A Revolution of My Own: Why I No Longer Hate the United States of America

The Great Seal of the United States of America

Background

Before you read on, I would like to give you a warning: yes, this is exactly what it looks like. My old confederates will be disappointed to know I am no longer a Tory. I know for many of you this means I've been, quote, "seduced by the dark side." You're like me; you've learned to find facts yourself and not rely on anyone else or their judgment. So, I would like to direct you here, where the I began this intellectual odyssey. Read about those mentioned; do some real sweat-work and don't give up at the first sign you're right. Exhaust all possibilities, and see what you find out. Now that I've got that disclaimer out of the way, let me tell you how exactly this all came about. 

Now, before you all say the beads for me, yes, I am still a Monarchist. I still hold all my former political beliefs. I haven't changed much in that regard, and I still think America can do better. In short, what has happened is that I have gained a renewed respect and understanding for its past. It wasn't easy, and believe it or not mainstream sources were actually the least helpful! In fact if it hadn't been for me working in a library I probably wouldn't have found the majority of sources which piqued my interest. Rest assured, the only thing that's changed - and I daresay this is a positive change - I can love my country again for the first time in almost five years. I cannot tell you how good that feels.

"These are regulars, by God!"
British General upon seeing the American Army at the Battle of Chippawa during the War of 1812
July 4, 1814

A friend of mine who could make a stable career out of pointing out my fallacies once pointed out to me the absurdity of my statement, "I know everything I need to know about that." The fact is that there is always more to know, just like there is always a bigger fish. That was the beginning, I think, of me going back and digging through things I thought I knew. I am a better man - and a better Traditionalist - for it.

As most all of you know, I've been beating the war-drum pretty hard on the subject of a necessity for armed conflict against ISIS. I've said multiple times I would enlist in the US military the minute the US declared war on the Caliphate and made protecting Christians and returning them to their homes the number one priority. I've also said any Catholic of fighting ability should also do so; if we flood the ranks with an able and willing supply of men, that might make the US more willing to continue the war and it would be the greatest act of Catholic Faith and Unity thus far in the 21st century. It would set a precedent and send a clear message to Islam: we are back, and if we go back down we're taking you with us.

The Battle of Derne, in which the US Marine Corps landed on the Barbary
Coast during the Barbary Wars and proceeded to do what no Catholic power
since the Holy Roman Empire had done: rip the Ottomans' Corsairs a new one.

But, of course, it's common among Traditionalists to dislike America. I mean, why not? They're the product of a rebellion against their lawful sovereign, and no Monarchist worth his salt could stand for something like that! Anti-Catholicism was rampant among the 13 colonies, the United States going on into the 19th century, it cost a presidential candidate during the 20th, and by all accounts it continues today in the form of our present administration. The Orthodox are really out of the loop; this isn't their country at all. I mean, Alaska was part of the Russian Empire, but it wasn't even a state until the 20th century! As far as most are concerned it's the number one exporter of liberalism, Anti-Monarchism, irreligion, Merchant-Oligarchy, and by all accounts it's the polar opposite of everything Traditionalists stand for. Most of US policy supports this view, as well!

Principality of Liechtenstein

Here I was thinking all these things and yet, I was willing to enlist in its army to fight ISIS. How hypocritical (and downright stupid) is that? To insult a country and it's patrimony while demanding it by virtue of justice alone assist you! I mean, there's magnanimity, and then there's just opening a can of worms. I mean, it didn't have to be the US Military. There were tons of nations I would fight for, but the last one fell apart as a result of the First World War. The rest are either no longer officially Catholic or less significant than some African Countries.

It was this intrinsic ideological problem that drove me to really think more about what my relationship to my nation was. I knew in my gut that I wanted a military career. It was something I'd known I was always meant to do. Every thing I loved, was good at, and was capable of doing lent itself to that. I enjoyed numerous pastimes and hobbies that had either some basis in strategy or force of arms. But there was just one problem: no nation I would serve still existed. Catholicism is, in a word, disarmed.

My answer to this dilemma was simple: just don't enlist until war is declared. But then I realized something: what if I enlist, go to boot camp, arrive, and it's all over by then? What if I've missed my chance to contribute? An infantile way to look at it, maybe, but why do men sign up to soldier if they don't want to fight? So, I had to re-evaluate. I sat down and talked to some of my family members who knew me very well - my godfather, namely, - and asked them if I was right on my hunch. They said it wasn't impossible. So I talked about possibly enlisting before hand. After all, you prepare for war during peace. If you've waited until the enemy is upon you to prepare, you've waited too long.

Owen Roe, an ancestor of mine who fought
with the Spanish Tercios.

My godfather who was most notably a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and had served in the
Navy for many years prior (went over to the Army after he retired; basically enlisted because he had no other way to provide for his family). He knew me very well and said that, given my intelligence and level of acumen for strategy, I should consider not going into the infantry first and enter as an officer. Now, to me that was poppycock! What sort of man goes for the top position first when he hasn't even proved he can hold up under fire, much less lead men? Despite everything I was told, I wanted to be at the front and in the thick. Call me crazy, call me ignorant, call me whatever you like, but it's in my family's blood to fight and by God I wanted to continue that tradition! Of course a career as an officer was a goal of mine, but I didn't want to lead from the back! It would haunt me internally to send my men into something I wouldn't go into myself, to ask them to kill men I couldn't kill. As a favorite military historian of mine once said, real leaders don't point their swords and say, "Charge," they take up their swords and say, "Follow me!" Those were the kind of generals I idolized and I wanted to be one.

So my godfather helped me find a middle road that would allow me to do just that, and gave me a bit of a run-down on how things work (even though I've lived around the military all my life I confess a willful ignorance at times for how it works, being forever stuck in the past). I got a basic plan out, started a PT regimen to drop pounds, and planned to go to college and start ROTC to become an officer as soon as I could.

But, as I sat down to tell everyone, I realized... I still had reservations. As I began to really read into the Army (and the Marines; forgot to mention that the Marines were actually my first choice, but now I lean to the Army) I found myself looking at fabulous art I didn't even know existed from the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Revolutionary War, and reading heroic tales to inspire when I realized... this wasn't me. I was a Tory, and proud of it! Hell, I did nothing this last 4th of July than watch British war movies and blast British Army music through my house! For a straight week my social media profiles were nothing but King George III! This just wasn't me.

Coat of Arms of King George III

So I found myself in a pickle. Even if I kept my mouth shut and never said anything, someone would find out and my career would be shot through. The oath to join the US Military (any branch) requires you swear you have "no mental reservations (abbreviated; varies)" about serving the US government. I couldn't swear an oath to something I didn't believe in. That's the behavior of a traitor, and I'm not and never have aspired to be a traitor to anyone.

Casimir Pulaski

So, I decided to retread some old ground. I decided to look into Catholic support for the American Revolution. The discerning Catholic historian will know that many Catholics with strong ties to Europe and Christendom were in support of the Patriots and fought right along side them and until recently were as much military icons of Americans as Washington himself. Speaking of Washington, I have some important things to say about him. But we'll get to him in a minute.

So that is where we find ourselves now. We are in the aftermath of those results. If you were paying attention, the first link that caught my eye is up above. I won't bore you with a chronological story of how I came to my conclusion. Instead, we'll tackle the top reasons why I up until recently disdained America. There are lots of minor things not worth taking up space in this lengthy dissertation; I'm more focusing on major political issues and important events that really shaped American history. If you want me to go looking for every bad thing the US ever did, I would be here a while, and I would be here even longer if I did that for Rome, Spain, or the Holy Roman Empire, but that's just because they've been around for three times the amount of time the United States has even existed - but that still doesn't diminish that I like them, and it doesn't change that anyone else does.

We'll work through these one at a time and then wrap up with a conclusion. So without further ado, let's go to the list of what we have to cover.

1. The Prevalent Anti-Catholicism in America's History.
2. The Unlawful Nature of the War of Independence.
3. The American Government Itself.
4. The Aggressive and Unjust Wars it Has Raged.
5. The Genocide of the Native Americans.  

Those are the top six gripes I had. Now, let's one at a time go through them, starting with number one.

1.) The Prevalent Anti-Catholicism in America's History.

It's very easy to point out how the Founding Fathers were hypocritical and claim they were complicit in it. As the full rhetoric of the Revolution came to be realized, they came to understand they were indeed a bit deficient in living up to their own ideals. One issue in particular is slavery, and legislation was in the works to at least cease the slave trade, and abolitionist parties were practically grid-locking Congress with demands that new territories forbid slavery. Another easy one is Anti-Catholicism. How can a country make the Freedom of Religion one if its principles while still preying upon the Anti-Catholicism of the Thirteen Colonies to stir people up against Britain, which under the Hanoverians was ending Recusancy after the Pope had declared the Hanoverians legitimate Kings of Great Britain?

Some Anti-Catholic Propaganda Made by None Other than Paul Revere

Well, it wasn't quite that simple. While elements of the Revolution were certainly Anti-Catholic, it's believed by some that elements of the Revolution were made up even of Muslims, and supporters of this idea show how in the muster rolls for Valley Forge there appear names on the Continental side that appear distinctly Arabic in origin. Does that mean America is Islamic? Not anymore than it means America is Anti-Catholic because some of its members were. That's something I've put together about Republics: they don't seem to really be represented by one entity but rather by the people that make it up. That's the difference between monarchies and republics, and what I think can make monarchies or strong federal republics superior to simple democratic republics. I mean, the best years of the US are when we've had strong Presidents who lead almost as or are looked up to like kings, working Congress not unlike a monarch would his nobles. Case in point: George Washington.

I wish. Okay, I know it's Assassin's Creed, but at least that DLC gave us probably the
coolest piece of George Washington fan-art ever.

That works.

George Washington was ardently opposed to the Anti-Catholicism rampant in the Revolutionary Army and in the Thirteen Colonies. He ordered all Continental soldiers cease to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day by burning the Pope in effigy. He was a close friend of the Carroll family, arguably the first very wealthy and powerful Catholic family in the United States. Two members of the Carroll family signed the Declaration of Independence, and one was the first Papal-Appointed Archbishop in the United States of America. Stephen Moylan, the first Muster-General of the Continental Army, was a Catholic. Captains Joshua and John Barry, two of the most daring and swashbuckling sailors in the United States Navy and Revolutionary Warriors, were Catholics. Vicar-General Pierre Gibault, a French Jesuit, assisted in the conquest of the Northeastern US by the Continental Army by acting as a guide. Thomas Fitzsimons, commander of the Pennsylvania Militia and and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a Catholic. Colonel Thomas Moore, leader of the Philadelphia Regiment, was a Catholic. Major John Doyle, captain of an elite company of rifleman, was a Catholic. Let's not forget foreign volunteers like LaFayette (though he would stain himself by partaking in the French Revolution, albeit he despised radical elements that were killing nobility and clergy left and right), Durportail, and the aforementioned Pulaski. The first Funeral Mass in US-controlled Boston was for French soldiers who died fighting for the Colonies, and the Founding Fathers were in attendance. In addition, whilst Congress was in session, George Washington would often accompany his Catholic friends to observe Mass and invited others to join him.

None of these men were bad Catholics. None of them were heretical in religious thought. They all

loved their faiths, and George Washington wouldn't have anyone obstructing the religious rights of even a small body of people who had assisted in the founding of the nation which made him President. For several decades, George Washington's example would be remembered as far as Rome, when Leo XIII in his encyclical to the American Bishops "Longinqua" said this:

"Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion.”

His Holiness acknowledges the US as a good, but that it still is not the best it can be. This to me is a proper attitude to take on the subject, seeing as how it's the same one most Catholic Tories take toward Great Britain during the Revolution even though the monarchy was officially Protestant. Unlike the United States, which officially isn't religiously anything.

David Porter

Gen. Cadwalader

Later Anti-Catholicism would be the by-product of the Nativist party, which became known as the "No-Nothing" party because of how unpopular they were with mainstream Americans, which is important to note. The vast majority of Americans did see the persecution of Catholics as a horrendous evil and wanted prejudices removed. Unfortunately, certain people in the halls of power didn't. It has also often been said that the US government was silent and passive in the face of No-Popery Riots attacking Catholic Churches and so-on, but that's not entirely the case. We must consider three figures: Major General Robert Patterson and General George Cadwalader, who lead the Pennsylvania State Militia to violently suppress the Anti-Catholic riots in Philadelphia and the governor, David R. Porter, who ordered the militias to set up garrisons and arm Catholics to protect themselves until the riots had ended.

Robert Patterson

From all this, we can deduce that Anti-Catholicism is not an institutionalized part of American culture. It is an aberration started by anti-immigration parties in the United States. The Chief Himself was against the principle and moved against it. Catholics should make it their business to show why Anti-Catholicism isn't an American principle, rather than feeding the fire by striking out against the government.

2.) The Unlawful Nature of the War of Independence

It should come without saying that a Revolution tends to be, well, illegal. So why should I even criticize a revolt by questioning its legitimacy? Well, even Catholicism recognizes there are times where armed revolt is a must, and is even sanctioned. One of the powers of the Papacy is to, "free serfs from fealty to wicked men," meaning they can sanction a revolt against an otherwise legitimate government if it becomes corrupt and tyrannical. This was a right invoked back in the Middle Ages during the kingship of John of England and again during the reign of the Tudors with respect to the fealty the Kingdom of Ireland owed to the English Monarchs. Simply revolt against legitimate authority for rebellion's sake or to cease power is of course illegitimate. But did the colonists have a case against Great Britain?

For most Monarchists, the answer to that question is no. The colonists were subjects of Great Britain and by God that's how it should say. They rebelled for the simple reason the Colonists were angry about not being able to cash in on the fur trade in the Ohio country or expand further west into French territory due to the outcome of the French and Indian War - part of the Seven Years' War - which while a victory for the British didn't get them the Ohio Territory. This caused quite a bit of miff among the colonists. It also started the tradition of the colonists really not liking Native Americans for the most part. The French didn't have much going for them in the region, but the Iroquois were huge supporters of France. So they fought for them, and, well, let's just say that if you think Native Americans were all peace-loving hippies who only fought when provoked you should do some reading on what a Native American Warpath looks like. It's not pretty, and while even the French didn't like what the Indians got up to (further reading: Louis-Joseph de Montcalm and the Siege of Fort William Henry) they couldn't deny their effectiveness.

Keeping all this in mind, the colonists fought willingly even in spite of crushing defeats. The thought was that once they got the Ohio territory, it would all be worth it. But there was a real problem with that: the British Crown decided to leave the Ohio Territory in the hands of the Iroquois, which was just as good as leaving it with the French, seeing as how they maintained strong relations. With the colonists debarred from settling there, all the suffering they had endured at the hands of defeats by the French and Indian raids upon civilian settlements was pointless. They had literally shed their blood for nothing. But the colonists, by and large, let it go. They were still wealthy, they were still healthy, what else could go wrong?

Well, Parliament - in another glorious display of why it never should have existed - started levying taxes from the colonies to pay off the debt that had been doubled by the Seven Years' War. The argument was that since the colonists wanted it, they should shoulder the burden. A perfectly reasonable request, had these colonies been given something out of the war anyway. The fact is, yes, most of the colonists were businessmen. They either lived in the colonies to or sold all their possessions in England to come make money in America. Their livelihoods depended solely upon the wealth of the colonies. If the colonies started doing bad, well, no one wanted to go back to what it was like under the Puritans or go the way of Roanoke.

But didn't Parliament have the right to tax the colonies? After all, weren't they virtually represented as British subjects, thereby making the issue of "No Representation" null and void? No, and I don't base my arguments from colonials. There were two very notable, conservative men in parliament who saw "Virtual Representation" as absolute rubbish while not in the least bearing ill-will towards the king - and most Colonists didn't yet either! They appealed directly to King George III himself some times, but of course bloody Parliament was running the show.

Charles I of England

Before I get to those guys I mentioned, we have to focus on the Colonial arguments that weren't Anti-Monarchy. The colonists based their arguments off of the, "Rights of Englishman" which were laid out following the deposition of King Charles I. Though a tragedy (I am something of a Cavalier), a regime change did take place and new laws were in affect. One of these laws was indeed No Taxation Without Representation. Taxes had to be basically voluntarily given from the Commons. Where did this come from? Well, during his reign at a time when he was strapped for cash to fight the Republican and Radical Puritan elements arrayed against him, His Majesty created a new title for himself: King of the Sea. Well, not really, but basically his logic was that as King of England he was also king of the seas surrounding England. I mean, who else would own them, the feudal lords of those coastlines? Wait...

Regardless, Charles II decided that everything within 15 miles of a coastline was his now because of that, so he could levy taxes from these areas, even though the Lords hadn't agreed to it and the people weren't honestly even made aware and it was more like royal soldiers just came by and collected money from the people. Was Charles II right to do this? Probably not, but absolutism does some funny things to the brain sometimes, like forgetting what feudalism is or that it was the mainstay in England for over one and a half thousand years and people generally don't like radical change enforced by men with war implements. That and the Republicans were, well, evil, for lack of a better word. Maybe if he'd won we'd have a different opinion on it. Regardless, this basically caused taxation to be a big deal in the new government. Taxes had to be voluntary to an extent and were very much up for debate now. No longer could an executive government simply collect whatever taxes it needed in Merry England.

This was a central issue for the colonies. See, the colonies were self-managing, and not just the 13 in America. All over the world, most of Britain's colonies only ever saw the British if the colonies were under threat of conquest or revolt and military force was needed. This system of "benign neglect" basically solved the problem of managing all these overseas territories. The regional governors simply told the monarch what was up and did their jobs as cash candy-jars. Other than that, the colonies were pretty self-sufficient. The American Colonies had their own representative houses, courts, and military defense. They collected their own taxes and as long as they could do it themselves, they weren't going to ask London to help. So when suddenly taxes come in from the mainland and you had no knowledge of them, it provoked quite the violent reaction. Mobs tarring and feathering excise men, for example. From what the English knew, this was flat-out illegal taxation.

So now we go back to the two big opponents of the taxation measures in Parliament: Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden and William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. Here are there two arguments against the taxes on the basis of English Constitutional Law and the Parliament.

Charles Pratt

"I am no courtier of America. I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. When it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that country. When two countries are connected together like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both...let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent. [T]he British Parliament have no right to tax the Americans. I shall not consider the Declaratory Bill now lying on your table; for to what purpose, but loss of time, to consider the particulars of a Bill, the very existence of which is illegal, absolutely illegal, contrary to the fundamental laws of nature, contrary to the fundamental laws of this constitution? A constitution grounded on the eternal and immutable laws of nature; a constitution whose foundation and centre is liberty, which sends liberty to every individual who may happen to be within any part of its ample circumference. Nor, my Lords, is the doctrine new, it is as old as the constitution; it grew up with it; indeed it is its support; taxation and representation are inseparably united; God hath joined them, no British parliament can separate them; to endeavour to do it, is to stab our very vitals. ... My position is this—I repeat it—I will maintain it to my last hour,—taxation and representation are inseparable; this position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's own, is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery. Taxation and representation are coeval with and essential to the constitution. ... [T]here is not a blade of grass growing in the most obscure corner of this kingdom, which is not, which was not ever, represented since the constitution began; there is not a blade of grass, which when taxed, was not taxed by the consent of the proprietor. ... I can never give my assent to any bill for taxing the American colonies, while they remain unrepresented; for as to the distinction of a virtual representation, it is so absurd as not to deserve an answer; I therefore pass it over with contempt. The forefathers of the Americans did not leave their native country, and subject themselves to every danger and distress, to be reduced to a state of slavery: they did not give up their rights; they looked for protection, and not for chains, from their mother country; by her they expected to be defended in the possession of their property, and not to be deprived of it: for, should the present power continue, there is nothing which they can call their own; or, to use the words of Mr. Locke, ‘What property have they in that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to himself?"

William Pitt

"It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies...The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone...When, therefore, in this House we give and grant, we give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what do we do? “We, your majesty’s Commons for Great Britain, give and grant to your majesty”—what? Our own property! No! “We give and grant to your majesty” the property of your majesty’s Commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms...There is an idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation was augmented to a greater number! Or will you tell him that he is represented by any representative of a borough? — a borough which, perhaps, its own representatives never saw! This is what is called the rotten part of the Constitution. It can not continue a century. If it does not drop, it must be amputated. I myself would have cited the two cases of Chester and Durham...to show that, even under former arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives...[A] higher example [might be found] in Wales — Wales that never was taxed by Parliament till it was incorporated. India company, merchants, stockholders, [and] manufacturers have it in their option to be actually represented...have connections with those that elect, and...have influence over them."

NOTE: There are various quotes from both men on the subject; they have been spliced together.

Even the British saw what was happening to the colonies as being in violation of English Law. Both these lords were masters of English Law and very intelligent individuals. They were not propagandists. They were not puppets. They were not paid off; they had no dog in this war, in fact they had a lot to lose from making these statements - and they lost their entire political careers. It was not as if these men were against the Monarchy, and Parliament was for it. Parliament was for itself as it often is, and these men spoke against its violation of its own writ.

Their rights being abused, the British encroaching upon them and ignoring the Rule of Law by which all Englishmen prided themselves on and lived by, violent reprisal was the only option left. In this war Just War Doctrine is fulfilled. The Revolution was justified; the monarch had taken the side of Parliament, and Parliament wasn't even following its own laws. The Revolution was not out of any necessary animosity towards England but an outrage at how it defied its own laws. The monarch was barely a factor, as Parliament practically put King George III in the inevitable position of tyrant.

American soldiers in the Battle of Long Island, 1776.

3.) The American Government Itself

The United States Government is often reviled, even among its own people, as a wretched hive of scum and villainy always getting things wrong. They can't do anything right, according to most. The deficiencies of Republics and Democracies are manifold, and I won't bother to recite them. Many Traditional Catholic Monarchists not only disdain it for the fact it isn't a monarchy, but because it is absolutely 100% free of religion. These are legitimate criticisms, however I would like to remind everyone of how one of the greatest monarchies in history began: when a virtuous military leader was named its Imperator and deposed the corrupt republic that lead it (see: Rome).

But, see, that's not going to happen if we just give up on it. If we attack it from the inside. If we let it die because we think we deserve it. It's going to get conquered by someone else and eventually divided up, and history tells us that except in one case I can think of (Poland) countries conquered and divided do not rise again. I love the past more than anyone, and I think it is valuable to us as a guide. But we cannot rewind time anymore than rewinding our watches can make us arrive somewhere on time. Tell me what is better: that we work and show ourselves loyal to and a competitive power-base in our host countries, or we simply pine for what once was? I do not ask that we forget the past, nor that we do not use the standards of our ancestors. I simply ask we be realistic. I ask that we adapt and overcome.

For many Catholics, I know, only Monarchy is the option. But does no one else here know about Garcia Moreno, President of the Republic of Ecuador? He made his country strong militarily and economically. He opened his cabinet meetings with the Rosary. He carried a cross in Good Friday parades for his country. He consecrated Ecuador to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts. All from the office of an elected leader. While the Church prefers monarchy, any system of government that protects the common good and does not oppress the Catholic faith is a good. Sure, Ecuador is one tiny republic out a million that are not Catholic and influential, but consider again the example of Rome in conjunction with Ecuador. It can happen here, but it will never happen if we don't try. It certainly won't happen if we tear it down. Even so, there are many good principles of America that aren't exactly incompatible with Catholicism. Though it prefers a government working with the Church, anyone should be able to follow the religion they choose. No one is denied the right to bear arms to defend themselves, and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion via Free Speech. Many of the judiciary principles in the Constitution were pioneered in the Middle Ages by Catholicism no less (habeas corpus, etc.)

Now, who would be our Julius Caesar? I don't presume to know. Maybe it wouldn't even be like that. Who knows? I don't. Would I be for any monarchistic movement that wasn't hostile to America or the American people? Of course! I still think we would do best under a monarchy, but that doesn't mean I hate America. That means I want America to evolve and be better. I still believe individual liberties are best preserved under a monarchy, but we must convince the American people of that. They'll never listen to us if we're outright hateful of their entire history - if they do, we don't make what we want to see.

So while the American government isn't ideal, it's better than nothing and provides Catholics - anyone, really - the best chance we have for positive change. It has its flaws, but America's story is not ever yet. There is still yet time to reach the real Imperial age!

4.) The Aggressive and Unjust Wars it Has Waged

Battle of Churubusco. Mexican-American War.

There is nothing Traditionalists and Paleo-Conservatives love to do more than hate on the wars the US wages. Literally absolutely nothing makes them happier than tearing apart any reason any man has put on the uniform of a US soldier and gone to war for his country. I am guilty of this, but I hold to the old idea that any soldier is worth at least a small amount of respect for his willingness to fight for a cause he believes in. Not so for some people when it comes to US soldiers. They're literally the scum of the earth, according to some. Every American War is a Banker's War, fought for trade and trade alone, as if the US ability to make high-quality exports - in effect turning mercantilism on its head - which it can sell to international markets is what made it an international power in the first place. Oh wait...

Like it or not, yes. Trade is important to the survival of a nation. Resources are important. Columbus sailed to find a new trade-route to India to bring the Catholic faith to the heathen as much as he did to find a new trade route in to the Far East that the Ottomans didn't control. That doesn't make him any less noble; in fact, it makes him twice as noble. He not only worked for his faith, but his country. Now, would going to war solely to open markets be wrong? Yes. But that's not the only reason the US has ever gone to war with someone. To make it simple, we'll list the wars in chronological order and why they happened. We're going to ignore the Indian Wars, and save them for part five. Besides, most of them are so spread all the Hell over I would literally be here another four hours going over them. Nobody wants that, right? I'm also going to ignore the Revolution, as we already explained that. I will also not be covering numerous small rebellions that mean nothing.

First Barbary War: Ottoman Turk-funded Barbary Corsairs commit acts of piracy against American

shipping lanes, going so far as to enslave those on the ships they capture. America is outraged and attacks the Barbary States, eventually forcing a peace treaty in which America is left alone by the Ottomans. Second war follows in the mid-1800s, but the same thing happens. The Second War essentially wipes out Barbary Piracy in the Mediterranean.

 

Stephen Decatur boarding the Tripolitan gunboat, 3 August 1804

War of 1812: In an effort to increase British hegemony over France during the Napoleonic Wars, Britain began harassing the neutral United States' merchant lanes and impressing American sailors. That is, forcing them to serve in the British Navy - under pain of death. This begins to cause outrage among the American people. The British also from Canada arm and incite Native Americans to violent, near-racially-fueled wars against the American settlers moving west. No territorial changes take place, but America remains independent and repels Native American raids.

American infantry attacks at the Battle of Lundy's Lane. Painting by Alonzo Chappel in 1859.

Mexican-American War: Anglo-English settlers from the US were invited to Mexico by the Mexican government shortly after Mexico became independent of Spain. The settlers revitalize the economy and act as a buffer against Native American raids into Mexican territory. General Santa Anna leads a coup that topples the Mexican Government, and he begins to revoke the rights the settlers had under the previous government. Seeing the current government as illegitimate, the Texans resist and attempt to secede and become independent, with the US backing them. The US, Texas, and Mexico argue over the border. The US sends a team of surveyors escorted by some military personnel to the area between the Rio Grande and Nueces River. Mexican troops ambush the Americans, killing them all. The US retaliates, invades Mexico, topples the government, and gets Texas' independence. It eventually becomes a state.

U.S. Marines storming Chapultepec castle under a large American flag.

The Civil War: The South secedes from the Union on the question of State's Rights versus the Federal Government due to its continued desires for abolition. Disagreement over the question boils over to armed conflict. The Union is preserved by force and the Confederacy re-incorporated into the Union. I know people will complain about this one, but you tell me what civilized nation is going to let one whole half of it just leave willy-nilly over a political disagreement. Particularly when those seceding fire the first shot in aggression. Particularly when the reason is because they don't like the new elected leader. Go ahead, name one and back it; I'll wait.

Battle of Antietam by Kurz and Allison.

Spanish-American War: Contrary to popular belief, the reasons the US Government went to war with Spain for Cuba and its island nations are completely separate from why the Yellow Journalists wanted to get people ready for war to sell papers. The war for independence was threatening US interests in the area as violence escalated. They sent the USS MAINE into the bay of Cuba, it blew up for at the time unknown reasons, and the rest is history. If anything, Spain's inability to hold onto Cuba and American unwillingness to allow foreign powers to have leverage close to home made the war happen more than anything else. If Spain could keep the place stable and American interests hadn't been hurt, Cuba would probably still belong to Spain today.

Detail from Charge of the 24th and 25th Colored Infantry and Rescue of Rough Riders at San Juan Hill, July 2, 1898 depicting the Battle of San Juan Hill

World War I: Unrestricted German Submarine warfare forces the US to join the Allies against Germany, particularly after the sinking of the Lusitania. People argue that the Americans were smuggling arms to the Brits in the cruise liners and the Germans knew that and acted on it in the same way America probably would. This argument is a half-truth. The munitions carried on the Lusitania were small-arms; shells used for rifles and sidearms, which were usually on all ships for protection in the event of piracy or mutiny. Underwater archaeology has confirmed this, and the small arms were hardly smuggled in any event; they were recorded on the ship's cargo manifesto. Also, the 14 Points aren't really to blame for the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Wilson wasn't really actually listened to that much at the making of the Treaty of Versailles. That was all Europe's doing.

American Marines in Belleau Wood (1918)

World War II: America had been playing an economic game with Japan for a long time because they threatened already-existing American interests in the Pacific. It really is that simple. Also, I think we can agree no one needed a reason to kick Nazi ass.

Battle of Crucifix Hill by Don Stivers.

The Korean War: North Korea was a puppet-state of the Soviet Union at the time and a left-over from Soviet Russia's occupation of Korea. The South was part of America's holdings against them. Neither side accepted the other government as legitimate and the US backed South Korea. Do I really need a reason to explain this one, or Vietnam? The same people who think the US should've kept going and destroyed the USSR after they'd beaten Nazi Germany don't seem to like the fact we waged wars to try and stop Communism from getting control in two more countries. We basically had them beat, but Chinese interference caused us to pull back as we didn't have the manpower anywhere near able to fight China. For Christ's sake, World War II had just ended five years ago. That's not even enough time for a second generation of soldiers to be born.

Soldiers from the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division in action near the Ch'ongch'on River, 20 November 1950

The Vietnam War: This one is really close to me and ticks me off as I have family who were a part of this war and everyone bad-mouths it for no reason. It was the same as Korea. We had the Vietcong beat. But the Press was squarely against the war. It marked the real beginning of a biased, politicized press. In spite of the fact the Tet Offensive actually failed and we were beating the North Vietnamese, public pressure forced a US withdrawal. People throw around "baby-killer" but have no idea what they're talking about. My godmother's dad was a Vietnam vet. One night he was a sleep outside the wire in his tent with a buddy and this kid crawled into the tent with a grenade. Just as he was about to pull the pin and kill them all, he shot and killed the kid. Tough call, but was it going to be him and his buddy or this kid? I'd like to see anyone else here make a similar decision.

U.S. Marines fighting in Huế.

Wars in the Middle-East: These are, by far, the simplest to explain. Sure, Bush lied about WMDs. Investigations to this day prove the weapons either weren't there or had been moved a long time ago. They got screwed on bad intel, or lied; either is plausible and it's probably going to be a decade or more before we know as things declassify. Yeah, we've made a lot of mistakes. As far as I'm concerned, we're not done there yet, so it's too soon to judge anything right now. I disagree with some things that have happened, but again, it ain't over yet. There's still time to turn it around - and a war with ISIS might just be the gateway to do that.

War is a complicated business. But as a historian, I have to say, these aren't the worst reasons in the world to go to war. It's what most countries can't say they do: looking out for themselves. Do I agree with everything done in some of them? No. Is this an exhaustive list of all the wars the US has undertaken? No. But like I said: America isn't over yet. There's still time to make it better, and as Americans it's our job to do that.

5.) The Genocide of the Native Americans

An 1896 depiction of the Battle of Fallen Timbers from Harper's Magazine.

This is going to be a tough one for most people, and it was tough for me. As I started doing all of this, I had a theory I was slowly building in my mind. That, basically, the reason for the removal of Native Americans was over fear they might be used by European or foreign powers to begin wars against the US. Why not? Largely nomadic (by this point), mostly guerrilla fighters, easily bought, and don't have a problem going to war just for battle's sake. As we saw in the War of 1812, Native Americans could and might represent a threat to people who were just minding their own business. It was a problem and it had to be fixed. I think we need to do away with the reservations; they're broken as all Hell. We need to integrate these people into American society and stop treating them like they're a conquered people. I hate to sound rude, but they're not a threat. Hell, the Navajo were a key part in World War II and one Native American was the best sniper in the Vietnam War. It's time we buried the hatchet and moved on with history. It happened. We can't change that. Our ancestors made a decision based on self-preservation. Things like Wounded Knee and Sandy Creek were monstrous, but to the US' credit, there were federal investigations into such incidents that ruled it all massive acts of misconduct. I think it's fair to say we've come a long way in recognizing Native Americans, but we can do more. Both sides have to be willing to accept the present state of things and move on as Americans toward the future, because bickering over this at this point solves nothing. If we abolish reservations, Native Peoples can move back to where their tribes were if they so wished. As someone who knew people who worked charity and missions work on reservations, they're not pretty.

The Chase at Rattlesnake Springs by Don Stivers

Just as much as Natives raided settlements, the US government did decide to end treaties because they didn't see them as worth keeping. For both sides it was a desperate war for existence. The Anglo-Americans weren't just going to go back to Europe and the Natives weren't just going to let them move in. But, again, we've made progress. I would've preferred things were done differently, say akin to the policy of the Spanish of trying to force more fair treatment of natives. But even then, the situations aren't really comparable. Spain just wanted colonies, and the Anglo-Americans were trying to carve out a nation for themselves. I think the best thing we can do as Americans is to continue to celebrate and recognize Native culture while not trying to make people feel bad for something unnecessarily. We shouldn't shame people just for the sake of making them feel ashamed. There's no point to arguing about this anymore. What's important is that something like that doesn't happen again and that we can legitimately let what is past be what is past. We can use the examples of monarchies before us of a better way to interact with natives, and we can see this as an example of what can happen when communication breaks down. But again, we must remember: colonies are different from building a nation, and ultimately any nation that cannot defend itself from or by force will fade away.

Conclusion

The Declaration of Independence: the Committee of Five presenting their draft to the Second Continental Congress in 1776

So that's what brought me around to America. I ask pardon if I became curt toward the end; I was determined to write this out all at once and it is very late, if I may say so. In reality, it's very simple: I educated myself, found out more that I didn't know and was never taught, and applied it. I've never 100% despised America. I simply had bad feelings toward it because of the way I viewed its history. But what really began my search is the need to come to grips with the facts: we all have to make do with what we've been given. We must play with the hand we are dealt. I will never stop loving Christendom, but I have to reconcile that with a love for my own present nation as well. Because while it does have flaws, it is not the "Evil Empire" some make it out to be - what I believed it to be. But the problem is what it always is: ignorance. Willfully or accidentally, we simply don't take the time to learn for ourselves, so we allow whatever we hear that best fits our values to take precedent over facts. Keep to your principles, sure, but understand that no principle is as important as truth. Truth is the necessary support upon which justice rests. If we lie to maintain our principles at the expense of truth, then injustice can prevail.

Some of you will continue to hate America. That's fine and I understand. You can think whatever you want, as long as you don't attack it physically. We won't have a problem, or at least I won't. But I do encourage you to educate yourself. Benjamin Franklin and most all the founding fathers agreed that a literate, well-read, educated citizenry was the best path to success for the United States. I have to agree with that. I still think America is in need of reform in many aspects. But, in the least, I can reconcile myself with my country's history - and that's just enough to let me get what little good sleep I can get before I must rise again for work.

Caesar Alloquitur: A Suggestion for Countries Occupying the Middle East

A Humble Suggestion on How to Surmount the Problem Islam Presents for Peacekeeping Forces in the Middle East

Knights of Outremer, servants of the feudal lords of the Crusader-States. During the time of the Crusader Kingdoms, Muslims kept their religion and practiced it with the protection of law while men dressed as those above fought against the Saracens Jihadists. It is based off of this historical precedent that I loosely base this plan.

 

 

Before going any further, it's crucial that you read this article on Pacifism in Islam. It showing up on my dash is what inspired me to write this piece.

I've often said in a long-term plan for peace to the Middle East that trying to expunge Islam altogether from that region is suicidal at best. What we have to do there is establish a military governorship. In that governorship, among the normal laws of a Western country, we must include that all peoples are equal before the law regardless of creed, race, or wealth. You come in our borders, you play by our rules. No exceptions.

Among these laws we must take particular care for Islam, as it is the center of violence in the region. We made a mistake last time of taking sides in Islam's sectarian conflicts when one was violent just like the other. We cannot do this again and expect success. The government must be a secular dictatorship. If I had my way it would be officially Catholic, but we have no countries willing to do that, and in our democratic mindset we cannot make the official religion of a country Christianity when only 5% of the people in that country are of that religion. If it was me, I'd make it officially Catholic. But I'm trying to speak from a realistic point of view here, as I don't know about you but I don't control an actual Catholic Empire and I don't see any running around at this time.

 

Middle Common Coat of Arms of the Austro-Hugarian Empire in 1915 showing most of the larger possessions of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary. The Austrian Hapsburgs were the last Catholic royalty to have any claim to the Kingdom, and I assume they still do have it.

The country must establish that no form of religious vigilantism is tolerated. Anyone taking up guns to violently attack others in the name of religion will be treated as an enemy combatant and arrest will not be attempted; they will be killed and crucified outside the city's main points of entry as a warning. However, all will have the rights of religious practice and observance unobstructed and religious communities will have the right to live their faith according to its tenets without legal obstruction.

But back to Islam. Only those sects which espouse and practice nonviolence as a clear and present part of their creed will be allowed practice in the country. Those who defy their creed in that respect will be given no quarter and their families will be imprisoned. Their Imams will be held responsible and they will be hung from the burning rubble of their mosques. This will encourage Muslims to inform government offices of those who are contemplating or may be planning violent acts of Jihad, or immigrating to join Jihadi movements. Those accused will be arrested, interrogated, and imprisoned for 72 hours if after a thorough investigation they are found to be innocent. If they are not found innocent, they will be sent for re-education in the importance of living peaceably and tolerantly in our society and shown why Islam cannot resort to violence and how it goes against their religion. They will be released after their re-education is over, so long as they pass an exit exam and they will be identified on legal records as "reformed." Instructors in these places will hopefully all be native Middle-Easterners with accreditation in Islamic theology of the sects we support.
 

An Inquisitor's Gear

WH40k Inquisitor

Should after a few generations sufficient that none are left alive who remember the days of Islam before our occupation in the region, and we cannot rule this strategy as successful - providing nothing occurring sooner rules it unsuccessful, we shall present our evidence of this to the UN and to our international allies and make the findings public all over the world for anyone to access. We will then begin a systematic destruction of Islamic places in the country and the deportation of every Muslim resident of the occupied land. I should mention that while the Middle East is under our control I do not think we should let it simply be, but we should begin allowing Americans to come and start businesses and work in the conquered territory, and encourage them to live there - except for Muslims who will not convert to the approved sects. I believe this allows an opportunity for those Muslims who sincerely want Islam to be a peaceful religion to make it one, as the Jihad-supporting sects who still cling to their horrendous history are slowly wiped out or made invalid by their size as the peaceful sect grows in size.

So there you have it in short. A way the US - or anyone - could make an occupation work while still respecting Islam. Those who believe Islam is a peaceful religion should have no problem transferring their practice to or creating a new, completely pacifistic sect. They should also have no problem taking jobs in law enforcement or anywhere else where they help non-Muslims crack down on violent dissenters - this includes being eligible for compulsory military service. They should have no problem with building toward a future where Islam is a completely peaceful religion by default, and the world need not look toward Islam ever again as a threat to peace and prosperity. They should not object to an expunging of hadiths and traditions in Islam that promote violence, and the same with the Quran. They should have no qualms with disowning their religion's history of violence, oppression, brutality, and conversion by the sword. They should have no problem with apologizing repeatedly on behalf of their barbaric religious relatives in violent sects of Islam, or loudly condemning them and all they do and admonishing them to come to peaceful sects.

The Pontifical Noble Guard pays homage to Pope Pius XII, Christmas 1945. The Pope’s nephew, Prince Giulio Pacelli, is the third guard from the left.

Or, if they do, perhaps the Islamic principle of taqqiya has been in use far more liberally than we realize. In which case, these insincere charlatans will be punished with imprisonment and re-education as quite clearly they do not practice what they preach. Those who knowingly helped the charade shall be the first to die.

Picture showing the massacre of Perugia citizens by the Papal troops, 20 June, 1859.

How a Catholic Monarch Handles a Racial Riot

A Lesson For American Leadership from England of Yore

Richard I being anointed during his coronation in Westminster Abbey, from a 13th-century chronicle.

The Coronation Chair of Saint Edward.

On the day of the coronation of the man who would go down as the Lionheart, Richard Plantagenet, some elders from the Jewish communities of England came to present coronation gifts. Now Richard had ordered all Jews barred from the investiture ceremony for two reasons: one, there was great consternation among the Crusade-fevered people of England concerning Jewish support for the Muslim powers over the Christian ones. Stories - now we know to be factual - of Jews opening the gates of Christian settlements in Spain to Moorish Slave-Raiders had caused many to see the Jews as potential spies working for the Caliphate. Richard's advisers didn't want anything potentially happening to Richard at the coronation, seeing his desire to crusade was so pronounced and a man like Richard had a reputation even reaching the Middle East. The second reason being that racial tension between the two groups was so high - not just due to the allegations of treason, but commercial competition with Christian merchants and bankers - that fights almost always broke out where the two were present.

19th century painting of the king

The Jewish communities wished to make a display of good will toward the king at the outset of his reign and show support for his crusading endeavors. So they arrived at Richard's court instead with their presents. The courtiers reacted harshly, and while they accepted the gifts, they stripped and flogged the Elders all while Richard was being crowned King of England.

The courtiers doubtlessly realized they had made a grave error. The Jewish community wouldn't take the death of their elders lying down, so they decided to deal the first blow. They concocted a rumor that His Majesty had ordered the execution of all Jews on the pretense of removing potential usurpers from seizing the advantage while he was on Crusade.

What followed was a massacre of legendary proportions. In a massive race-riot, Englishmen descended on the Jewish ghettos and began looting everything that wasn't nailed down and burning everything they could set a torch to. Many Jews were forcibly baptized, though whether clergy were actively involved or these were simply vigilante acts remains a mystery. Most of the Jews who were outside their homes were beaten to death and robbed of everything including the clothes on their backs. Those in their homes perished in fires. Among those to die was Jacob of Orléans, a respected Jewish scholar in France as well as England who had come to London to start a school.

The situation was dire for the Jews. Those who escaped the ghetto fled to the Tower of London, where the king's guards kept them safe from the mob that was as hungry for their blood as they were for their gold. As Jews became scarce, the mob expanded their rapine to the Christian communities surrounding the ghettos, performing similar acts of violence and theft.

The "White Tower" is the portion of the Tower of London which dates to King Richard's reign.

The king found out about the event only after leaving Westminster, just having been crowned King of England. In what can only be described as a tone-setter for the young Warrior-King's reign and a move that is characteristically Richard, he immediately rode with his knights to the ghettos. Surveying the chaos wrought by his presumptuous subjects and faced with the prospect of total revolt, Richard set about immediately coordinating every available man-at-arms and knight of his court to restoring order in the ghetto and finding out exactly what the Devil was afoot in London.

As order was restored and the violent rabble either killed or captured, Richard began his investigation and found the source of the trouble to be from his own courtiers. Roger of Howden, Richard's principle biographer, tells us he found the source of the violence to be the envious and racist citizens of London themselves. Roger relates how Richard carried out a thorough investigation. Discovering the forced conversions, he decreed that all Jews forcibly baptized could return to their native religion if they so desired.

Plaque depicting King Richard at Nottingham Castle.

But Richard knew behavior like this could not go unpunished, especially while he was poised to leave for Crusade for God only knew how long. Richard went a step further and distributed a royal writ throughout the lands, demanding the Jewish communities to be left to themselves to handle their affairs and that every Jew before the law was to be seen as an equal citizen - a murder of a Jew or the theft of Jewish property was to be taken as seriously as the murder of an Englishman and the theft of his goods. He executed the mob leaders and saw stolen property returned to its owners.

What's to Learn?

Racial tension between Jews and Englishman on the British Isles was very much akin to the tension between Whites and Blacks in the US today. Just like it did in England during the 11th and 12th century, it threatens to tear us apart even as foreign enemies stand ready to wash over us, unprepared as we struggle amongst ourselves. So how should we respond to situations where these tensions are immediate? Well, there's a couple of things we can learn from Richard I. Respond decisively and quickly, investigate the matter impartially, and then create some focal point of unity. For Richard, that was himself and the Crown. He made it clear he was a friend to everyone.

So, as a recap:

1. Act quickly.
2. Diffuse the tension.
3. Fix the problem surgically.
4. Find a point on which to restore unity.

Let us pray for our nation. Hey, if you're feeling brave, pray to Richard Himself. A noted mystic and religious who lived in the 12th century said that Richard spent 66 years in purgatory for his short temper, after which he would ascend to Heaven. So maybe see if Good King Richard is waiting for us in the Hereafter, and ask for his intercession on the matter of the racial divisions tearing at our country.

King Richard the Lionheart in Stained Glass in an Unknown Church.

Dignus Catholici: Saint Katharine Drexel

How a Catholic Nun Stood Against Racial Prejudice

Now here is a woman for our day today. Drexel came from a wealthy Catholic family in Philadelphia, who regularly used their money for charitable work to personally support struggling families. Her father died and left Saint Katharine a large amount of money, but she decided to use it and the rest of her life to support African Americans and Native Americans. She even established a religious order to this end: the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament.

Katharine Drexel as a young woman, before she took her vows

Many did not share her convictions for helping racial minorities at the time. In fact at one of the first convents she attempted to built for the sisters, a stick of dynamite that had failed to detonate was discovered in the construction site, indicating attempted sabotage. This wasn't too much of a shock; during the early 20th century at the height of the Jim Crow South, Anti-Catholic sentiment was also on the rise and the Ku Klux Klan was considered a legitimate patriotic social institution. Most Anti-Catholic sentiment stemmed from two things: Nativists attitudes among WASPs in the US and the fact the Catholic Church was a strong opponent of Racial Segregation in the US.

In 1913 the Georgia State Legislature passed a law forbidding the teaching of Colored students by White teachers, at a time when Katharine Drexel was lobbying for land to build schools in black communities run by the sisters.

When she purchased a building to open what became Xavier Preparatory School in New Orleans, vandals smashed every window in the building before renovations could begin.

Then in 1922 Klansmen in Beaumont, Texas posted a sign on the door of a Catholic Church where the Sisters had opened a school which read, and I quote, "We want an end of services here, ... Suppress it in one week or flogging with tar and feathers will follow." However, in what I can only describe as a glorious act of God's vengeance, a few days later a God willed that a terrible thunderstorm should come upon the town, which ended in the complete destruction of the Klan's headquarters therein.

The assault of Segregationists against these faithful nuns never ceased. They even burned schools as far north as Pennsylvania. In spite of the barbarian Yanks' No-Popery gangs, by 1942 the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament had built a reliable system of Catholic schools for African Americans and in 13 states, including 40 mission centers and 23 more schools in rural areas.

St. Benedict the Moor School, St. Augustine (c. 1898), paid for by St. Katharine Drexel.

In 1935, however, Mother Katharine suffered a heart attack. She relinquished the office of Superior General in 1937, but she continued to be the main source of funds for the order. Over six decades spent in devotion to racial minorities she spent $20 million American dollars to her mission of service to the Black and Indian communities of the United States, paying for the salaries of all the employees out of her own pocket.

After her death, the order legally could not have control of her fortune. But nevertheless, God provided and the order expanded its mission activities to 21 states and the nation of Haiti.

Saint Katharine Drexel was a symbol of Catholic sense, charity, and racial tolerance in a country that did not grasp or accept these things and still struggles with them today. I personally would see her mission continued today in helping racial minorities in struggling communities. I think they would've done much better with a bit of security on their property. That and the general idea of the IMBC routing a large Klan rally somewhere just appeals to me in general.

Of course, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So sentries are invaluable. Using this image of a 22nd Rgt. Mordian Iron Guard Sgt. cosplay because I really like the uniform. Take notes!

Let us pray to Saint Katharine Drexel as we remember current events in Ferguson, Missouri. Let us pray for racial tolerance and sanity to gain a foothold in this tragedy, and that justice might be done upon all and a step forward will be taken toward a better future in America where racial prejudices no longer hinder this burgeoning empire we know as the United States of America.

This may be the only time I post an American Flag in any sort of romanticized way. Take a picture, dear readers; it will last longer.

Caesar Alloquitur: The Poor, Poor Pentecostals

"I'm so Persecuted With my Money and Legal Rights Because I'm Surrounded by Catholicism in Italy!"

Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome, with Michael's statue atop. How oppressive must it be for a Protestant to live in the shadow of an architectural marvel which is a monument to the Papacy's refusal to be crushed?

I just have a couple of questions concerning all of this.

War Flag of the Italian Social Republic. Fascists, like their Communist adversaries, had a talent for naming horrible things in such a way you'd think they were the grandest thing.

 While I understand reconciliation is necessary in any event, I have to ask a question that I want a serious answer to: when has the Catholic Church persecuted Pentecostals? It’s curious. I use pretty much every search engine I know to find out, and I find nothing. In fact, the only reference to persecution of Pentecostals comes from more news articles reporting on the events in the other link. The only thing I can find is in these articles glib mention of religious persecution of Pentecostals by Mussolini in the 20s and 30s. There’s also minor mention of it in various (reputable) sources speaking on Fascist Italy.

I’m not about to start white-washing Fascist regimes or anything, but how is this our fault? The Catholic Church was as much a prisoner in Fascist Italy and in the subsequent satellite state controlled by the Nazis as anyone else was. Like with most fascist regimes, the state religion was usually picked based on the preference of those in power and the cultural background of the nation. It had nearly nothing to do with any real respect for the religion or any desire to follow it. To be fair, we were lucky to get the concordats we did or that the Lateran treaty remained in force.
Historically speaking, Pentecostalism has its roots in the big tent revivals of the early 20th century and the mysticism which grew out of that. Anyone who thought the Catholic Church had any temporal power by that point should’ve been laughed off his soap box. Even with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, edicts of past emperors had restricted Papal influence in the last bastion of the Holy Roman Emperors. While it is likely most of these were rescinded under later monarchs, it’s unclear if they were.

Portrait of Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor. One of those Emperors who began the trend of writing policy limiting the power of the Church.

So the head of Catholicism basically had no say or control over anything and was at the mercy of

Maria Theresa, Another Hapsburg who advocated such policies as Joseph II's.

those who should’ve been his greatest benefactors. It’s been established that the Great War Popes were playing a game close to their chest, with the goal being to protect what was left of the Church because for the first time in nearly a thousand years there was no one to protect it. They were not callous toward the plight of persecuted minorities, as the smuggling efforts carried out by the Roman Pontiffs attests. But anyone who expected the Pope to pull a Julius II and ride out with an army in the full panoply of war and suddenly fix everything or die trying is an idiot with absolutely zero understanding of realpolitik or any foresight. Quite frankly I’m glad the Popes didn’t do that, because if they had, suddenly the dominant powers in Europe would’ve enacted a pogrom against Catholics. Cathedrals and Churches would’ve been looted, smashed, and destroyed, or Antipopes would’ve been set up in the various countries, all with their own Catholicism suitable to their Fascist ideas, and we would’ve had another Great Western Schism on our hands. Quite frankly, we barely survived the last one. There’s no way we would make it out of a second one.

Pope Julius, Warrior-Pope. As much as I admire his approach, one must admit there is a time for war and a time for peace.

More on point, Mussolini was never quiet about his true opinions of Catholicism. He hated it, and himself was raised by anti-clerical parents. He proclaimed himself an atheist and was downright blasphemous in his statements and remarks about Catholicism, even going so far as to introduce the idea that Christ and the Blessed Mother had an incestuous affair. He even early on in his tenure in the Socialist party suggested a policy of expelling Christian members or those who accepted religious marriage as valid.

Benito Mussolini at a Fascist Rally in Rome

Signing of the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini

Mussolini’s own wife admits that any time during his relations with the Pope, he was still irreligious and refused to allow any photographs of him with the Pope in which he was in any way seen as submitting to him. He wanted to create the idea that Fascism was Catholicism and Catholicism was Fascism, but he personally still had no use for clergyman or the sacraments.
In fact, Mussolini built himself up as a God. Pronouns in official documents referring to him were to be capitalized. In art and in public appearance he tried to give himself an apotheosis and make himself a Christ-figure to the Italian people.

Even more damning, is that by the late 1930s Mussolini was calling for the outright removal of the Papacy and called it a, “malignant tumor” on his otherwise perfect Italy. He thought Rome wasn’t big enough for the two of them.

What’s puzzling is that even in spite of all this, Mussolini was given a Catholic funeral in 1957, after being hung by a mob after Italy collapsed with the American invasion.

So can we please put to rest the idea that Catholicism and Fascism are somehow compatible? Can we mature just a little bit, open our eyes to the larger political picture of the 20th century, and realize that we probably would’ve done the same thing as the Roman Pontiffs? That we had no more ability to avert history than they themselves did? It’s very easy, if you try. Now all I need is for my fellow Catholics to also drop fascism.

I’m looking at most of the, “Rad Trads” in the room.

Tomb of Marshal Petain, leader of Vichy France and collaborator with the Nazis. Former French Hero from World War II. This is is grave after a pilgrimage by the SSPX, celebrating him as a hero of Catholicism in spite of his crimes committed with the Nazis and in Vichy France. Video footage exists of the pilgrimages. Fliers distributed in French SSPX parishes for the pilgrimages exists. Though they've tried to hide the evidence, it's as plain as day that the vast majority of the SSPX - for whatever ungodly reason - supports Fascism. As far as I'm concerned, before any other unity talks, they need to clean their own house before asking us to clean ours.

We’ve established now that Mussolini simply doesn’t stack up to other Catholic leaders of the past. Philip II of Spain, Charles V (HRE), Charlemagne, Otto the Great (HRE), Jan III Sobieski of Poland, Saint Louis IX of France, Godfrey of Bouillon, Sigurd the Crusader-King of Norway, Saint Ferdinand III of Castile, Charles I of Naples, Leopold I (HRE), King Edward the Confessor of England, Albert the Great of England, and a hundred others I could list off to you. So acting like this is all somehow something that went on with a complete Catholic stamp of approval is ridiculous.

Tho as evidenced by this piece of propaganda, the Fascists sure did try and play themselves up as religious zealots, completely independent of the facts.

 I can’t help but look at the irony of the situation. The fact is these same people who criticize us for not doing enough are the ideological successors to the people who deprived us of all our power. The fact is we would’ve stopped a lot of bad things we had to stand by and watch, but the world literally removed from us the ability to do anything. But now that we don’t have control anymore they treat us like we still do and hold us to the same standard as if Christendom was still a political reality.
What I’m saying is this: if the world wants us to have the influence to fix these problems, they should give us back what is rightfully ours. Protestant squatters in stolen Catholic churches should vacate the premises. The Crowned Heads of Christendom and/or their successors should reaffirm their loyalty to the Vicar of Christ and those who are deprived of their thrones should have them restored. Give Catholics the same legions of lawyers, armed zealots, and UN fandoms that every other religion seems to get. Let us re-established an international Roman Inquisition with regional officers and 100% insight into our dioceses and religious communities. Let us tell our children it is OK to love your culture and your religion. I can promise you, work will get done.

Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms Before Charles V. It's said that had Kaiser Karl not promised Martin Luther save passage to Worms to get him to come speak in the first place, he would've had him killed on the spot.

You wouldn’t ask a plumber to come fix your pipes and then steal all his tools from him and then still demand he do the job with the same efficiency and capability. Don’t do the same to the Roman Catholic Church. That’s all I’m asking. If no one else will put those powers and resources to work for the greater good, I will.

But I haven’t really labored on the most interesting part of this whole thing. What initially had everyone on pins and needles about this whole event was what was said by the Protestant representatives at this meeting the Pope had. They claimed that, quote, “the Catholic Church, with its imposing presence, acts too much as an obstacle to the growth and witness of these [Pentecostal] communities.”

The Spanish Steps, Rome, Italy. I'm so sorry all the beauty we've created in the centuries we've held up Western Civilization hurts your feelings. Are you sure that's not envy you feel, instead of oppression?

There was not a single mention of the persecutions in Fascist Italy. They didn’t ask for an apology for that. Some elderly gentleman who’s family was executed by Italian Firing-Squads or who’s wife was beaten and raped by a gang of Black-Shirts didn’t walk up to the Pope and with what strength he had left stand tall and demand an apology for the wrongs done to him and his family.
No, a proponent of the Prosperity Gospel walked straight up to the Pontifex Maximus, in his own
city, in his own home, in the heart of Christendom on earth and said, “Gee wizz, Franky; all this Catholicism sure makes it tough for me to get these Italians to make donations and come to my Sunday Meetings! Could ya maybe tone it down a bit? Thanks, ol’ buddy ol’ pal ol’ friend! High five, up top!”

Yes, this happened.

All with a shit-eating grin only a con man could muster. Frankly, this is probably why I’m not the Pope, nor is anyone else in my circle of companions. I would’ve ordered the Swiss Guard to behead him before me. Or maybe I would’ve turned him away with a smart, “That’s a brave request, sir! Perhaps you should take your private jet to Iraq and speak with the Caliph and ask him to tone down on all the Islam so you can start milking Iraqis for money! I look forward to seeing you on the news.”
But I really have to give it to Pope Francis on this one. He gave the Pentecostals an apology, all right. For something that was done wrong to them, which he of all people - an Argentinian - has absolutely zero connection with, over something even they didn’t remember it seems. Of course everyone acted like they got an apology for the mere existence of Catholicism, but the reality is that’s not what he apologized for.

The Battle of Ostia by Raphael. In which Muslim Pirates raiding Rome were confounded by Papal forces.

So in a move showing a deftness and wit I knew this Pontiff possessed, he carefully satisfied all parties - from those who would be outraged at an apology to the Evangelicals who demanded one from the Coryphaeus, the Ruler of the Whole World, who days later issued a document at one of their “councils” speaking of how they hated the “Imperial Roman Church” and wanted no part of it.

Aren’t they nice?

Well, he didn't stick a knife in the Holy Father. That already puts him a step above most of the Protestant Reformers.

Worthy Catholics: Pope Martin V

The pope who's election ended the disastrous Western Schism. His pontificate was a stable one which saw order returned to Italy and the end of the all-out war between those various Catholic countries who had supported different popes during the Western Schism and as such viewed the others as heretics.

His Holiness was a strong supporter of the Catholic cause during the Hussite Wars, and also issued several Papal Bulls reaffirming the privileges of the Jews in Bohemia, ensuring they would not be harassed or have their rights revoked due to renewed Catholic influence in the region. He also instituted harsh punishments for friars promoting antisemitism in their sermons. His bulls also ended the antisemitic measures placed upon the Jews living where Antipope Benedict XIII reigned supreme.

He established diplomatic contacts with the then Byzantine Emperor Manuel II and issued indulgences to any Catholic who undertook or took part in a crusade to alleviate the pressure by the Ottoman Turks on Byzantium.

A supporter of colonial expansion, he took strong measures to end the enslavement of Christians not just by weakening the power of the Ottoman slave-traders but by threatening any Catholic trafficking Christian slaves with excommunication.

Prince Henry the Navigator actually presented His Holiness with a gift of ten African slaves.

 Overall a good pontiff who did a lot of good for the Church in a time it needed a pious pope with a good head on his shoulders to pull everyone back together and return things to the status quo.

The Election of Pope Martin.