Featured Post

The "Rights of Englishmen" Series

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

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Obsessing Over Englishmen, Brawling With Anti-Monarchists

We return to 250-year old arguments.

This post serves a dual purpose.

1. It's sort of a public reminder note for me which obligates me in front of you all to return to these public arguments.

2. It alerts you good people of the dust up that's going on.  I like a crowd, after all.


"Rights of Englishmen" Obsession

Vox Day is once more bringing up the Rights of Englishmen, which I have addressed in detail here:

The "Rights of Englishmen" Series

Vox Day's post, The Magna Carta and Posterity, is his attempt at ramming home his mistaken perennial point that only English people descended from England are capable of cherishing and perpetuating the rights that stem from the Magna Carta.  Never mind the fact that the Englishmen who became the first Americans argued, fought, bled, killed, and died for the idea that these self-evident rights were actually universal.  John Adams said we are to be "a government of laws, not men."

I have entered the comments box for some salty discourse.  We shall see what happens in the fullness of time.

Meanwhile...


Catholic Convert Writer Argues Against Monarchy

Back in 2014, an article was circulating that discussed the Dark Enlightenment--which, as we now know, would later morph into or fall under the designation "Intellectual Alternative Right."
"The Dark Enlightenment is an ideological analysis of modern democracy that harshly rejects the vision of the 18th century European Enlightenment—a period punctuated by the development of empirical science, the rise of humanist values and the first outburst of revolutionary democratic reform. In contrast, the Dark Enlightenment advocates an autocratic and neo-monarchical society. Its belief system is unapologetically reactionary, almost feudal."
Unapologetic indeed. 

So, as you know, I'm a big fan of promoting a Catholic Monarchy.  The order that a traditional Catholic Monarch offers is quite substantial, once we stop to consider how insane this latest era of republics has become.  

The Kingdom of Católica America Series

That being said, it is easy for me to forget that the path that led me to the conclusion for Catholic monarchy took some time and convincing.  I was not fully on board with the idea at first.  I never even considered it.  The path that led me to this place took time in much the same manner that it took time to accept the legitimacy of the SSPX.  

Yet, I could not help but be surprised when I read that the thoughtful and brilliant fiction writer, John C. Wright, appeared vehemently opposed to our growing movement of Catholic Monarchists, in his recent post: Unanswered Equality Challenge.  But, to give him some leeway, it is likely that he has not given monarchy the benefit of the doubt.  It is likely he has not read any arguments for that form of government with an open mind.  

So, for my own personal intellectual growth and amusement, I shall accept his challenges.  In the near future, I will examine his statements and arguments against Catholic monarchy.  My expectation is that my stance will be bolstered and axioms added for this noble cause.  

  

4 comments:

  1. I am not involved with the so-called "Alt-Right", and as a European I do not know all that much about it. But from what I have read about it, of their own words, it is simply a spiritual descendant of 19th century democratic nationalism, which sprung directly from the revolutionary Obscuration of 1789. It also champions the 19th century Darwinism among its principles. As such, it is incompatible with the traditional principles of authority, and of national and racial identity, as presented in the teachings of the Catholic Church, which the ancien régime incarnated in society.

    I am a proponent of restoring traditional Catholic monarchy and feudality, but here in Europe it would require a nascent new noblesse, because of the widespread corruption among the old noble and royal houses. For as far as I know, the best nobles nowadays seem to be found in the House of Bourbon-Parme. The northern houses are very, very corrupt, which is most likely why the maçonnerie permits them to reign, while Louis XX de France and Pierre de Bourbon-Siciles remain exiled.

    The mediaeval principles of governing, when applied correctly, actually forged very intimate bonds between the rulers and their subjects, while democracy only pretends to grant happiness to peoples as it abandons them to their own incompetence in the name of a chimerical 'sovereignty of the people' which keeps them in a state of perpetual destabilisation to keep them enslaved to the oligarchies of Juda.

    'Big finance' must be replaced with true economy in the form of Christian guild systems and localised cycles of production and consumption, to enhance a return to more natural life and to avoid exploitation by internationalist oligarchs, whose shadow-imperium relies on mass ex- and import among nations. A true economy in accord with nature and the reality of the country (and thus not at the service of Jewish bankers) must consist of a totality of small cells of agriculture and artisanship. Circulations of goods, most importantly in the case of agriculture, must remain as much as possible within the sphere of the smaller communities where they are produced, which are the cells that make up the greater society of a nation. If these smaller cells will be healthy, the greater whole will be as well.

    The kings and the nobles must be close to the people over whom they reign, but without pretending to be subject to them for the sake of an imaginary and impossible 'popular sovereignty'. Catholic faith and charity must make the scepter of the prince loved and cherished by his subjects. Therein lies the secret of the happiness and wellbeing of nations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to sign my comment (Anonymous - July 9, 2017 at 2:49 PM). Apologies.


      Benjamin Van Dyck.

      Delete
  2. The so-called Enlightened opposition will, like Jefferson, point sardonically to "angels in the form of kings" and to "let history answer this question" about their authority to rule.

    This failure of individual monarchs, or even series in lines of monarchs, is a direct result of the wickedness of the land from peasant, to journeyman, to noble. St. Louis IX would be Divine reward for pious Catholic lands, those who worked their Faith like modern man now worships cash.

    Now the opponents will argue from the unjustifiable assumption that the Blessed Trinity is either non-existent or irrelevant. Then, like Jefferson, they will point to the defective monarchy as the reason against monarchy in general.

    If such arguments are presented, their flaws can be made manifest with some simple analogies.

    Automotive:
    Toyota Motors' products killed their owners through uncontrolled acceleration, and rammed others into walls.
    Applying the Enlightened opponents' logic on monarchy would have us ban not only cars, but driving altogether. -Why not just identify the cause of failed monarchy and fix THAT?


    Free trade initiatives have permitted for imported products like toothpaste with anti-freeze ingredients, and toys with lead paint. Again, the Revolutionary Enlightenment would, by just and logical analogy, ban dental hygiene and childhood playtime, rather than identify and eliminate the efficient cause of the problem in question.

    Of course the problem of the bad monarch is rooted in that particular people that loses its savor to Almighty God. The fix is ashes and sackcloth, from Royal throne room right down to rustic hut. But the Alt-Right-Revolutionaries will not tolerate the premise that God has supreme rights over man, which is why Restorationists must insist on its philosophical and ontological validity.

    Philosophy and ontology are on our side, giving us the one and only logical foundation. Permit no revolutionary, or internet Voltaire to submit any argument without laying out and proving superior its philosophical and ontological foundation. Pander not to the Enlightenment's rigged roulette table for public argumentation. If God has no rights, let them prove it, but permit no assumption therefrom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think many on the Alt-Right are just trying to go back to a simpler era in history.
    Whether it actually existed or not isn't important to them.
    Its an idea rather than a factual accurate portrayal of history.
    I'm not agreeing with them rather just letting people in comment section understand where they're coming from.
    I generally agree with you assessment Laramie.

    ReplyDelete