Financial Reform and the American Higher Education System

Capitalism and College Shouldn't Mix

Collège Saint-Michel in Fribourg, Switzerland. It was established in 1582 by St. Peter Canisius.

I write this today for two reasons: because I myself  am struggling in College Math (kill me if you would be so kind) and I am afraid it might hamper my progress, and it's also something I've always felt very strongly about.

The coat of arms of Pope Leo XIII.

I'm as critical of capitalism as I am of communism, and I have good reasons for this. The Church has always been very critical of both; while either one can have its merits, they both have glaring problems the least of which are that they have little to no basis in tradition but instead they are Revolutionary Ideologies that threatened the good order of society and have not only destabilized Christendom but thrown innumerable secular orders into chaos. How any countries can cling to them is beyond me, particularly any country that professes Catholicism.

The Imperium, in union with the Catholic Church, professes Distributism, Integralism, and Corporatism. They neither strangulate the free market or throw it absolutely to the rule of Robber-Barons who make wage-slaves of man, woman, and child. These philosophies neither deny the necessity of putting the community first or tear down the social order and seize wealth for forceful redistribution to the lower classes like casting pearls before swine.

G. K. Chesterton, by E. H. Mills, 1909.

Catholic Economic Philosophy creates a well-ordered system based on tradition that before Adam Smith or Karl Marx's family lines even existed were running empires and creating well-ordered societies. The free market thrived but the rule of order was not given over to a Merchant Oligarchy in which even the State was forced to do homage to businessmen with no loyalties to any but themselves and no heart for anything but profit. The ruling class had a stake in the economic welfare of not just the nation but their neighbors and the world; if they did poorly, their nation did poorly. Rather famously the famine-stricken people of France during the Perfidious Revolution were shocked to discover upon plundering Versailles that there was no food to be found anywhere in the royal palace therein. The French State was as poor as the People of France; what opulence they had amounted to inheritance and imports which they were only barely affording. In the Old Order, not just divine motivations and national loyalty mixed with responsibility kept economic injustice at bay, but also lower decentralized feudalities with substantial clout in the system and a deep care for their lands and subjects - their welfare was the lord's welfare - who would not be cow-towed by the sovereign unjustly - and had no obligation to allow themselves to be treated as such - maintained the wealth of the realm. I have not even mentioned the Church, which was the suzerain moral check for the rulers of Christendom.

Banque de France, Paris, France.

The other noteworthy difference about Pre-Capitalist Europe was the role of the Church in economics; monasteries and clerical feudal states were largely untaxed and therefore unrestricted in their business ventures. This created an important niche in the economy for wealthy landowners to operate without restriction; however, vows of poverty among religious orders and the ever watchful eye of the Inquisition almost as if through a divine "invisible hand" kept things in check. Not to mention the religious mandate to give alms, these days lost on the Church as to its full scope and meaning. Almighty God has always provided for the poor of society, going back to the Old Testament, when farmers were ordered to leave a tenth - specifically the borders - of their fields unharvested for the hungry and poor. In business ledgers in the Catholic Netherlands, it can be seen that a tenth of all the earnings are designated "Te Deum," in our English, "To God." These were donated to the poor through Church-run charity efforts. Adam Smith in his Proto-Darwinist economic view saw these institutions as a hindrance to his view of a Capitalist society, encouraging people not to work and instead rely on charity.

St. Nicholas giving alms to the poor and needy of his diocese.

However this doesn't seem to have been the case. There was no pervasive "Welfare State" in Christendom, as many proponents of Capitalism declare with religious repetition would occur. Because in the economic model Catholicism proposes, advocates, and thrived under, every man held his own resources. Men were expected to not only be self-sufficient but use that self-sufficiency to give back to the community. In this way was economic freedom was maintained without sacrificing personal freedom.

What has replaced this system? Either Crony Capitalism which naturally without any restraint leads to the oppression by the people at the hands of the elite few, or Hellish Communism which leads to the oppression of the people at the hands of the elite few. One does so in the name of liberty for all, as does the other. I once heard it said that if one goes far enough Left one finds himself on the Right; if nothing else illustrated this, the economic systems either side proposes does.

The Miracle on the Vistula.

Communism has been critiqued to death; we live in the aftermath of its defeat in the personification of the USSR. But Capitalism has largely gone un-critiqued, and considering the insults its founding philosopher lobbed at charitable Christians I think that's just not fair. I think our own Higher Education system illustrates this better than anything else.

Statue of John Carroll in front of Healy Hall on the campus of Georgetown University.

I suppose this is the part where the article becomes a bit more personal; let me preface by saying I am grateful for the opportunities afforded to me by even attending university in the first place. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to just ignore glaring problems with the system I see. I respectfully have some qualms and misgivings about how things are done, and that's my right as a law-abiding, loyal, patriotic American citizen.

My misgivings generally start with not exactly the price of admission or anything like that. More specifically it has to do with how pricing is done and with a certain facet of how one must obtain their degree. You see, to obtain any College Degree, the State - and most others - mandate you take and pass certain courses for your hours. I myself am a History Major. The problem is while I'm pretty much in the top range of the state for History and English/Writing, my Math scores have always lagged behind. In fact if I wasn't at the top of my game for History and English/Writing and my scores hadn't reflected this, I might've not gotten into the University I'm in now (mind you, I'm a history major, and I intend to spend the better part of my life teaching history in some form or another and/or writing about it).

Miniature of St Matthew in the Carolingian gospels presented by Æthelstan to Christ Church Priory, Canterbury.jpg

That alone to me sends up red flags; why keep someone from pursuing a history major when they're clearly competent in the field over something absolutely unrelated? Do people who go to Technical Schools get flack because they're poor writers? No offense intended to the Working Man, but I'm trying to make a point here. Even now my math scores are a point of contention; I'm passing, but not with flying colors. I'll get my hours, but it's going to be difficult. To me it's a difficulty I shouldn't have to undergo in the first place.

We've all heard the argument, "you need to be well rounded!" I even had a fellow History Major tell me once that they want everyone to be a, "Renaissance Man" and versed in all subjects. I said, "Well that's great and all, but those guys were like the 1% intellectually as it was. Even then education wasn't the same as it is now for a scholar. Why are we trying to make people who know what they're doing and where they're going in life suffer over an unnecessary standard?"

The death of Leonardo Da Vinci by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres.

Here's the other thing: Leonardo DaVinci was already a genius and enjoyed what he did; he became who he was because he wanted to be that person. Why make people who don't want to be that, be that, of all things? People have gotten along fine without any of that knowledge and ability; why waste the effort?

St. Thomas Aquinas

But then I started thinking; hang on, Higher Education is run like a business. I've seen it myself in action. It's that way because it is a business. It's about making money off of a market that's not going to go away. Students need Colleges, and Colleges need Students, but only the former can exploit the latter. It's like an abusive marriage where neither party leaves because their spouses have something they still need/want and/or can't live without. It works, but it's not healthy for either party, and there's a better system.

If I may be a bit Tinfoil Hat for a moment, it essentially boils down to this: you can't really get kicked out of college except for a select few offenses. Even if you're outright failing, you've still got time before they utterly lose patience with you and expel you. If you can pay, you can make stay.

It was at that moment I had an epiphany concerning the college system at present: it's not about higher education, it's about exploiting the current job market and hiring climate to get as much money out of people as possible. I mean in the process (sometimes) good things happen, but it's an exploitative system and doesn't have to be this way. So what do I propose in its place?

I propose we return education to the purview of the Church. It would flourish best under the old system in which the Church's economic ventures were largely untaxed. The Church has a true magnanimous stake in education to form moral individuals and good Catholics. For those not of a Catholic persuasion, it could at least serve as an introduction to the Faith different from the biased on they might have received. Run by religious and lay employees, the motive of personal profit is pretty much nixed. Certain expenses for students would be unavoidable, but nothing beyond maintaining the university would be necessary. The only ambitions guiding the institution would be the ambition of obtaining, collecting, and disseminating more knowledge.

It would assure standardized education as well. Who better to reform our broken and greedy higher education system than its forefathers who founded the very concept of the university and the college and who ran them prior to their present secular incarnation?

This is just one example of how amok Capitalism has ruined and tainted certain aspects of our society, and how a return to the former system would fix present day problems - or at least a few of them.

I strongly encourage all of you - Imperialist and non - to learn the economic philosophies of the Catholic Church, and to think of ways in which they could improve our own society.

Patronage of Saint Joseph, c. 1737, Painted by Gaspar Miguel de Berrío, at the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Chile.

Race Advocacy Needs to Stop

The Old Wisdom That Carried Us Out of the West Must Return

Inscription at Krak des Chevalires which says, 'Grace, wisdom and beauty you may enjoy, but beware pride which alone can tarnish all the rest.'

Introduction with Context

I consider myself like Lincoln in that when a certain question vexes me, I cannot release it until I have absolutely put it to bed. This question of late for me has been a subject I've termed, "Racial Politics." I've written on it repeatedly because it is a topic I have been forced to deal with endlessly, as many of us have. I consider myself a shepherd of sorts and responsible for those of you who follow the Imperium. I don't want to lead us astray or down any course that leads to failure or evil. So I feel the need often to speak my mind. The greatest weakness of "Traditionalism" is a lack of cohesion; my principle goal with the NSIR was to give Catholic Traditionalism that focus and direction it needs to be effective. In a base sort of way, we all know what we want: the restoration of Christendom for the assistance of the salvation of souls by the Church, and an environment in which that mission is best carried out. That is to say, a truly and authentically Catholic civilization. The trouble is, how do you define that? Many have asked me for defining literature on the subject, and I have been powerless to provide any. While there is a wealth of resources from which our platform is drawn, it is all very scattered. Hence why I am continuing to work on the Imperial Manifesto that will outline our platform in a concrete way. Maybe this will be the last time I discuss this on my blog for a while; I feel like it ought to be. I don't know how much clearer I can be on the subject.

"The Peacemakers."

Essay

I’ve written repeatedly on race relations over the past few days. If there’s one thing I don’t like in any sort of politics, its redundancy. Redundancy generally points to a lack of progress; the same ground being retreaded over and over again without any clear resolution in sight. Deadlock and uncompromised have become so routine in Republican and Democratic nations that we may wonder how it has ever been any other way. Believe it or not, “Enlightened” people of the Modern World, there was a time when political ambitions tended to a logical end. When ideology went around what was best for the State and not simply the individual – who benefits when the State benefits and hurts when the State hurts regardless of what kind of state rules him – and positions that did not benefit the whole quickly became discarded.

  

Tsar Shuisky and his Brothers before the King Sigismund III in the Senate Chamber at the Royal Castle in Warsaw.

           

It has come to such a point that the Parties manipulate the electorate based on these divisions. They control trade, information, media, etc. and with a flick of their wrists they can make us throw ourselves upon one another in rage or segregate ourselves from one another in indignation. We are like Pavlov’s dogs, salivating on command when the thing we are drooling over is not even a reality. Local incidents of violence and injustice that smaller judiciaries could otherwise be trusted to handle are thrown upon the mob like kindling to the fire. We are shown the “reality” of an America that is racially divided and boiling over with hatred. Worse yet we are giving the problem absolute hues of black and white in more ways than one.

 

The Duke of Guise during the Day of the Barricades, by Paul Lehugeur, 19th century.

            

Democrats and Republicans are either willingly choosing sides or being forced to take on or the other based on the realities of the electorate. Liberal and Conservative are becoming synonymous with “Person of Color and Poor” and “White and Wealthy.” This is dangerous beyond words and should throw up red flags to anyone with a knowledge of history. But alas I feel like John the Baptist, the lone voice crying out in the midst of two great armies. Like Gandalf between the Dwarves, Men, and Elves I desperately warn those involved in a petty squabble over their impending doom at the hands of a much larger and mutual adversary.

 

Gandalf the Grey - John Howe.

           

I recently took it upon myself to learn about Black Supremacy. I am so used to dealing with White Supremacy I almost forget the other exists. In our society it’s remarkably easy to find, either because White Supremacists are open about their beliefs as it is or a lynch mob has already formed around them calling for their deaths. What’s gone almost completely ignored due to our strident disdain for one is that “African Americans” have their own rampant version of this.

House of the Blackheads.

I perused tumblrs, blogs, facebooks, along with historical primary sources from figures in the philosophy of “Black Power,” everything you can imagine. What I found was almost the same rhetoric used by White Supremacists, save the Black Supremacists argue from a very different position or speak as though they do. I tried to imagine White Supremacists saying the same thing as Black Supremacists (not hard, seeing they already do).

“Worry about your own people’s future and don’t integrate.”

“You can’t trust the government.”

“The time for uprising is now.”

“We need communities of our own race.”

“The system is rigged against us.”

“We need to arm ourselves and prepare for war.”

“We need to get them before they get us.”

“Race-mixing is betraying your heritage; those who do so are traitors.”

 Do you doubt me? I ask that you look for yourself. See what they and others say on the subject. What you will see are two groups of people on a crash course for conflict; once minorities, the present political climate has thrown them to the forefront once again. Since Barack Obama’s presidency began in 2008 there has been a huge spike in the growth of Race Advocacy groups. Whether or not a racially divided America that could be manipulated by the Democrats was intentional or not I cannot say, but regardless it is happening. I theorize that all it will take to push America over the brink is a staunchly Conservative, White Republican Strongman for President who repeals forcefully the acts of his predecessors.

St. Canute IV; Martyr and King of Denmark, date of birth uncertain; died 10 July 1086, the third of the thirteen natural sons of Sweyn II surnamed Estridsen.

Would the “Democratic” system make this fair game? If it’s how the Democrats did it, it’s how the Republicans are allowed to do it. No, it does not make it fair, because any system where the majority with force of law oppresses a minority is unjust. Justice is blind and cannot see the Black Man and the White Man. The fact is that trust in the Republic has eroded beyond all repair; what has kept the United States alive is the faith of its people in their form of government. The gentleman’s way has long since passed out of the hearts and minds of the American people and has been replaced by the idea that we must do literally anything in the pursuit of the right thing, ignoring the fact that even the most just goal can be tainted with the methods used to achieve it. We are getting very close to the violent deposition of legitimate authority; history tells us that once this threshold is crossed there is no going back. Once you have removed the sanctity of government it becomes up for grabs. What Liberals might take by force from Conservatives, the Conservatives can now also take back my force. If you want to ask how legitimacy born through the barrel of a gun works out for a nation, you can ask the Africans and the Asians.

 

Our Lady of Africa.

The fact is Racial Advocacy groups must be demolished in their entirety within the United States of America. For the good of national stability we must redefine what makes America and go to a Roman model of citizenship, under which one’s status as an American supersedes everything else. In such a system all Americans are entitled in law to the same benefits and treatment; under such rule all Americans also have the same duties to the State. Not just equality but justice should reign in America. Our Pledge of Allegiance reads, “With Liberty and Justice for All.” True equality is only found in just treatment; to do otherwise is to put the card before the horse. We must not only destroy Race Politics, we must make them invalid.

Painted by William Ranney in 1845, this depiction of the Battle of Cowpens shows an unnamed black soldier (left) firing his pistol and saving the life of Colonel William Washington (on white horse in center).

One is tempted to think that perhaps this will lead via Social Darwinism to the eventual domination of one race regardless. I question how that is possible if race is nothing more than a descriptor, and all are considered equally American. It is highly more likely that under the current system where both sides want the same thing (supposedly) and one side is endlessly suppressed while the other is applauded or benignly neglected (the reality) that we shall see the ultimate dominance of one group over the other via the iron boot of one pressing down upon the neck of the other in a quest to ensure that “Never Again” is one group oppressed by another in one of the cruelest and unjust acts of irony we may ever see in human history.

The Natives of Cumaná attack the mission after Gonzalez de Ocampo's slaving raid. Colored copperplate by Theodor de Bry, published in the Relación brevissima.

Humans naturally buck against tyranny. The Bolshevik Revolution was overwhelmingly Jewish, and this has been used by Anti-Semites as a means of fueling their canards about the Hebrew quest for a One World Jewish Order. The facts are much less complicated; the Jews were persecuted by the Romanovs via pogroms which they themselves enacted or ignored and allowed to happen without repercussion. If the Portuguese, French, English, Spanish, Polish, and German Medieval Monarchs had ignored Rome’s Sicut Judaeris and allowed violent persecution of the Jews to go unpunished, something similar might of happened (it did for the Visigoths, I should mention). There are numerous examples of this happening all across history which do not involve Jews. It’s not a whether or not a minority persecuted due to their race or religious creed will occur: it’s when and if they will succeed. Let’s assume for a moment that the Anti-Semites and their doctrine cancerously spread to and claimed the entire world; it is then that a true Jewish Empire would emerge, and hilariously enough it would be because the world believed one already existed in the first place.

Saint Gregory the Great.

The Romans – who every nation on Earth in the West claims to be the inheritors of – understood this. They did not persecute based on race; however, if a racial minority collectively rose against Rome (as the Jews did in Judea, or the Germanic Tribes did under the Suebi, or the Gauls did under Vercingetorix, or the Britons did under Boudica) they were not afraid to attack the source of the problem and pull it up root and stem. By doing so they avoided racial prejudices until the Late Empire when it was in its decline and being overtaken by the Barbarians and all sense of imperial unity was eroding.

 

Vercingetorix Throws Down His Arms at the Feet of Julius Caesar, 1899, by Lionel Noel Royer.

Caesar would never have tolerated racial division in his imperium, nor would any racial advocacy groups have lingered for long in Rome had they formed within the Senate in the first place. Medieval kingdoms lacked them entirely, even though among “White Europeans” there was plenty of racially-based division between various ethnic groups in their own countries. They possessed a unifying principle that brought them all together. For the Romans it was the Emperor and Empire; for Christendom it was the Monarch and the Catholic Faith. For Americans it must be America, or we will not ever ling as long as our predecessors from which we are descended. For the New Holy Roman Empire - the Novum Sacrum Imperium Romanum - our Point of Unity will always be the Roman Catholic Faith.

Doge Antonio Grimani Kneeling before the Faith 1575-76 by Titian.

America's Race War is Imminent, Unless We Redefine Citizenship

Racially Divided America is Not a Canard or Distant History; it is Today March the 18th, AD 2015

This has been one of those "in the wings" projects. I've talked multiple times about Citizenship Reform and my idea for it, that being "Roman Citizenship," or using it as a model for reconstructing "American Citizenship." It's not just a legal reformation, it's a social reformation that should change entirely how we view America and other Americans.

I decided to begin writing this for a very specific reason, and I am prepared to swear upon our LORD in the Eucharist this story is true, and I mention no names and places only to protect and preserve the peace of all parties involved, and I will support no mob formed against or for either side, because that defeats the entire purpose of me writing this. I am close friends with two individuals I know who were until recently dating. That all changed and I only recently found out. The man of the relationship is someone I've come to know well; he's well-to-do, though he has some family troubles. He's independent, attending college, and works as a manager of a local restaurant. He has paid for his college through scholarships and some family help along with paying his own way otherwise. I am unaware of his present living situation, but I know it's stable. The female conversely was attending college full-time; there was no considerable age difference between the two. She still lived with her parents. Both are practicing (though Conciliar) Catholics.

Marriage certificate of Empress Theophanu.

I inquired of the young man as to why the relationship ended; it was promising otherwise. He told me three reasons: she was unwilling to go against the wishes of her parents, her father was a rather intimidating military veteran, and her family disapproved of the relationship because her boyfriend was white.

Apparently upon meeting the boy and discovering this, they were angry and desired the courtship dissolved.

I would never presume to dispute the right of a parent to raise their child in such a way as to dispute who they have access to, but both these individuals were legal adults in the eyes of the law. The authority these parents have over their progeny only extends as far as the natural bond between parents and children. Their parents have no right to forcibly dictate their lives as such.

This was something astounding to me. Most of the White kids I grew up with in the South got the lecture from older family members that they shouldn't date Blacks, but they laughed and ignored it. I certainly did.

Aside from the obvious racism here - imagine the outcry if the races and genders were reversed - there's something more disturbing to me about this whole story that really stirred me to action.

Both parties involved were raised and came from staunchly Catholic families, and both people in the relationship still considered and behaved as such.

Even the Conciliar Church would agree, racism is wrong. I may remember it wrong - and a quick Google search revealed nothing - but there were two or three Catholic priests lynched by the KKK (staunch Anti-Catholics) for marrying blacks and whites. Saint Katherine Drexel - who I've written on before - was an advocate for racial equality and devoted her life and wealth to helping underprivileged African Americans. The Church has never shown discrimination in her theology towards Blacks or any other ethnic group. So what are we to make of this kind of behavior?

I spoke at length in a tumblr post about what causes racial prejudice, which I will link for your convenience. I hope it proves enlightening.

Suddenly it all became very clear to me how evident racial divides were in America. I understand how this looks, "Oh so a black woman's parents won't let her be with a white boy, and now you care, you sexual imperialist."

Well, no. I always realized it was an issue. But this was something right at my doorstep involving two people I considered close friends. The guy was very nervous about meeting his girlfriend's dad the first time because he was a hard-ass with a reputation for scaring off guys, so I gave him advice on how to handle it and not be nervous. When the guy was working late nights as a manager, his girlfriend was often worried about the possibility of the relationship at all. I encouraged her to stick with it, because he's not just doing it for himself but for her too.

Recent events are starting to pile up; this isn't something that can't be ignored. We can't simply revert to a White Majority society. We can't make Blacks have all the power and disenfranchise whites. Either one leads to inevitable conflict. There's only one just solution here, and it's one grounded not just in Catholicism but tradition going back to Rome - the nation America and many others wish to be seen as successors to.

A statue of Saint Maurice, located in Soultz-Haut-Rhin, France.

This isn't a solution limited to America; anyone can make use of it as far as I am concerned. I would like for them all to. What is this solution? Well, let's talk about it.

Romanesque Citizenship

Basis

In the Roman Empire, racial segregation did not exist. There were no government-mandated social castes based on race. Race existed only as a descriptive attribute and to describe your ethnic roots. Ethnicity wasn't denied as something that existed, but it wasn't a basis for hatred. Roman Law stipulates nowhere that discrimination be applied based on race, and perilous few records of such conduct exist. It has been said that Rome would not legalize a marriage between mixed races. This is an utter falsehood; in fact Roman courts in Greece explicitly stated there should be no discrimination in issuing marriages based on race.

Romans did indeed dislike foreigners to a degree, but it was not because of race. It was because of nationality. As anyone familiar with why Saint Paul could argue his case before the Roman magistrates in the New Testament should know, Roman citizens had rights that most did not. One could even have "dual citizenship," meaning they could still be considered a Roman citizen and have all the rights of a citizen in a country that was friends with Rome so long as the two countries were not at war or in a state of constrained relations.

Legion X Gemina by Mariusz Kozik.

So where then do our modern ideas about race come from? Did anyone in the ancient world possess something similar to what we know as racism today? You can kill two birds with one stone on this one and know that the answer to both is the same: the Barbarians.

First off the Barbarians did indeed have a culture and even complex languages and social structure. I use "Barbarians" in a blanket term here. I understand some dislike the use of the term. You see, Barbarians were mostly tribal. Their communities were largely based around race; bands formed of those who looked alike or spoke the same language, and these eventually became tribes and the basis for most barbaric civilizations. Roman indeed started as a small tribal kingdom like most other nations it would go on to conquer, but the Romans had a unifying idea: their civilization.

The Romans genuinely believed in the superiority, benevolence, and magnanimity of their civilization. Historical record when compared to others seems to agree with their belief in themselves. Romans did not mindlessly destroy pagan culture; what they found useful they preserved, and histories were indeed recorded. What Romans had already perfected or improved upon they discarded along with whatever was a threat to good order. In many cases pagan cultures willingly assimilated with Rome because they saw benefits in it. Rome's goods were better than what everyone else had on offer, and they gave their homage with their gold to Rome. Romans did not necessarily hate and sneer at the Barbarian without cause; many times Barbarians threatened Rome and provoked it to action, and Rome answered their tyranny mercilessly. But they made alliances with many tribes and nations that were not Roman and treated them a "Friends of Rome." Many times the Barbarians opposing Rome were actual minority groups within their countries and not the majority. After the smoke cleared, life went on. It was an effective model for a thousand years.

Blessed Charlemagne Assists Louis XII of France in Prayer

Christendom's legal and philosophical roots were in Rome in part. What the Catholic Church has baptized and made good or found to have good in it was not suppressed in any way, shape, or form. I think the volumes of learning that have survived from the period attest to this. As such one is hard pressed to find overt episodes of racial discrimination among Authentically Catholic nations, especially in the Middle Ages when Christendom peaked. Many laws were passed in the New World to prevent racial discrimination and naturalize natives as citizens of their respective Empires. Going further back we can see Charlemagne with his commitment to respecting local customs as a good example of how Rome's ideas influenced their thought. But when Saxons start acting up, you'd better hope you weren't involved.

Practical Application

But how can this be useful to us as Americans? It's very simple; we adopt the same model of citizenship. In our Constitution and/or Bill of Rights we must enshrine the idea of American Citizenship as something great and good: "Every human being, besides his rights God gives him as man, has certain inalienable rights and duties as an American Citizen by virtue of his patriotic citizenship. Every American Citizen - be they man, woman, child, foreigner, and regardless his religious creed and applicable to young through old - shall have equal rights and treatment in all matters be they law, pay, treatment, social conduct, education, religious observance, etc.. This rights shall be guaranteed by the protection and enforcement of the Lawful Authority of the Government of These United States of America, and all Americans shall be bound to this same law to fulfill the duties this also requires. These rights and duties of citizenship shall be altered and/or abridged for none on basis of wealth, ethnic origin, or religious creed. Willful failure to fulfill the duties of an American Citizen constitutes loss of the privileges of one till such a time worthy penance has been done to regain it before not just the Nation but all Americans."

This would suffice to give clear, undeniable, and physical evidence in our law that we have a clear code of ethics which mandates equal treatment based on our citizenship as Americans. It also makes clear we have certain duties to fulfill as well, willful failure of which to fulfill them equates to their loss. Paying taxes, military service in times of need, abiding by the law, respect for legitimate civil authority, assistance of peacekeeping officials, respect for fellow citizens, etc.. These are all things that can and must be defined if this is going to work. I've tried getting input from others on what these duties and rights might be. The "rights" bit is always the easy part; the "duties" bit always seems to be what gets people for some reason. I think a possible reason might be an explanation for why we find ourselves in this situation in the first place.

The Founders envisioned the United States of America as an "Empire of Liberty." They foresaw it as a nation built not on simply survival alone but lofty ideals and principles - like Rome and Christendom (namely the Holy Roman Empire). Empire-building is arduous work. It requires grit, struggle, rigor, sacrifice, conviction, courage, zeal, and faith of the supernatural sort. To truly build an Empire is a highpoint of human achievement and it requires the culmination of all virtues to make it a reality. Those who are not built on such things do not last long, nor endure beloved in the hearts and minds of men universally for all time.

George S. Patton once said that all real Americans love the sting of battle. That Americans were born to win and win it all. I can only wonder how a man like General Patton would balk at the America we see before us today: an America that individually disdains struggle, rigor, imperialism, its military, its history, et al. I can only worry at how Ol' Blood and Guts might overreact - don't get me wrong, he's one of the best cavalry commanders in history, but I wouldn't make Patton head of state for any amount of money.

The truth is overcoming racial mistrust and learned prejudices is harder than simply accepting and rolling with them. It's hard to be the odd man out among people who look and sound just like you, and likewise it's hard to learn to get along with people you've learned to hate or that you have obvious differences with. But everything worth doing has an element of challenge to it. There is no Master Race; the ubermensch exists within all of us in our universal ability as human beings to do great things.

Plain and simple: Americans have a choice to make. They can either be dragged down by racial strife or they can rise above it. Catholicism alone provides an ample vehicle for this - George Washington himself wrote to the Carroll family of the importance Catholicism would ultimately play in America's future as a nation as mankind became, quote, "more and more liberal." When we are at such a momentous turning point in our nation's history, what better time than now to take up the Cross and fulfill the prophecy of the man who might've otherwise been our first king?

A painting of George Washington rallying his troops at the Battle of Princeton.