe. For example, in the 1500s, Bartolome de Las Casas repeatedly referred to the natural rights of the American Indians. He was able to achieve this by interweaving "the teachings of Aquinas on natural law with his juridical arguments for natural rights."  In fact, as Tierney demonstrates, weaving law and philosophy together was necessary in order to understand the concept of rights.

 Before the 1200s, the idea of rights as we understand them did not even bloom in Europe--due to the fact there really was no terminology for such discussions. The idea of natural rights was there, but parts of such ideas resided in another school of thought--philosophy. And through this interchange between law and philosophy, Las Casas was able to discuss how American Indians had the right to liberty, property, self-defense, and to choose their own ruler. (If the Puritan English colonials agreed with any of this, they certainly did not exercise it with the Indians.)

Men such as Las Casas and William of Ockam (1287-1347) had to draw upon the canonists in order to develop their thoughts. In the case of the latter, though it is true he was an Englishman, his writings drew upon the older traditions of the Church.

"He had an interesting doctrine of contingent natural rights, related to basic human needs but varying according to the conditions of particular societies. It is a notion that might be applied to some modern problems of cultural relativism. Ockham also turned the old concept of Christian freedom found in St. Paul's epistles into an argument for natural rights. Even the pope, he wrote, could not injure 'the rights and liberties conceded by God and nature.' The point is that in all this Ockham was not embarking on a 'semantic revolution.' he was carrying on an established tradition of juridical discourse. In his political works he hardly ever referred to his nominalist philosophy, but he constantly quoted earlier legal sources. A French scholar, Georges de Lagarde, once counted the citations in one book of Ockham's Dialogus. He found 3 references to Thomas Aquinas, 12 to church fathers, 65 to Scripture, and 313 references to canon law. If you want to reflect on jurisprudence sublimating into political philosophy, you can see it taking place on the pages of Ockham's political writings."

Ockham's inspiration was a controversy that surrounded the Franciscan Order. For a time, the Franciscans defended their own order's understanding of evangelical poverty as a system without rights.  They loved poverty.  Their order claimed to abandon all ownership and rights to property. However, this was in contradiction to pope John XXII, who argued "that there could be no licit use of anything without a right of using." This idea put a snag in the plans of the Franciscans, and in time, the Franciscans accepted the pope's ruling.

As early as 1250, the idea of property rights steming from natural law--even among infidels--was put forth by pope Innocent IV, a canon lawyer. In 1240, he wrote a legal paper discussing the rights of non-Christians, and he rhetorically asked whether it was "licit to invade a land that infidels possess or which belongs to them?" He concluded the answer to be a resounding yes. Such invasions would be just wars fought for the defense of Christians and potentially for the reconquest of Christian lands.

Before the 1200s, legal language was not sophisticated enough to allow for the expression of human rights. Before that time in Europe, if the idea was there, the concept of rights existed within law, philosophy, and of course, the Catholic Faith. The synthesis of rights as an idea unto itself came about in the 1100s.

"Historians now see the twelfth century as a major turning point in Western history. The demographic curve turned upward. New networks of commerce grew up. This was the age of the first great gothic cathedrals and the first universities. In religious thought there was a new emphasis on the individual human person--on individual intention in assessing guilt, on individual consent in marriage, on individual scrutiny of conscience. Above all the twelfth century was an age of legal renaissance. First came the recovery of the whole corpus of ancient Roman law, then (about 1140) an immensely influential codification of the canon law of the Church in the work known as Gratian's Decretum. At the same time in England the first seminal principles of Anglo-American common law were taking shape. Then generations of great jurists in the universities of Europe worked to apply the old texts they had recovered to the new life of their age. Maitland wrote that there was never a time when so much of the sum total of the human intellect was devoted to the study of law as in the twelfth century. And of course in the every day life of the time there was an intense concern for rights and liberties. Bishops and barons asserted their rights against kings. All over Europe, merchants and craftsmen in the newly emerging communes sometimes bought their rights from overlords, and sometimes fought for them."
The universal religion influenced the West, and it influenced the evolution of human rights.  The Holy Faith was fresh in the daily minds of a Christianized European people, including its jurists.

Sir Frederick Pollock echoes this in his 1898 work, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward, in which he discusses the origins of the English legal system:
It was a wonderful system. The whole of western Europe was subject to the jurisdiction of one tribunal of last resort, the Roman curia. Appeals to it were encouraged by all manner of means, appeals at almost every stage of almost every proceeding. But the pope was far more than the president of a court of appeal. Very frequently the courts Christian which did justice in England were courts which were acting under his supervision and carrying out his written instructions. A very large part, and by far the most permanently important part, of the ecclesiastical litigation that went on in this country, came before English prelates who were sitting, not as English prelates, not as “judges ordinary,” but as mere delegates of the pope commissioned to hear and determine this or that particular case. When once the supreme pontiff has obtained seisin of a cause, that cause proceeds under his directions. He bids two or three English prelates try it, but he also tells them by what rules they are to try it, he teaches them, corrects them, reproves them, expresses in a fatherly way his surprise at their ignorance of law.
Indeed, the Western progenitors of the idea of human rights most definitely believed these ideas to be as universal as the universal Church they attended every Sunday and on holy days.  They did not believe the right to life, liberty, and property remained exclusively with one ethnicity--the English.  This is wishful thinking.

To believe that jurists and philosophers of our Western past denied this is akin to believing that the greatness of Western Civilization owes nothing to the Catholic Church of Christendom.  Such rights are universal and are to be recognized by all people throughout the Earth--not just the posterity of colonial Whig oligarchs.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

The Rights of Englishmen Part 2: Nothing New?

Yesterday, we discussed how "The Rights of Englishmen" is an old idea being resurrected by Dissident Right factions to aid in fomenting a resurrected Know-Nothing movement.  But after looking at the history, it becomes clear that "Rights of Englishment" was a part of Whig propaganda that was used to attack King George III and help to install a powerful lobbyist-run oligarchy in British government for the rest of its days.

Still, one cannot help but think there's more to the idea of "The Rights of Englishmen."  I mean, can it possibly be true that this is a special, almost blood-bourne code of conduct that only white Americans are capable of living by?

Is there any more to it?

One would think so after taking a look at how the term "Rights of Englishmen" is used in recent years:
HP Lovecraft was absolutely right, the foreign immigrants who came to the United States after 1919 were incapable of understanding the Rights of Englishmen and have proven utterly incapable of devising anything better.
Indeed, through their ahistorical inventions of "the melting pot" and "the proposition nation" and "equality" and "diversity is our strength", they have completely and utterly destroyed that expanded Anglo-Saxonism that briefly made America the greatest, most powerful, and wealthiest nation on Earth.
So, now I have questions.  What else is there to understanding the Rights of Englishmen?  Are the "Rights of Englishmen" truly an expanded Anglo-Saxonism that made America an advanced place to live?   Is this some sort of almost magical ethos tracing itself back to ancient Sparta or Sumeria?  Is it only something we can feel in our blood, and hence blacks, Hispanics, and Asians cannot understand it?

Or is someone merely making a mountain out of a molehill?

Yesterday, the Whigs themselves told us in a handbill that the Rights of Englishmen means that lawmaking belongs not just to a king, but to a parliament and representatives, that free men should enjoy liberty and be represented in the legislature, and that they ought to be able to vote for representatives in a parliament.  Also, a new House of Commons should be elected yearly.  That's it.

A Historian Weighs In On The Question

Once more, I had the pleasure of having Charles Coulombe give his take on this very specific question that I sent him.

Vincent Frankini:  
Laramie Hirsch asks, "Can you tell us what were the "Rights of Englishmen?"

Charles Coulombe:  
Well, the Rights of Englishmen were the rights under the Common Law.   A man's home is his castle, he has a right to his own property, he has a right to trial by jury, a right to not be molested.  These were the Rights of Englishmen.  

Vincent Frankini:
He asks, "Were the Rights of Englishmen a new improvement to previous Catholic political paradigms?"

Charles Coulombe:  
No.  Everything we think of in this area comes from the Common Law.  And the Common Law was developed in Catholic times.  
You know, if anything, certainly under Henry VIII and Elizabeth, there was a diminution of the rights of the individual.  That was why Elizabeth had to have [William] Cecil put out a secret police and read people's letters to find out that they were harboring Catholics and so forth.  That was completely alien to the Common Law, and had to be invented on the spot.  

The Rights of Englishmen goes beyond the Whig propaganda of the late 1700s that Benjamin Franklin so admired--even though it was the propaganda in particular that he was fond of.  More than a clarion call for the support of a Whig oligarchy, the Rights of Englishmen is traced back even further to something else, which is Common Law.

...and Common Law is a product of Catholics.  Not Protestant Whig power brokers.

More coming up.

Monday, April 24, 2017

The Rights of Englishmen Part 1: "Some Good Whig Principles"

Most of my readers, I think, are Traditional Catholics.  So the relevance of "The Rights of Englishmen" may be a dusty and unfamiliar old idea to them that they never bothered to learn in school.  However, if I have any Alt-Right readers, they might be familiar with recent citations of "Rights of Englishmen."

Within the Alt-Right, dissident factions are forming a sequel to the Know-Nothing Party of the mid-1800s.  This faction is comprised of white nationalists.  This group of people tends to think that the United States needs to remove most of the immigrants who have come to this country after The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.  And finally, if that objective is achieved, further removal of non-whites must take place in order to preserve the integrity of the United States.

One tool utilized to proclaim the notion of out-of-place non-whites is the idea of The Rights of Englishmen.  For example:
"No other people, from the very numerous Chinese to the very smallest American Indian tribe, have shown any interest in adopting and living according to the ideals of 18th century Englishmen, the Common Law, or the Rights of Englishmen, no matter how much they enjoy, appreciate, and attempt to appropriate the fruits of that culture.
"And it is the height of absurdity to believe that they will see fit to permit others to live according to them in any society that is even remotely democratic, as we have already seen from the previous waves of immigration."  
So what are The Rights of Englishmen?  I've been waiting for months for this particular faction of the Alt-Right to produce more than just a hyperlink about it.  But so far, no one has delivered a hard-hitting discussion about this idea.  So far, "The Rights of Englishmen" has been used as a sort of Excalibur or other mythical weapon to claim white primacy.

So, let's finally start talking about what this thing is.

The Rights of Englishmen Are...

Benjamin Franklin - "The Newton of Electricity"
After Benjamin Franklin died, there was found a particular piece of paper that discussed this topic.  Franklin endorsed the idea of The Rights of Englishmen.  On this piece of paper, he wrote the words: "Some Good Whig Principles."  And who were the Whigs, again?  They originally opposed absolute monarchy and supported constitutional monarchism.  But in colonial America, the Whigs were those who would eventually support revolution, while their enemies, the Tories, would be the loyalists.

The following handbill, Benjamin Franklin's scrap of paper, was published in the 1790s:
A Declaration of the Rights of Englishmen
Declaration of those Rights of the Commonality of Great Britain, without which they cannot be Free.  
It is declared,
First, That the government of this realm, and the making of laws for the same, ought to be lodged in the hands of King, Lords of Parliament, and Representatives of the whole body of the freemen of this realm.

Secondly, That every man of the commonalty (excepting infants, insane persons, and criminals) is, of common right, and by the laws of God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty.
Thirdly, that liberty, or freedom, consists in having an actual share in the appointment of those who frame the laws, and who are to be the guardians of every man's life, property, and peace; for the all of one man is as dear to him as the all of another; and the poor man has an equal right, but more need, to have representatives in the legislature than the rich one.
George III and William Pitt portrayed as
running over the Magna Carta
and the Constitution.
Fourthly, That they who have no voice nor vote in the electing of representatives, do not enjoy liberty; but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes, and to their representative: for to be enslaved, is to have governors whom other men have set over us, and to be subject to laws made by the Representatives of others, without having had Representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf.
Fifthly, that a very great majority of the commonality of this realm are denied the privilege of voting for representatives in Parliament; and consequently, they are enslaved to a small number, who do now enjoy this privilege exclusively to themselves; but who, it may be presumed, are far from wishing to continue in the exclusive profession of a privilege, by which their fellow-subjects are deprived of common right, of justice, of liberty; and which, if not communicated to all, must speedily cause the certain overthrow of our happy constitution, and enslave us all. 
And, sixthly and lastly, we also say, and do assert, that it is the right of the commonality of this realm to elect a new House of Commons once in every year, according to ancient and sacred laws of the land: because, whenever a Parliament continues in being for a longer term, the very great numbers of the commonality, who have arrived at the years of manhood since the last election, and therefore have a right to be actually represented in the House of Commons, are then unjustly deprived of that right.
"John Bull" is the personification of England.
Sort of like Uncle Sam.  Here, John Bull
farts on the face of George III.
 Judge Blackstone, in the second chapter of the first book of his commentaries, speaking of Parliaments, says, "It is a matter most essential to the liberties of this kingdom, that such members be delegated to this important trust, as are most eminent for their brobity, their fortitude, and their knowledge; for it was a known apothegm of the great Lord Treasurer Burleigh, 'That England could never be ruined but by a Parliament; and as Sir Matthew Hale observes, this being the highest and greatest court, over which none other can have jurisdiction in the kingdom, if by any means a misgovernment should any way fall upon it, the subjects of this kingdom are left without all manner of remedy. To the same purpose the President Montesquieu presages, that as Rome, Sparta, and Carthage, have lost their liberty and perished, so the Constitution of England will in time lose its liberties, and perish; it will perish whenever the legislative power shall become more corrupt than the executive.
The above is recommended to the attention of the people of England, to admonish them to keep vigilant watch over the acts of their Representatives, and to mark their alarming consequences.
The great Locke says (as quoted by Blackstone), "There remains still inherent in the people, a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the truth reposed in them: for when such trust is abused, it is thereby forfeited, and devolved to those those who give it."
That, my friends, is an out-and-out plain and clear definition of the Rights of Englishmen.  While the declaration does not seem unreasonable to us modern Americans, at the time, it was actually a repudiation against the ancient monarchical tradition of England.  So, a brief recap:

-Lawmaking should belong to a king, Parliament, and representatives of freemen.  
-Free men should enjoy liberty
-Men should be represented in the legislature.
-Men ought to be able to vote for representatives in Parliament.
-A New House of Commons should be elected yearly.

Whig Paradise

In that day most agreed that a complete democracy would be disastrous.  Yet there was still a desire by a rising commercial class to subvert the traditional and ancient monarchy, dumbing it down into an oligarchical Whig paradise.  As The First American Civil War The American Revolution raged across the Atlantic, the Whig power grab would continue, and monarchy itself would eventually be attacked by Thomas Paine as "the Popery of government."

George III had intended to restore his country's constitution, but the American Revolution had given the Whigs power to return to cabinet, installing an oligarchy that has had power over Great Britain ever since.  It could be argued that things have not fared too well ever since.

A Whig-installed oligarchy leads to Londonistan in the long term.
A true British king with full power would have never allowed this.

When pictures look alive with movements free, When ships like fishes swim beneath the sea, When men outstripping birds shall span the sky, Then half the world deep drenched in blood shall lie!  
In Germany begins a dance, Which passeth through Italy, Spain and France, But England will pay the piper.  
-1580 prophecy of St. Francis of Paula

King George III: A Conservative

A clarion call among Whigs (and Freemasons) for The Rights of Englishmen would have faded into a footnote of history, had King George III managed to successfully reform the British constitution.  However he had an enormous problem, as the current structure of his monarchical government was choked up by Whigs who desired to unseat him and subdue the monarchy.  Charles Coulombe explains in Puritan's Empire:  
On paper, the King functioned much as the American President does.  He appointed the cabinet to carry out his programs; just as skill is required for the President to get his bills passed by Congress, so the King's ministers had to be skillful enough to guide legislation through Parliament.  In theory, Parliament acted as a check on the King's power, while the King himself provided unified leadership above party and faction.  Since Parliament consisted of both Lords and Commons (the latter elected by the well-to-do), both people and nobility were part of the government.  King, Lords, and Commons were to maintain a balance which would insure good government as much as anything human can.  
However, due to earlier wars and insurrections, as well as the fact that the English throne had been occupied by foreigners since 1714, much had changed.  Although the form remained the same, the substance was different.  The King continued to go through the motions of appointing the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but in reality the Cabinet was put in place by whichever Whig faction could control a majority in Parliament.  The modern equivalent would be the American Cabinet being appointed by the Party which holds the majority in Congress.  Obviously, if this were the case, the President would have no power over the Federal government at all.  Such was the case in Great Britain by 1760.

The Whigs who wanted King George III toothless had filled up the Cabinet, and so the king was powerless to function fully as king.  The concept of the Rights of Englishmen would bolster Whig support in the British government, helping to push Britain into complete Whig control.  The Whigs were wealthy oligarchs who--as we can see in the oligarchs of our own government today--desired more and more dominance:
Since the House of Commons members were for the most part in the hire of wealthy oligarchs, and since whichever faction among them was able to give out government positions to its supporters, the whole method of British government changed in reality, even while remaining the same on the surface.  Policies and appointments were dictated purely on the basis of keeping a majority in the Commons; corruption grew incredibly, and the national interest was forgotten by politicians intent on wealth and power.  
George III and William Pitt grind
"John Bull" into money.
King George III was not a horrible man, however.  He was a traditional sort of king who wanted to preserve the integrity of the throne as much as possible.  Though his forbears had neglected the throne and allowed it to fall into this sad state, King George III would prove to be the conservative, hoping to avoid the "modernization" of British politics.  For us modern Americans (ironically enough), the best way to understand this dilemma is to realize that King George III was a conservative fighting against the leftist liberals and neoconservatives of his time.
George I and George II, being Germans much more interested in their Electorate of Hanover than in Britain, were content to let things go on in this way.  But George III, who succeeded his grandfather George II in 1760, was different.  

Unlike the last two Kings, George III "gloried in the name of Briton."  Unlike them he was faithful to his wife, as pious as an Anglican can be, and more interested in Britain and its Empire than Hanover.  As a boy, his mother had often told him to "be a King."  For him, that meant restoring his country's original constitution--in a word, functioning as the President does, rather than as a figurehead.  That way, he could lift the government of Britain above petty factional greed and dispute; instead of self-interest, his realm would be governed for the benefit of his people and the glory of God (as far as he could see it).  But this project would require a great deal of skill if it were to succeed.  After all, arrayed against him were all the Whig factions who between them had complete control of Parliament, however much they might squabble and struggle among themselves when there was no effective King to fear; the owners of the Bank of England, whose control of the country's money supply (an essential part of governing) made them in effect more powerful than either King or Parliament; and those Freemasons and others who were disciples of the Enlightenment.  
The King was surrounded by enemies and subversives.  We on the Right understand this feeling very well.  The Left--which has, really, been continuously beating its war drums since the 1500s--has an all-powerful host of weapons and poisons to use against the Right.  We were lucky to get the wild-card, President Donald Trump, elected.  That particular project also "required a great deal of skill if it were to succeed."  And it did.  This time.  

Why was The Donald elected?  Because, in their hearts, the American people still carry with them a legend of Christendom.  They believe in the preservation of everything that Western Civilization has produced.  It could even be said that some smoldering embers of Christ--those burning remains of our civilization's philosophy--are still recognizable to us, and that the people of the United States were still able to recognize evil in The Left.

King George III was hoping that the burning embers of his ethos would help him to carry the day.  He had hoped he had a firm grasp of the Logos, that God would be on his side, and that the truth of his code would triumph:

Against these seemingly all-powerful foes, however, the King had many important advantages.  Above all, he was King.  In those days, the majority of his subjects had retained from Catholic days the traditional reverence due a King.  This was described a Century and a half later by John Healy, the Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, Ireland:
King George III
"The character of Kings is sacred; their persons are inviolable; they are the anointed of the Lord, if not with sacred oil, at least by virtue of their office. Their power is broad -- based upon the Will of God, and not on the shifting sands of the people's will... They will be spoken of with becoming reverence, instead of being in public estimation fitting butts for all foul tongues. It becomes a sacrilege to violate their persons, and every indignity offered to them in word or act, becomes an indignity offered to God Himself It is this view of Kingly rule that alone can keep alive in a scoffing and licentious age the spirit of ancient loyalty that spirit begotten of faith, combining in itself obedience, reverence, and love for the majesty of kings which was at once a bond of social union, an incentive to noble daring, and a salt to purify the heart from its grosser tendencies, preserving it from all that is mean, selfish and contemptible."
The King's coronation at the beginning of his reign, his headship of the Church of England (in Catholic countries the King is instead the defender of and most important layman in the Church), and his continued liturgical role continued to impress upon his people the sacred character of his office, and instill in them a personal loyalty to him very unlike what we Americans feel toward our President.  He was the father of his country, and most Britons, either in the Mother Country or in her colonies loved him in a real though distant way.  This was a great help in dealing with politicians who inspired in the people no loyalty, and whose only source of power was wealth and corruption.    

This was the King of England.  This was King George III.  He was a good king who sought to restore the glory of Britain.  He was undone, and to this day, Americans ridicule his office.  The throne was subverted by The Rights of Englishmen, as pushed by Whigs and other revolutionaries.  The Rights of Englishmen was not some sort of an ancient code.  They were a slogan, much like the slogans that Leftists and Neoconservatives use today to tear down the last vestiges of decent society.  The Rights of Englishman was utilized as a tool by money and power-hungry oligarchs and merchants, so that they could continue to hand out government positions to their favorite lobbyists.  

We on the Right ought to be quite empathetic to George III's situation.  It can certainly be said that the Left's main source of power is money and corruption. Many of us on the Right feel a "personal loyalty" to The Donald.  Many of us are happy with his presidency, and we look to him (as we did President Ronald Reagan) as "the father of his country."  It is without a doubt that on the Right, we love Trump "in a real though distant way."  After all, many Alt-Right circles call Trump the God-Emperor.  

So before we blindly run towards the Rights of Englishmen as a clarion call for our American ethos, perhaps we ought to take a little care and caution, look into the terminology a little more deeply, and recognize the term for what it was: the rallying cry of opportunists.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

News From the Crossroads

I'm not a guy who's "in" on any circles.  I make the friends that I make before the ringleader feels threatened and gives me the boot.  I don't have any super rich backers.  Nor do I get support or recommendation too often.  This blog, I suppose, is a form of guerrilla cultural warfare from one guy chained up at a crossroads.

Being the exiled outlier, as sometimes happens, people pass by me, and yours truly gets mentioned somewhere.  A lot of different people end up coming across this blog for different reasons.  This week, it was over at the website of Randy Engel.  She wrote a piece titled All the Men Behind the Opus Dei Curtain.  It's a very long article that is the result of an investigation into the associations of Michael Voris and E. Michael Jones.

She cites a moment from last October when I asked E. Michael Jones why he wrote a book about Michael Voris' past.  Jones told me he wrote his attack on Voris because he wanted to explain what really happened, and he wanted to show the dominant culture's downplaying of such sins and the Protestant notion of cheap grace.

What was Engel's aim with her article?  Basically to show different associations between Voris, Jones, and Opus Dei:
I'd like to propose two other reasons why Jones decided to write the book and use Fidelity Press as the publishing vehicle.
First, because his friend and benefactor of more than thirty years, Opus Dei supernumerary Marc Brammer, asked him to and secondly, because E. Michael Jones's publishing enterprise is an Opus Dei apostolate/auxiliary society.
I may disagree with Jones' attacks against Traditionalist Catholics, and I may not be comfortable with his book about Voris.  However, I do admire much of Jones' writing, and I have already stated that I will be glad when Jones takes on other projects beyond Voris and Traditionalists.

Just today, I listened to a discussion about how there is hardly any Catholic evangelization in the United States.  I am frequently reading about the spread of Satanism and atheism in this country.  These circular firing squad scenarios frustrate me to no end.  Why do we continue to shoot each other in the back?

To make matters worse, as of this moment, E. Michael Jones' Culture Wars website has been hacked.  Type in the web address, and it directs you straight to the Google home page.  You cannot get access to it.  The timing of this hack coincides with the release of Engel's article.  Are there really people out there who hate Opus Dei that much?  I don't know.

I do not know much about Opus Dei.  From what I read of Engel's article, it sounds like a Catholic version of the Freemasons in terms of its secrecy.  If that's the case, then so what?  Why be up in arms about a battle tactic or strategy?  Perhaps someone will correct me, but if anything, we need as many Catholics in positions of power as possible.  I could be wrong.

I mean, if any kind of real Catholic political power is to be achieved in the United States (remember, I'm the guy pushing for a Catholic Monarchy in this country), then some kind of concrete strategy with real money and power will need to be enacted.  But again, I could be wrong.  My opinions are subject to change.

Jones Responds to Engle

In any event, Jones has prepared a response to Engle in the hopes that she might post it on her site:
Dear Randy,
I am not a member of Opus Dei, nor do I have any ties “concrete” or otherwise to that organization. Once upon a time I attended evenings of reflection at the local center, but more recently I was banned from speaking at Opus Dei’s Catholic Information Center in Washington. I have friends in Opus Dei. Marc Brammer is one of them. Another Opus Dei friend was warned by the American prelate not to have anything to do with me. Fortunately, he didn’t follow that advice. I have no intention of distancing myself from my friends even if their organization has distanced itself from me. 
At this point, I have a question. Why would an organization like Opus Dei want to be associated with someone with my views? Opus Dei is probably the world’s most prominent purveyor of neoconservative Catholicism, not just here but throughout the world. Why would a group like that want me as a member? Do you think that hobnobbing with the author of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is going to enhance Opus Dei’s image in the halls of power in Washington or New York? I don’t think so. Nor do they, which is why they do whatever they deem necessary to avoid any contact with me. Opus Dei is happy to invite George Weigel, but Father Stetson showed what he thought of me when he unilaterally canceled the book signing I had at the Catholic Information Center.
This brings me to the really pernicious aspect of your expose. It’s not simply that it’s full of factual errors, like the alleged location of a nonexistent Opus Dei center in Ferndale, Michigan. Your article is suffused with the sense that personal friendship, far from transcending political differences, is reason to denounce someone for what someone else does or believes. Since you could not make a connection between me and Opus Dei and the sordid story of Church Militant on factual or principled grounds, you had to stoop to guilt by association. Are we now supposed to be judged by our associations instead of what we believe and say and do? As someone I admire once said, “If what I said is false, point out the error. If what I said is true, why do you strike me?”
Why am I responsible for someone else’s activities? Who made you the judge of my friendships? This is the way the Pharisees treated Jesus when he ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. Was Jesus contaminated by his association with them? Am I somehow contaminated by my friendship with Marc Brammer? Or, more importantly, is he somehow contaminated by his association with me? I’m sure there are people in Opus Dei who think so, but I don’t and don’t think Jesus would either.
If this is not the case, why have I been subjected to the same pharisaical strictures which the Jews imposed on Jesus? Who put you in charge of my relationships? The answer to all of these questions is the schismatic lack of charity that pervades traditionalist circles. In his treatises on Donatism and Baptism, St. Augustine defined schism as refusal to associate with the body of Christ out of lack of charity and fear of contamination. Bishop Fellay expressed this fear when he said, “the church has cancer. We can’t associate with the church because then we would get cancer.” 
Now I am subjected to the same intolerable lack of charity by you. This is not the way I run my life. To the point, Bishop Williamson stayed at my house twice. Does this establish “concrete ties” with the Society of St. Pius X? Does it make me a closet Lefebvrite? Or is it an indication that personal friendship can sometimes transcend ideological difference? Is that what you’re trying to preclude? If so, I reject your attempt to do so and the stunning lack of charity and narrow-mindedness that prompted you to make the attempt. 
Please post this response on your website.
As of the writing of this article, Jones' response has not yet been posted.  The events surrounding Jones' The Man Behind the Curtain are beginning to resemble a multi-stage timebomb.

As I've said before, I look forward to seeing all parties involved taking on other projects.

Moving On

Finally, I'm not completely ostracized.

Special thanks to Okie Trad for keeping me in mind.  Your coverage of Tulsa's recent issues has been heartening to a lot of people who feel like they're adrift on a raft at sea.  It was, in fact, just today that someone told me over on DISQUS that there is "a charismatic history of the [Tulsa] area which in recent times has run amok with very strange spiritual activities."

And thank you to all of my readers.  This blog has grown quite a bit since its beginning.  I enjoy everyone's comments, and I hope to see more in the future.  This internet phenomenon is a rare treasure that we have for the moment, so let's make the best of it while it lasts.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Catholic Culture vs Pan-Judaism

In the comment box last week, a commenter named TuCasaEsMiCasa asked the following question:

The culture should be Catholic? What's Catholic culture? Can you describe it and how it differs from pan-Judaism?

What Is Catholic Culture?

The political foundation for a Catholic culture is laid out in many places, though I recommend Star Spangled Crown.

Generally speaking, however, what would a Catholic culture resemble? Off hand? No usury. No infanticide. No sodomy. No corruption from Hollywood. Less unjust wars. Community, a mutual culture and language, all the while respecting the various sub-cultures (blacks, Hispanics, etc.) without forcing different groups to integrate. Also, fathers would be encouraged. Basically subtract today's Leftism, and you've got Catholic culture.

Geremia, over at Cathinfo, reminded me of some Catholic amendments that would ideally be attached to the U.S. Constitution. These are called the Blanshard Amendments, and you can read about them in the Afterword of Charles Coulombe's Puritan's Empire:
Blanshard declared that American Catholics had a hidden agenda to "subject" this nation to the Church's social teachings. We have seen the great outrage this brought about in U.S. Catholic circles, and the resulting dispute between Frs. John Courtney Murray [author of Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanæ] and Joseph C. Fenton regarding relations between Church and State. But Blanshard had outlined what he believed would become of the vaunted American Democracy, did the Catholics gain political power. This was a list of three amendments to the Constitution. [source] The first he called the "Christian Commonwealth Amendment:"

1. The United States [are] a Catholic Republic, and the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion is the sole religion of the nation.
2. The authority of the Roman Catholic Church is the most exalted of all authorities; nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the power of the United States government, or in any manner dependent upon it, since the Catholic Church as such is a sovereign power.
3. Priests and members of religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church who violate the law are to be tried by an ecclesiastical court of the Roman Catholic Church, and may, only with the consent of the competent Catholic authority, be tried by the courts of the United States or the states.
4. Apostate priests or those incurring the censure of the Roman Catholic Church incurring the censure of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be employed in any teaching post or any office or employment in which they have immediate contact with the public.
5. Non-Catholic faiths are tolerated, but public ceremonies and manifestations other than those of the Roman Catholic religion will not be permitted.
6. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

This shocker was to be followed up by the "Christian Education Amendment:"

1. American religious education belongs pre-eminently to the Roman Catholic Church, by means of a double title in the supernatural order, conferred exclusively upon her by God Himself.
2. The Roman Catholic Church has the inalienable right to supervise the entire education of her children in all educational institutions in the United States, public or private, not merely in regard to the religious instruction given in such institutions, but in regard to every other branch of learning and every regulation in so far as religion and morality are concerned.
3. Compulsory education in public schools exclusively shall be unlawful in any state of the union.
4. It shall be unlawful for any neutral or non-Catholic school to enroll any Catholic child without permission of the Church.
5. Since neutral schools are contrary to the fundamental principles of education, public schools in the United States are lawful only when both religious instruction and every other subject taught are permeated with Catholic piety.
6. The governments of the United States and of the States are permitted to operate their own schools for military and civic training without supervision by the Roman Catholic Church, provided they do not injure the rights of said Church, and provided that only the Roman Catholic Church shall have the power to impart religious instruction in such schools.
7. With due regard to special circumstances, co-education shall be unlawful in any educational institution in the United States whose students have attained the age of adolescence.
8. The governments of the United States and of the states shall encourage and assist the Roman Catholic Church by appropriate measures in the exercise of the Church's supreme mission as educator.

Then at last came the "Christian Family Amendment:"
1. The government of the United States, desirous of restoring to the institution of matrimony, which is the basis of the family, that dignity conformable to the traditions of its people, assigns as civil effects of the sacrament of matrimony all that is assigned to it by the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. No matrimonial contract in the United States that involves a Catholic can be valid unless it is in accordance with the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church.
3. Marriages of non-Catholics are subject to the civil authority of the state, but all civil laws that contradict the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church are hereby declared null and void.
4. All marriages are indissoluble, and the divorce of all persons is prohibited throughout the territory of the United States: provided that nothing herein shall affect the right of annulment and remarriage in accordance with the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church.
5. Attempted mixed marriages or unions between members of the Roman Catholic Church and non-Catholics are null and void, unless a special dispensation is obtained from the ecclesiastical authority of the Catholic Church.
6. Birth Control, or any act that deliberately frustrates the natural power to generate life, is a crime.
7. Direct abortion is murder of the innocent even when performed through motives of misguided pity when the life of a mother is gravely imperiled.
8. Sterilization of any human being is except as an infliction of grave punishment under the authority of the government for a crime committed.
This supposed "Catholic Master Plan" for America received much criticism from Catholic and non-Catholic critics of Blanshard alike. But Blanshard rightly defended it, declaring (p. 305):
"I remember a verse from Job which is appropriate at this moment: "If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me." That is meant for Catholic liberals whose temperature has been rising while they have been reading these three amendments. As most of my readers have doubtless guessed, there is not a single original word in my entire three Catholic amendments. They are mosaics of official Catholic doctrine. Every concept, almost every line and phrase, has been plagiarized line by line from Catholic documents. The most important phrases are derived from the highest documents [sic!] of Catholicism, the encyclicals of the Popes. The provisions on education come from Pius XI's Christian Education of Youth [Divini Illius Magistri], and those on family life from his Casti Connubii, both of them accepted universally in the Catholic Church as the Bibles of present-day educational and family policy. A few provisions are taken directly from Canon Law, the recent laws of Catholic countries like Spain, and the 1929 Concordat between Mussolini and the Vatican [Lateran Treaty], all of which have been publicly approved by Catholic authorities. Only place-names and enabling clauses have been added to give the Papal principles local application. The sources are listed in the notes."

Now, What Would Pan-Judaism Look Like?

Pan-Judaism would look like...what we have today. It is the opposite of the Catholic culture that I talked about in the first section of this post. Various hubs of society lie to us, there is no sexual morality, we have a thriving pornography industry in this country that helps the entire American society to masturbate itself blind. Christianity is scoffed at, the family is denigrated, fathers are spurned, feminists are extolled, sodomites are praised, and the Left flirts with pedophilia. America has become hated throughout the world, thanks to our Hebraic-Puritanism and homage to Zionist interests across the globe.

Consider the words of Israel Shamir, a Jew converted to Orthodox Christianity:
"Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is. Palestine is just the place for world state headquarters…..The Jews intend to turn Jerusalem into the supreme capital of the world, and its rebuilt temple into the focal point of the Spirit on Earth. Christianity will die, the spirit will depart from the nations in our part of the world, and our present dubious democracy will be supplanted by a vast theocratic state. De-spiritualized and uprooted, homeless and lonely, yesterday’s Masters of the World [WASPs] will become slaves in all but name….The Jewish universe is good for Jews. It is a curse for others. In the US, as Jewish influence has grown steadily since 1968, the lives of ordinary people have worsened. A good time for the Jews is not a good time for mankind. The blessing of the Jews is a curse for others. The regimes that are “good for Jews” are rarely good for anybody else."
To bolster this idea, consider the following direct quotations from Zionists who've co-opted the reigns of United States power.

“We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
— Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001
“Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away.”
— Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 2002.
“I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”
— Joel Stein, Jewish columnist for Los Angeles Times, Dec 2008
We are ruled by a hostile, elitist parasite that despises the very nation that it rules over. This elitist minority that keeps the United States as a Jewish colony has nothing but contempt for the traditional people of the United States.

The foundations for the pan-Judaism that we are already currently enjoying were laid in the beginning of our "republic." E. Michael Jones states the following in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit:
The standard history of Freemasonry as beginning with the formation of the Grand Lodge in 1717 is Whig history in every sense of the term. For political reasons, Anderson's Constitutions deliberately obscured the real history of the Craft, causing consternation among scholars who could not make sense of historical documents that proved the lodge existed at least a century before. One document showed that the first American lodge was created in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1658, when 15 Jewish families migrated from Holland. That and the colonization of the Massachusetts Bay Colony by English Judaizers would ensure America became the "new Jewish wonder world'' in the 20th Century. Protestant revolution in England would be fulfilled in socialist revolution in Russia four centuries later. That revolution found supporters in America, most of whom were Jews. And the children of disaffected Trotskeyites would forge yet another vehicle for Revolution by appropriating America as the messianic anti-Communist nation. But the trajectory set in motion by Judaizing Protestants would find its fulfillment in Cabalistic Freemasonry before it would find it in Jewish Socialism, described by an American Jew as "the most glorious page in the story of the Jewish people since the destruction of the Second Temple at the hands of Titus.''


What would a Catholic culture resemble in the United States? Something wonderful that no conservative of our generation can imagine, and something no Leftist could fathom.

What would a culture of pan-Judaism resemble? We've already got it. We are the frog that is already boiling in a pan of water.

And what does this Jewish colony have to offer us in the future? Consider the testimony of Eustace Mullins, who tells us about the horrors experienced by Russian Christians at the hands of Jewish/Bolshevik overlords:
There are too many well documented massacres in history in which the Jews tortured and murdered their victims with the greatest glee, gloating in such barbaric practices as tearing out the hearts of women and children and smearing the blood on their faces.
The orgy of murder, torture and pillage which followed the Jewish triumph in Russia [after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917] has never been equaled in the history of the world. The Jews were free to indulge their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims.
Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain.
Others were placed in boxes…then hungry rats placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion.
Others were chained to the floor and hot lead poured into their mouths. Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while the mob attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death.
Mothers were taken to the public square and their babies snatched from their arms….the baby [was] tossed into the air while another member of the mob rushed to catch it on the tip of his bayonet.
Pregnant Christian women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies.
American tolerance for non-Zionists will only last so long. Currently, most Catholics in the United States are sitting comfortably unaware that there is already a war against them. As a result, they will be defeated in a battle they never engaged in. Read more about our pan-Judaic culture here.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Catholics Failed in America Part 1: Maryland

There are many reasons that Catholicism has remained mostly politically insignificant in the United States.  If I could boil it down to three reasons, it would be because on the important levels, Catholics have lacked spine, force, and conviction.

Today, we will examine what went wrong with Maryland.  

* * * 

When the colonies were first coming into existence under the British Crown in the 1600s, it was not just the Judaized Puritans who crossed the Atlantic.  There were also a significant number of English Catholics coming to the New World in hopes of escaping persecution from the Anglicans.  Unfortunately, when the English Catholics got here, they discovered that the colonies were filled with Puritans who despised Catholicism even more than the Anglicans despised it.  The Puritans hated Catholicism so much, that they despised seeing even the traces of Catholicism in their Anglican cousins--which is why the Puritans came here in the first place.  They wanted to be isolated from all forms of Catholicism, even Anglicanism.  Like the Jews who held a tribal sense of temporal destiny, so too would the Puritans come to the New World in hopes of building their City on a Hill.  

George Calvert, properly known as Lord Baltimore, had the idea of establishing a New World refuge for the fiercely persecuted Catholic Englishmen, and so Maryland would be the place where they could practice the Faith freely without fear of being arrested.  

George Calvert
The First Lord Baltimore
This is the same Lord Baltimore that my own family had worked with in the initial establishment of Maryland.  

So, why is there no Catholic paradise in Maryland today?  What was the problem for Maryland from the outset?  A lack of spine, force, and conviction.

Lord Baltimore was a convert from Protestantism.  As such, he had the bright idea of giving non-Catholics the same freedom in his colony.  But even this concession to the Protestants drew heavy protest form the Puritan government of Virginia.  

Lord Baltimore was timid with the Faith.  How was Catholicism to find a refuge, when one of the first orders was that "all Acts of the Roman Catholic Religion...be done as privately as may be"?  

To make matters worse, Lord Baltimore did not establish the Catholic Church as Maryland's religion.  The other Puritan colonies were all too happy to put Puritanical laws on the books that would penalize Catholics.  However, Lord Baltimore feared any resemblance to his hateful neighbors.  
Instead, Lord Baltimore demonstrated his weakness and granted the Protestants equality.  

While it may be true that cousin Captain Thomas Cornwallis was able to vigorously blow a broadside into the hull of the Cockatrice, such defense of Maryland was isolated.  Perhaps the force of arms was not a priority for Maryland's leaders.  As a result, this lack of forcefulness resulted in the pirate Richard Ingle and his Puritan friend William Claiborne taking over Maryland's government for a year in 1642.  It was an atrocious humiliation.  

(As an aside, the Cockatrice was actually one of Claiborne's ships, sent out to attack Maryland ships.  Cousin Tom captained the St. Helen and the St. Margaret in the naval battle, which took place off of Pocomoke Sound.)

Where leaders failed, the people prevailed, driving out the two usurpers, and giving Parliament back over to the Catholics.

However, Maryland's status as a Catholic refuge would not last.  As Charles Coulombe explains in his book, Puritan's Empire:
Maryland was, of course, a different case.  Like his father and grandfather, the third Lord Baltimore, Charles Calvert, allowed Protestants to freely settle in Maryland and enjoy full civil rights.  By 1689, they were a majority of the population.  A group of the more wealthy and influential formed, when the news from London arrived, the Protestant Association.  On July 27, the Association seized the capital at St. Mary's City.  In 1690, King William officially took control of the colony, and voided the rights of the Catholic proprietor.  The Assembly made it illegal for Catholics to hold office in Maryland.  
The Catholics of Maryland foolishly put everyone on equal footing.  They tried to practice pluralism.  And by allowing in outsiders, they lost everything.  Maryland became co-opted by the Protestants.  They failed to kick out heretics and impose negative sanctions against the Puritans.  They missed their chance.  The opportunity was there, and they failed to take it.

The Catholic leadership was dull and dim-witted, while the Protestant Association was deliberately focusing on the capture of the Maryland government.  The Puritans were fully prepared for a bureacratic long-game, as the Catholics instead rested on their laurels and enjoyed a false peace.  In reality, the surrounding Protestant hordes were fully prepared to overtake them, and they were at war with the Maryland Catholics--even though the Catholics never knew they were in a political and cultural war in the first place.  

Insult was later piled on top of the Catholic Marylanders' grievous mistake:
1704 saw a political victory for the Protestants in Maryland as great as Moore's in Florida was for Carolina.  In that year the Assembly passed the Act to Prevent The Growth of Popery.  This prohibited Catholic worship and forbade priests to make converts or baptize any but children of Catholic parents.  The wealthier Catholics of the colony petitioned for a temporary reprieve from the first clause in respect to private homes; in an extraordinary move, Queen Anne intervened to make the exception permanent.  Because of this, Catholic Maryland survived.  
It survived in tatters, never becoming what it was supposed to be.  While the Catholics of Maryland were fully prepared to be merciful, be tolerant, embrace pluralism, and pretend there was unity, in reality their enemies stood next to them the entire time holding concealed knives behind their backs.

The Catholic Marylanders wanted to "not be like those guys."  They wanted to not be the same bigots they tried to flee from in England.  But ultimately, they proved to be sell outs.  The Protestant Assembly consolidated their power and were all-too-happy to kick out all who might oppose them.  The Puritans of Maryland had the balls to win a war, while the Catholics were completely lacking.  The latter were completely unprepared to respond to the challenges of their surrounding and internal enemies.

If I could make an analogy of what happened in Maryland it would be of a silly man going to the beach to build a sandcastle, but the beach is filled with his enemies, and they come to kick over his sandcastle.  Lord Baltimore and his followers were filled with ideology and utopian thoughts, lacking any understanding in bureaucratic warfare.  The idea of Maryland was a defensive posture, and there was nothing offensive or aggressive to protect it.

The Catholic failure of Maryland is but a mere microcosm for so many other Catholic failures, such as the eventual co-opting of the Church by liberals and Freemasons.  Yet such co-opting techniques of dissidents, liberals, and rebels goes beyond the Catholic Church to corporations, your job, and even your Protestant church, if you go to one.    

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

The Condition of Alt-Right Christians In America: Race Issues

Murderous Know-Nothings
How have Christians held up under the influence of the most extreme branch of the Alternative Right?

In America, Christians are not living in a country run like a Christian nation founded on Christian principles.  Instead, America is founded upon The Enlightenment, which is inherently opposed to Christian principles.  And so, for a Christian to balance himself between the true vision of Christianity and the welfare of his secular godless nation-state is a difficult task.

In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, Lady Galadriel says: "The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all."  Such is true today for Christian American citizens who engage themselves in Alt-Right circles.   How far with this brand of the Dissident Right do we go?  Do we worship tribalism and bloodlines?  Or can't we simply acknowledge it and respect it?  And how far with a utopian Christian worldview do we go?  Do we stop paying our taxes, never vote, disengage from politics and hope for a Catholic monarch to spontaneously arise?  Or can't we simply vote for the best choices given to us, and work to encourage society to shift its paradigm one day?

Prominent voices who claim to be Christian will say that their cause is for truth, Christianity, and Western Civilization.  Yet, what brand--what denomination of Christianity--shall we follow?  Whose truth is the right one?  And do these people even have a grasp of what Western Civilization is?

The same voices might claim that Hitler and Marx are a part of the Western Civilization.  So am I wrong to conclude that Hitler and Marx were actually tearing down Western Civilization?

Alt-Right Christians Seduced Into Ethnonationalism

Peter Beinart wrote in The Atlantic that the culture war over religious morality has faded, and in its place is something much worse:
For decades, liberals have called the Christian right intolerant. When conservatives disengage from organized religion, however, they don’t become more tolerant. They become intolerant in different ways. …
Whatever the reason, when cultural conservatives disengage from organized religion, they tend to redraw the boundaries of identity, de-emphasizing morality and religion and emphasizing race and nation. Trump is both a beneficiary and a driver of that shift.
So is the alt-right.
This is quite true.  I would take it further, and I would state that those who disengage from The Only True Religion--the ultimate and actual Universal Church, ("Universal" being English for the word Catholic)--such people have truly become post-Christian.

And so, it is easy for these guys to literally worship race in policy and practice.  They've thrown out some of the most primary messages of the Gospel, and instead choose to behave like Pharisees and Sadducees, aggrieved at Jesus Christ's threat of Universalism, in the face of their Semitic tribalism.

There is nothing wrong with borders, language, and culture.  These three qualities should be upheld in every nation in order for that nation to be successful.  But when figureheads come along and proclaim that "America is not a nation of immigrants, it's not a melting pot," such people are quite wrong.  America, to its peril, has been a nation of immigrants for over a century--to say nothing of the blacks it imported or the Jews it allowed in New York harbor in throughout the 17th Century.  Have we forgotten about Chinese railroad workers?

Like it or not, the reality is that America is a mess.  It is a very big mess.  America is definitely not a melting pot, but it'll have to become a melting pot in order to survive as a nation.  Arguing a Know-Nothing-styled gospel of American purity is as naive as thinking that the tribes will resettle into their designated corners of the globe, just as it was after the fall of the Tower of Babel.

Last month in an Alt-Right Christian Facebook group I'm in, someone asked: "What are all your opinions on interracial relationships and what makes it better to stay within your race group?"

This question was asked in a group of people who claimed Christianity.  Various people chimed in and discussed how "if it's not white, it's not right," that interracial relationships are a sin, that you dishonor your ancestors to race mix, that the Jews push for the dilution of the white race (which is actually true, though the subject's a touch more complicated).  (I'll post my thread-killing response at the end of this post.*)

I have quoted him before, I will quote him again.  Pope Pius XI said:
"Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds."
The Dissident Alternative Right divinizes tribalism over the fundamental value of human beings.

Davis Aurini takes it a step further and accuses the Alt-Right of summoning an actual demon every time they praise Kek.  And how can I possibly fault Aurini for thinking this?  The Alt-Right has become drunk with self-righteousness, throwing out all dialectic and embracing mostly rhetoric--for now, everyone who does not think like they do are an outsider.

Dissident Right Christians Forgetting What Happened With Christ

The Old Testament takes place in a world of tribes.  There were three tribes that split from Noah, and beyond that, more tribes that split apart after the Fall of the Tower of Babel.  There were tribes who became cursed, and there were tribes who were saved from the brink of destruction and grew into powerful nations.  God the Father chose the Hebrews to be His particular tribe, troubled and fickled as it was.

However, this is Holy Week, so let's reflect on what happened in the Gospel.

When Jesus Christ came, He came for the Jews and the Gentiles.  With His coming, and through the Holy Spirit's use of the Roman Empire, the idea of Universalism was injected into the world.  The idea of finding a commonality with all men became an idea, and we can see how this worked out when we reflect how Catholic Spain and France tried to regard the Native Americans as human beings with dignity, and subjects under the throne.  Even the Kings of England before the American Revolution, who still held some sentiment towards the Universal Religion, treated the Natives with dignity.

This respect the Catholics gave the Native Americans infuriated the non-Universal, post-Christian Puritans.  This latter group was all too happy to slaughter Indian converts as they burned down the century-old missions that were built by Catholic missionaries.

Let us also not forget that, again, the Sadducees and Pharisees wanted to maintain a tribal temporal power, and when they saw that Jesus Christ was not in that game--that He wanted to transcend such matters--they became as infuriated as the Puritan colonists and the Know-Nothings.  

The New Testament is not about tribalism.  The New Testament is about going beyond tribalism.

All that being said, I stress again that a nation deserves its own borders, language, and culture.  Furthermore, there should not be a plurality of cultures.  The culture should be Catholic.  Identity > culture > politics.  Our our identity should therefore be Catholic.  Also, in the face of today's anti-white racism, whites should be allowed to secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.  Miscegenation, while not a sin, should not be pushed upon them.  If there were a Catholic king ruling this continent, then I've already stated what he should do.


Standing on the edge of this knife--courting the Alt-Right while maintaining one's own Christianity--is a difficult thing to achieve.  It is becoming less common in the Alt-Right circles I travel.  I'm seeing Christians behave more like post-Christians.  Though they claim that American culture is a white and Protestant culture, this is no longer the case.  This country's culture is now mixed and agnostic.

Christianity is universal.  If America is to truly be Christian,
then Americans have to grasp some form of universality.

* My thread-killing reply in that earlier-mentioned Facebook thread:

It is true that there is a push by globalists--Jews in particular--to mix the races in the West and displace white men. That is without question. Why wouldn't Jews play the race game, when they are so heartily invested in it?

That being said, with the Universal Christian religion, a man and a woman are able to transcend racial differences just fine. The problem is: will society accept that, and will society accept their children? In America, the answer is "yes," as we've been force-fed a shit sandwich for quite a while, and there's no going back. However, there's a rising tide of ethnonationalism in America, and it will not go away, so the pendulum will swing in a different direction soon.

One more thing. Recall the marriage between Moses and Zipporah. She was from the tribe of Cush, meaning she was black. When Moses' sister, Miriam, complained about Moses' marriage, God struck Miriam with leprosy, so that she was white as a ghost. Sort of an act of ridicule for her disdain of her Hammite sister-in-law.

Objectively and universally, there's nothing wrong with interracial marriage and children. But society simply cannot handle it. Men prefer to unite because of their race, not their religion. And since everyone's faith is weak, we will have a race war, or an on-going 4th Generation war between groups in an ever-balkanizing United States. And also--this is important--the entire world has been set against all white men. So that's nice.

A damned shame people can't overcome this shit. But oh well. Most people are idiots.

It is just and good for the whites to fight to preserve themselves, when clearly the political oligarchs and the elite are against us in such a way. However, Christian men need to draw a line in places where the non-Christian Alt-Right refuse to.