Secession Would Not be an Answer to, But a Part of Our Problem

When Was the Last Healthy Nation You Saw in a Civil War?

Aleppo, Syrian Civil War

Dylan Roof and the shooting at Emmanuel Church in Charleston has once again opened a racial and political wound in this country which refuses to heal. It almost seems like we refuse to let it mend; somewhere some how it will always be exploited and brought up again. Democrats in 2008 used it to get an unqualified community organizer elected as leader of what used to be a world superpower. Republicans have been using it discreetly to try and maintain some kind of relevance with the electorate. Public speakers and authors have been using it to sell tickets and books. Religious leaders have been using it to attach a religious element to the racial strife in America so they could maintain relevance in a vastly irreligious country. People continually take advantage of the situation and stoke the fires, but the last time we had anyone who seemed serious about overcoming and removing this hurdle seems to be in the Civil Rights Era or during the Harlem Renaissance.

But now that is all a distant memory; once upon a time in American politics we battled 18th and 19th century Racialism for what it was, but now both sides are beginning to comfortably and brazenly use it as each side becomes more daring in their radicalism. This is the future of American politics: drawn along the lines of race and identity for the sake of securing votes the political elite have successfully driven a wedge between the people of this country. Now the Civil War has re-entered American public conscience with a vengeance. Battle lines are being drawn between two sides that, to be quite frank, are pitiless and unlovable. Neither represent America, only portions of it. Neither represent the people, but are instead lead de facto by political elites who have sown all of this for their own benefit. They alone will reap the rewards of this harvest, we are but the slaves who will gather it by our sweaty toil; we shall starve for our trouble.

Battle of Pea Ridge, Ark., by Kurz and Allison.

The fact we feel so threatened by this that we must start banning Confederate memorabilia left and right illustrates this perfectly. At this stage there is no militant force of Neo-Confederates worth mentioning that could strike out at the Union or do harm to it. There are radicals who use it who could easily be dealt with case-by-case; other than being visibly or verbally offensive the organized groups are hardly a threat. But they could easily become one.

There's honestly not much I can add to all this that hasn't been said. I can offer my unique experience, however. You see, people make the standard suppositions about me when I speak on the Confederacy: that I'm ignorant and just know nothing about the Cause. Well...

Life Under the Southern Cross

 

... that's a load of horse shit, because I was raised Neo-Confederate and liked it at the time. So from this point forward, assume I know what I'm talking about and listen. I'll try and provide links and sources for historical assertions.

Up until I'd estimate my senior year of High School, I classified myself as a Good Ol' Rebel. I hoarded Confederate memorabilia and most of my first vacation destinations were anything that had to do with the Confederacy. Just imagine me, but with the CSA. I was incredibly proud of my Southern heritage. I was raised loving it and I knew about my Confederate ancestors, of whom there were several. One was a Confederate officer at the Battle of Pleasant Hill. Five who carry my last name are buried in the Vicksburg Confederate Cemetery. Another survived both Antietam and Fredericksburg. This isn't really special for someone with a Southern family; almost everyone has family who were involved in some way.

But I wasn't raised to be a racist, either. I think this is where the genuine disconnect comes in: Northerners and others see the Confederacy for what it was, a seditious institution founded for the protection of slavery upon ideas of white supremacy. But for many Southerners this is not how it's taught to them at all. I'm not going to pretend there aren't those who are taught that is what it is, but I can speak as a native that really these people are out in the sticks and generally aren't accepted in mainstream society. Those you do meet have only become more brazen in recent years as politics have become increasingly racialized. When I was growing up you didn't see those types, and they were banned from most things that had to do with the Confederacy.

What did the Confederacy represent to us then? True America, quite simply. To the average Southerner the Confederacy is the embodiment of not just everything we hold dear but everything good about America. Christianity, civil liberty, self determination, and the willingness to fight for it. More specifically to the South it represented tradition, chivalry, honesty, and upstanding virtue. I know that's hard to believe, but you must understand our folk historiography is basically formed by Gods and Generals and Gone With the Wind. Imagine if the average German's view of the Third Reich was Triumph of Will and only that film. Most of what we're exposed to regarding the Old South are romanticized paintings of Confederates in glorious combat against the Yankee Menace in the War of Northern Aggression (yes, they really call it that), or beautiful and white-washed depictions of plantation parties and rural country living. Along with spirited renditions of Dixie and other Confederate ballads, it isn't exactly difficult to let yourself get swept up in it all if you don't know better.

This is the Confederacy to the Average Southerner; This and Only This. Believe Otherwise and you're a dirty Yankee commie who hates America and just doesn't get it.

You're probably thinking that with time and scholarship such ideas would melt away. Well, it's not that simple. One thing I do disagree with is how the South was treated after the war, but ironically enough that was their own fault. When John Wilkes Booth shot and killed Abraham Lincoln he killed the most powerful friend the Post-War South had. Lincoln above all just wanted a solution to the crisis and he frankly didn't give a damn what it was; he loved America and wanted to preserve it and if that meant keeping slaves, freeing slaves, deporting them wholesale, or keeping them and integrating them he was going to do it. He cared about what worked, not necessarily what people wanted. At the same time the moral compass of the nation was being awakened with the advent of industrial agriculture. Slavery was quite simply no longer necessary because industry could beat anything a field of slaves could do, and there was more money in it. It was a perfect storm for abolition, just like the South's climate was naturally against abolition.

Back to Lincoln, Lincoln believed in a policy of reconciliation and recuperation for the South. He wanted them to be an industrialized, strong, happy, healthy, free part of the United States. But he was a minority in this, so when Booth cacked him it was only going to go downhill from there. As this bitter Southern man ran out of the theater shouting the Latin Virginian motto, Sic Semper Tyrannis, he sealed the doom of the South at the hands of embittered and angry northerners who wanted to seize the resources of the South away from them and use them for their own commercial gain.

This and the above painting is done by Don Troiani, a guy who specializes in Civil War art. This is totally unrelated to anything I'm talking about, I just wanted to show the Confederates aren't the only people with seriously epic artwork. You can enjoy it, be patriotic, and be guilt-free. Seriously, check him out.

To be quite honest I see where the North was coming from, but that doesn't mean revenge was a good guiding motivator for domestic policy. The South and the North had a nice dichotomy going before the war; the South grew the cotton, shipped it north to factories, and then the North made good use of it. If that could have been recreated maybe today the South wouldn't be one of the poorest places in the country. This may come as a shock to the Southerner who's so convinced in the agrarian purity of the South, but we're in the bottom on everything good and the top of everything bad. Highest crime rates, greatest amount of STDs, highest infant mortality rate, highest number of broken homes, lowest number of people with a high school diploma, greatest number of people on welfare, lowest GDP, lowest infrastructure score, greatest drug usage, highest rates of domestic abuse, you name it. I'm not saying anywhere else in America is paradise but when you look at the numbers we really are not doing that great. A big part of this has to do with how Reconstruction was done (which again indirectly was John Wilkes Booth's fault because he shot the one guy who could stop it). Every Southern boy knows that the Carpetbaggers came south and exploited us at our lowest, which is somewhat true. Most industries and manufacturing in this state is owned by non-native corporations. The only thing that isn't is agriculture and service industries, the former being because most Southerners owned the land to do it with in the first place and the latter because we have to make money somehow.

I'd also like to point out at this point there was this "Romance of Reunion" thing going on. See, actually, most of the big name guys involved in the Civil War were happy it was over and hated it while it happened. Most of the military who weren't "grunts" had all served together before in other wars, some as far back as 1812. They were not enthusiastic at the prospect of shooting one another. So after the war was over most people honestly wanted to get on with their lives and make sure this catastrophe weakened us as little as possible. Foreign powers were starting to take interest in the Americas again with its primary superpower divided and killing itself (see: France in Mexico), but the war ended decisively before any one side got too involved. Just as an aside, the Confederacy regarded every state as a sovereign nation. You needed a passport just to cross state lines. Each one could make treaties and trade deals of its own accord, and even declare war. Now how exactly is that supposed to work out for a strong, unified country? At the time, we would've become a playground for foreign empires within a year.

How and why does the South keep the Confederacy alive, then, if all this is true? Aside from the romanticism involved in all of it: money. Remember what I said about how poor the South is? Well, what we do have are a large collection of famous Civil War monuments, battlefields, and so on. Plantations and cities with old quarters full of reenactors. Who put the Old South on full display for your enjoyment as a tourist. Whether you be a foreigner, a Neo-Confederate on pilgrimage, or just a curious tourist, you're welcome for $20 each. Tourism is literally what keeps the South operating in the green, and even then for some of them it's not enough to keep them out of debt. We've also got civil war reenactments that are huge events, like football game huge. People bring lawn chairs and families to watch these things. They come for miles, even for battles where the Confederacy loses! It's a money making scheme; that's all it is.

But there's a final element to this whole thing: political disenfranchisement. The average Dixian feels disconnected from every other part of the country. As we've seen before, the entire South can vote one way in a national election and it doesn't matter; it's a drop in the bucket. But that's how our electoral college is set up. On top of that, we're a joke to most of the planet and even in the rest of the country. We don't know our own history, we seemingly live in invincible ignorance, we literally drag our nation down, and yet while being only a fourth of the nation we dare to make the assertion that we represent the United States of America. Or worse yet that we're better than the US and can somehow survive on our own without it. We're like that crotchety old relative who lives in your house, talks smack all the time to everyone else (but never gets in a fight of any kind or does anything substantial and when he does it fails gloriously), when he's in his 40s and has done nothing with his life and is utterly dependent on others.

But really, that's a big part of it. It really came back into vogue though the the Centennial of the Civil War in the 50s; before that, the Confederacy was a quirky piece of history. In fact the Confederate Flag you see today is the result of that Centennial; it was flown at parades and sold to people who wanted to commemorate a heritage which suddenly meant so much to them. The closest thing to what people use now was actually the navy jack (coloration is off) or the battle flag of Northern Virginia (though it's a square and had writing on it, unlike the ones you see today). So the flag everyone is arguing over is not even the right one.

I daresay many fly the flag simply as a symbol of rebellion: they feel themselves unjustly punished by the North because they were in the right, which they only believe because of folk historiography. Nothing embodies this thinking better than the song, "I'm a Good Ol' Rebel." Take a listen, and be amazed.

Now do you get it? Most Neo-Confederates know nothing of substance about the Civil War and don't want to learn because they enjoy the historical grounding the Confederacy gives their current distaste for things; they like the aesthetic, it fits them comfortably, and the idealistic and romanticized portrait of a bunch of rag-tag rebels fighting a modernized liberal empire for all that's good, traditional, and conservative in America with valor and courage. You can see the dissonance all over this video; he literally says he hates the Declaration of Independence and Old Glory, yet puts a picture of the Confederate Flag in captioned "Heritage/Not Hate." Note the inclusion of Black Confederates; they validate his believe that the original CSA was not about white supremacy, and to most Black Confederates it isn't either. They're an anomaly, truly. Historically blacks fought for the Confederacy because they were slaves and therefore had no choice or hoped fighting would advance their social standing. Others like black slave owners simply wanted to continue the business they had carved out for themselves. But it does not change that the CSA's continued existence would secure the perpetration of white supremacy and slavery in North America; not a chance. How many Neo-Confederates are racists? Honestly it's hard to say; I guess what would matter was if the power and influential ones were.

To make things worse, Republicans and Conservatives have almost been forced into appealing to these people because everyone else is voting Democrat. This almost seals the doom of the continuation and mainstream acceptance of Neo-Confederates.

The great irony is that it is indirectly our own fault: cantankerous and violent minorities with questionable loyalties very rarely get treated nicely. Especially when they've been treated marginally well compared to what could be done to them. Less generous nations might've smashed us into the ground multiple times now for our cries of secession and so-on and torn down every vestige of the Confederacy, but they didn't.

In summary? Neo-Confederacy is caused by a mixture of political disenfranchisement, folk historiography, romanticism, white-washing, a booming tourism industry, political manipulation, and racism.

So why am I now anti-Confederacy? Around the early days of the NSIR a critic of my page attacked my early posts defending the Confederacy, and told me some things I didn't know. Mostly concerning that link I showed you all. The fact is that slavery was the immediate cause of secession and most Southerners knew that; the election of an Anti-Slavery President was the source of secession. That was the event which triggered the whole proceeding events. The economic backbone of the South was threatened. Slavery was an immoral institution and many in America wanted it abolished, but the South would do no such thing as they'd built their entire society around it.

Every single secession declaration for the Confederate States of America mentions as a reason for their secession slavery, white supremacy, or both. Most notably South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. People talk about other factors, but these were just straws on the camel's back; the one that broke it was slavery. State's Rights were only evoked to counter federal attempts at abolition. All I'm saying is, no one got beaten to death in congress by a Southern man because of some slanted tariffs: it was because he made a speech denouncing slavery.

An argument can be made that many people - even Robert E. Lee perhaps - who fought for the Confederacy were not overtly racist. Well an argument can be made that not everyone who fought for the Third Reich was not an overt antisemite, but we still condemn them because they fought - whether they liked it or not - for a regime that would have prolonged the Holocaust, a great injustice. It's the same with the Confederacy; the existence of the Confederacy would have prolonged slavery and entrenched racialism in the south. In the service of the Caliphs who ruled Christian Iberia with an iron first there were many religiously Catholic mercenaries. Are they to be forgiven for their crimes, and the oppression of the Caliphate upon our people to be ignored because of this? No; such would be preposterous.

Speaking of Catholics, much ado is also made about how the Confederacy was somehow "Catholic." This cannot be further from the truth. In pre and post Civil War South the Catholic Church was very much under attack because they disliked slavery and racialism. Beauregard might have been a Catholic, but so is Nancy Pelosi. I think most Catholics would agree with me having brought this up that it takes more than simply professing Catholicism to be considered a good Catholic. The only substantial arguments people make revolve around the fact that Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote with Jefferson Davis and recognized him as leader of a nation; well, he was. An illegitimate one, but a nation. As I've said before by the 19th century the Church basically lost all meaningful political power and they never really had it in America like they did in Europe. Rome's primary concern at this point was the protection of their flock, hence probably why he did not antagonize them. In those days one knew the Faith, and every Catholic knew this modernist racialism and unjust slavery was something no Catholic could support. A task I will give my fellow Catholics who support the Confederacy is to find me one piece of writing from Rome in which the support for the Confederacy is espoused. Why did any Catholics fight for the Union if the Pope espoused his support for one side over the other? Why is it the case then that the majority of Catholics fought for the Union? How came it that Catholicism became far more accepted in mainstream American society than ever before following the Civil War? Oh, that's right; Catholic brigades formed by the Irish and Italians played crucial roles in many battles.

To my fellow Catholics particularly I can only question this fascination with shock. Why do you so desperately cling to this rotten edifice of a government that did not outlive its founders and moreover stood against our principles? It can be said that before the Civil War many Catholics didn't precisely oppose abolition but they opposed the Republicans at the time mostly because they housed the Know-Nothings, the Anti-Catholic and Anti-Immigrant party of the day. But at the war's onset that all changed.

Memorial to the 28th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment.

We have a duty to this nation; we will not serve it if we get too bogged down in their sectarian politics.

Conclusion

Guys, why am I even having this discussion with you? Our nation is hurt with manifold wounds that open wider every day and threaten to kill us. America is not and never has been a true home for Catholics, but nowhere else in the world is either. We're much like the Jews once were in that regard; nowhere is a home for us. We are a people in exile, who's lot in life will be a boot pressed against our face if we don't act. The rest of the world doesn't care a damn about the Civil War. America is crumbling; it will crumble faster as a house divided. Ladies and gentleman, please; for the sake of our future and our survival, let's put this all behind us. America has a future: a united future, a royal future, a Catholic future. But even now those three words put many Americas in rows. We have a lot of work before us. Rome, too, was once a corrupt an inept republic. America can become something great, but it cannot be anything but a footnote in history if it falls. We must ensure that if it must fall something great must take its place, for now many malicious powers stand to replace it.

People say the Confederacy is the "Traditional" America. No it isn't; it was a merchant oligarchy that dressed itself up pretty. The difference is that the Union didn't stand on such ceremony. A rebellion or even the continual fomentation of these ideas only serve to further divide this country. For the sake of everyone we need to try and unify, even if only as Catholics. A storm is coming and it is best if we weather it united.

Hall of the Union League, Philadelphia

Of Genderism

"Everyone Should Be Thinking It, So I'll Say It"

 

A Royal Marriage Scene, 1886, Eugène Isabey.

I've spoken before about how I think "Racial Equality" has drastically changed over the past several decades from an attempt to obtain equal rights through cooperation, understanding, and perseverance to a subversive fight for dominance over other ethnic groups in favor of one particular group. I feel like "Gender Equality" is going and has gone in some circles to that point.

Stitching the Standard by Edmund Blair Leighton the lady prepares for a knight to go to war.

In the Western World, women are not systematically oppressed de jure by any government. They haven't been really ever I don't think as a rule. Gender norms of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and up until the beginning of the "Modern" era were simply evolutions of what naturally occurred. There was no legislation that made the family structure what it was or recognized it; it just was. It was a cultural facet. With the Enlightenment particularly in France and Protestant Britain we did see the evolution of new ideas about gender. This is where the whole idea of "Man > Woman" occurs. In the past in philosophy certain virtues where applied to men while others were applied to woman; they were great but in different ways according to their role in life. As man and woman are so is a sword and shield. You would not want a shield to be the same as a sword and vice versa, because then no longer can a warrior use the two in tandem.

Set of swords of Philip II of Spain, Colada is no. 8.

By the 20th century most of these ideas were being overturned with legislation - modern legislation that dated only back to the 18th century I might add - and equality was being achieved. But much like with Race Equality a new definition of "Equality" has come into being, which essentially rather than making others sympathetic to their plight and helping them leads to them being shunned and despised because they have no interest in being accepted. The caricature of First and Second Wave Feminists as domineering, masculine brutes was made true by Third and Fourth Wave feminists. One has to only spend time on tumblr to realize why "Feminist" was voted the most hated word of 2014.

In their own way Feminists created Meninism and the new wave of misogynists embodied in websites like "Return of Kings." A generation of men who hate women and who are committed to simply using them for sex and other pleasures. Groups such as "Red Pill" also come to mind, who focus solely on how to "Game" women. Wooing has been a constant facet of human courtship from the beginning and I don't begrudge it, but it's the attitude behind these Red Kings I rebuke. That all women are dishonest and unfaithful is as untrue as the stereotype that all men are brutish and stupid.

Masculinity and Femininity

It is my firm belief that "Gender Norms" are something found in nature and recognized by mankind. It's not necessarily something fabricated out of thin air. I'd more say modern concepts of gender have been fabricated out of thin are by our continually industrializing society where everything is fake and mass produced. The negative effects this has had on society are obvious; across the Western World broken families are the accepted norm and it seems like no one even cares to prevent them anymore, forcing governments to pick up the pieces.

The genders must work in tandem as they were meant and designed to by Almighty God. Anything else is a Modernist attack on the family structure that has well served humanity for its entire history and has been tried and tested through hardships modern man can scarce comprehend.

Of Outremer

 "Grow Up, or Die."

St. Michael and fallen angels Rubens, 17th century.

Can we all agree that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian fight are disgusting at this point?

The world is sick to death of watching two Nationalist countries endlessly butcher one another because they both want the same thing: the utter removal of their opposition and their own suzerainty. Sick of watching it spill over into other regions. Sick of the back-stabbing and double-talk of both groups. The conflict on the ground has utterly coalesced into a Race War with both side unquestioningly viewing the other as the enemy. To both groups anything goes if it furthers "the Cause of Our People."

September Massacres of the French Revolution

Internationally it's even more abhorrent. Don't be fooled, dear reader; geopolitics has become a soulless and dog-eat-dog thing (if it wasn't always). There is no understanding between those parties in contest. There is no meaningful code of conduct. The nations who back the Israelis or the Palestinians could care less about Jews or Arabs; it's all a bunch of talk. It could be between Heffelumps and Woozles for all they care. The point is that back door deals have been made where each side or the other has agreed to certain things in exchange for other things. That is all that governs the decision-making for most of the superpowers involved. They don't care which side has committed how many atrocities. What matters if if it was caught on tape and can be used to generate sympathy from you, the presumably gullible public with your idealistic outlook on the world that does not match reality.

Spirit of Europa.

You want a look at a Nationalist world? A Nationalist continent? Take a look at Outremer. That is the future of a Nationalist Europe given time and lack of some foreign enemy to hurl themselves at.

The Middle East is the ultimate case for Supra-National Leadership and Imperialism in the world today. Hundreds of thousands of competing nations who's conflicts regularly become someone else's problem. No side can be trusted to be unbiased in its arbitration, because all have something directly to gain, and no side has any reason to hold onto an agreement that no longer benefits them. There is nothing which unites them in common.

Greater Coat of Arms of Leopold II and Francis II, Holy Roman Emperors.

The only faction the NSIR truly cares about now are those Catholic-Christians who have been caught in the middle of this conflict, and the destruction of their holy places. They and others are utterly voiceless in this conflict, and on both sides there have been innocent victims as a consequence of the total war being waged therein. No one side has shown any initiative with caring for them, and why should they according to their own beliefs?

A two-state solution must be reached. Both factions must do homage to a larger, responsible, benign, impartial authority and be left autonomous in their day-to-day operations. "Hate Crimes" must be utterly abolished in any sense of a legal definition. A crime is a crime and all are equal in their status under Imperium as citizens. There will be no deference for anyone. Any attempt at Nationalist Uprising will be met with a reckoning not seen since Titus' sack of Rome.

Fan-made Flag of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Imperial Decree I: Diversity of Man

It is the teaching of Catholicism that all men are by their possession of immortal souls equal at their base and deserving of dignity and respect. This is in spite of ability, station, and ethnicity. Though men may be unequal in appearance and capability they are nonetheless deserving of compassion.

For this reason all racial prejudice, supremacy, segregation, bigotry and likewise are unjust and a violation of human dignity. To support this and to create a just, unified society, we consider it fitting that nations who would rule their affairs as Catholics to adopt a model of Romanesque Citizenship.

That is, wherein all the citizens of a nation are defined in law as having equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities. This is to be the state of affairs de facto and de jure, as it was across Christendom and its temporal parents in the Roman Empire.


Long ago our forefathers (who some erroneously identify as a “white race”) were divided along tribal lines, despising one another with a xenophobic hatred. Though to us they might all seem equally “white.” It is the same all across the world; we take for granted our modern perceptions of race and in our progressive arrogance assume it has always been so.


Whilst the Barbarians were ignorant of Christ, God’s Chosen People were instructed to be kind unto the alien for they too were once oppressed and lost in a foreign land. For the violation of this divine ordinance and many others they oft found themselves in the same state again.


But with the Incarnation, the world was truly Enlightened. Supported by Roman inclusiveness, Catholic theology accomodated all races from east and west into one people: the Catholic people. Before this many were united as Roman Citizens, though many beyond the Empire were not.

With the birth of Christendom from the ashes of Rome came a new order, and while newly-civilized barbarians struggled as with birthing pains the creation of a Pan-European unity it was achieved under the Catholic Faith. Spurred on by the renaissance of Roman knowledge this state of affairs continued; though internal strife often gripped Europe, a Catholic identity kept them as one when it mattered most.


Then came the Protestant Heresy and its offspring, once more dividing the world along ethnic lines in a mindless and hateful quest to rid itself of Rome. Greedy for the Church’s wealth, envious of her majesty, and covetous of her power they sought to tear down what it had built. They left a broken world in their wake; so drunk had it been with rage that it forgot what it once was. In snatches and fits it recalls, but never fully grasps for its own foolish pride. Division remained, and old prejudices were resurrected.


The removal of Catholic thought from the human consciousness made room for all the errors that would come with the modern age. The romanticism of the Barbarian Age brought back with it the old kinist ideas of race and clan. So it was that with swaggering airs and noble sentiments the wars began again and nearly destroyed what remained of our civilization.


Thus with all this in mind it is apparent to us: racialism is a great harm to any people who would do more than be like savages, however “natural” it may be. It is alien to our principles and the way in which our civilization was founded.


But this is not to say that care for one’s people and place of origin is in and of itself an evil; patriotism (unlike its mutation, nationalism) is a virtue as old as Hellas and was present throughout Christendom. But like all things in immoderation it becomes a vice and can lead to terrible things.
For the sake of the common good those minorities who find themselves persecuted should follow the Apostles’ council to forgive their persecutors, and once triumphant as the Christians they should not endeavor to violently suppress their former masters. Such will only perprtuate an endless cycle of hatred, for all human spirit naturally bucks against tyranny. Countries where such methods have been tried experienced failure. Ethnicities do not operate on hive minds; one only need meditate on his own existence to understand this. Should any group willfully threaten peace and order they should be checked, but we must not allow ourselves to overzealously persecute their guiltless kin and kine. For one we may shed innocent blood, and for two we may otherwise gain an ally who may become an enemy. Let all proper, lawful, feasible, thorough means be used to maintain the peace. For true justice to be done the guilty must be punished, the victim compensated, and the innocent left undisturbed. We accept that men are diverse in their ethnicity, and this is obvious with science and by the naked eye. But we are also one in our humanness, and by our possession of an immortal soul.

Therefore it is our resolve that we shall not hoist any race above all as the master race, nor can we break bread with those who do. We shall not endorse policies that suppress or tyrannize any group solely based upon their ethnicity when it is far more expedient to judge men based on the content of their character and reward them as their behavior dictates. We will not presume to act upon any notion that any “race” is wholesale a danger to society and must without prejudice be suppressed or exiled without concrete evidence to say so, and even then it will be because the parties are guilty and not prejudice (which is by definition generally groundless). We will do justice to every man according to his works and intentions. We will give primacy to the beliefs of our ancestors in these matters over Modernist 19th century playwrights.

Thus we will it, so may it be.

A Commentary on Capitalist Societies

How Christendom would Alleviate the "Class Privilege" we See Today

Medieval manuscript showing the hierarchy of society, The Church, The Nobility and Society.

NOTE: Before reading this it's important you go look at this web comic. It is what inspired this and is what will give you some context for the rest of the article. Now, on with the show!

Social climbers, to me, are something of a disease.

One can argue that living in a society where anyone can become anything is great. But the fact is, not everyone will become anything. People ultimately do what they can to survive. There’s an old quote from the Ancient world and I can’t remember who said it, but it was between several diplomats working out a treaty. One of the smaller nations therein felt like they were getting screwed over, but one of the diplomats from the stronger nation looked at him and said, “Right is only a question between two equals. The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”

(The Christian Virgins Being Exposed to the Populace) by Felix Ressureccion Hidalgo, details the persecution of Christians in Ancient Rome.

Catholicism came around and changed all this, introducing the idea that all components in a society at all levels - though stratified - should work together in harmony for the benefit of all. That’s not to say this idea didn’t already exist, but it definitely wasn’t the purveying school of thought.

'Superiority of the warrior class. State 2.' Etching by Wenceslaus Hollar, (University of Toronto).

It accepts the reality that not everyone can or will be equal in power and ability, which is not only defined by personal attributes but the resources at your disposal and how you utilize them. If the male in this cartoon had squandered the opportunities given to him, he could have very well ended up in the place of the young lady. Likewise there are many stories of people like the young lady rising above their place in life to become great.

The knight whose family would thenceforth be called Jirón gives his horse to King Afonso VI of Castile. Painting by Carlos Luis Ribera. “Batalla de Zalaca, 1086″.

The movie “Prince of Egypt” is really popular around here, right? Good, because it’s one of the best Dreamworks films ever made. Remember the part where the old man is singing the song, “Heaven’s Eyes” to Moses? Remember the early lyrics where he describes how the smallest portions of something are its most important pieces? That’s essentially Catholic Social Philosophy. The peasant who sows in his field is no less important or valuable than the king upon who’s land he lives. Each one performs a necessary function. As such it was generally frowned upon for a lord to abuse his subjects. Just as the Bible might extort servants to be longsuffering with their masters, it also instructs the master to be merciful with his workmen and to not deprive them of what they are due. Also through the doctrine that all men are created by God with souls, a genuine idea of equality emerged.

Four Doctors of the Church.

This has been forgotten over the years. The French Revolution practically re-wrote the Medieval period and changed how we look at it. As the Bourbons eroded the rights of the nobility and jammed them all into the Pleasure Palace that was Versailles and they continued to enjoy all the rights and none of the responsibilities, resentment grew particularly as Bourbon leadership continued to centralize France. Probably the greatest change can be found in the Seven-Part Code, a system of laws originating in Medieval Spain that outline how a kingdom ought to be structured. Within the Code, “the People” are defined as all the members of a society, from the lowest to the highest. No distinction is made between the upper and lower classes in that regard. “The People” are not the Proletariat, they are the nation, and every single one is meant to work together for the good of society. Each with rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Equally valued.

Henry IV, Versailles Museum. With their adherence to the Divine Right of Kings, the destruction of the representative feudal system, and their continuous wars for power and the increasing of their own authority the Bourbon kings were more the architects of their own doom (like all tyrants are) more than any canard about Masonic Jewry. The human spirit naturally bucks against such oppression. Had the Bourbons been legitimate kings and not won the throne through conquest and the usurpation of the Catholic Faith, they would have had no reason to so violently increase royal power.

This is the reason class warfare as an idea is condemned by the Church. From a divine perspective it is also why envy and jealousy are considered sins; any society built on dog-eat-dog competition cannot thrive or develop in a healthy manner. It will also be prone to foreign sabotage. Consider how many “Worker’s Party” style movements were started by the USSR as a means to destabilize enemies.

French Revolutionaries at the Carmelite gate. “Nuns under Threat”, painting by Eugene de Blaas.

We must return to the ideas of Catholic Social Philosophy. Catholics must more arduously observe the tenants of their religion. To facilitate this we must not only recognize the plight of the lower classes but see them as important to the function of society. Those of the upper class must also be reminded of the immense duty and responsibility their position of power gives them. They truly hold the lives of their employees in their hands, and should not be callous towards their difficulties nor increase their burdens unduly. Overall a spirit of trust and cooperation must be built between the economic classes of America; only then will we be on the path to a better social order and an end to things like what the comic above describes.

The medieval concept of the Two Cities order below and salvation above, achieved by king and church working together.

Did you enjoy this article and want to see more? Lucky you! As part of an initiative to breathe life into the struggling blog, I'm going to start copy-pasting my larger posts from websites like tumblr here with provided links to their sources so you can follow us across all our social media platforms! Stay tuned for more articles.

Portrait of St. Peter Canisius at his writing desk. – Netherlands, first half of 17th C.

There is no Perfect, only Best

A Commentary on the Duggar Scandal

It has simply been too long since I took to the written word. I saw an opportunity to write, so I took it.

I was scrolling down Ye Olde Facebook Feed when I saw that apparently Josh Duggar, the eldest son of Clan Duggar, apparently many years ago was charged with the sexual molestation of an unknown number of young girls as a teenager. Some sources claim they were his own younger sisters, while others simply say they were girls in his own community. A police report was filed and apparently some kind of legal action took place. I don't know much else about it. Quite frankly, I don't care to know much else about it. Be Josh Duggar guilty or not, I have no interest in defending the man's person or character over the subject. Why should I - or anyone for that matter beyond the parties involved - care about this? Did the Duggar family hold some form of political, economic, or military power in these United States? No, they were "celebrities." The new nobility of our globalized world, who I become more and more sick of with every passing day, and who's fanatical mob I will never cease to reprove.

King Levon IV doing justice by Sarkis Pitzak, 1331.

All that being said, let me be perfectly clear. Justice is the cornerstone of good governance, and as I would be in any judicial case I am desirous of retribution. But this is a matter for the courts and those involved, not us. If indeed Josh Duggar is guilty and a case can be made, I would see it followed through to the end - whatever that end might be. But do tell me, you Imperials who would defend this man regardless of his guilt: why should you? He is not one of our own. Why would you put your head on the block for a Protestant Republican who probably thinks nothing good of our religion and who definitely would oppose us? All I want out of this is for justice to be done - whatever it might be - and for the media to for once make the people of the United States more intelligent and well-informed, not record and commentate on lynchings for ratings.  

So if I don't care, why am I writing at all on this occasion? I've always been the kind of person to look into the long term. I've always been confident in the Divine Assistance, so I've been ever willing to play the long game when no short-term solution can avail. It's worked thus far.

We all know what is about to happen here. In the minds of many Americans, the Duggars represent "Traditional family values." They represent Christian family ethics. They are a fossil and a relic treasured by one half of the country and despised by another (of course there's another third who just don't give a damn about them, myself proudly amongst them). This should in no way, shape, or form reflect the resolution of this matter. This all happened 12 years ago. For all we know it already has. But my point still stands: partisanship dies at the Judge's Bench, or should. Guilty? Hang him. Not guilty? Send him home. Willingly falsely implicated as part of a conspiracy? Hang them. Whatever must be done to set right the scales. 

Contemporary woodcut of the executions of Protestants at Amboise.

Now that I've established my impartiality, may I kindly get to my original commentary and establish why I do, in a round-about way, care?

On the Traditional Family 

As I said - for good or for ill - most of America views (or viewed) the Duggars as the archetypal perfect, Christian, Traditional family. Stay at home mother, hard-working father, lots of good kids, pious and moral to a "t." Absolutely perfect. For decades now in American culture this familial archetype has been under attack in media of all sorts. This archetype is generally Protestant, and the image isn't totally off. I am initially suspicious of devout Protestant families, because certain trends tend to persist. Some of these "nightmare families" are rooted in the reality of the break-down of the American family not just in the 60s as a result of a rebellious generation but its breakdown going back into the 40s and 50s.

The fact is no family-friendly culture can emerge in the society we've set up. Rampant individualism is our predominant philosophy. We glorify rebels without causes. The idealization of the excessive abuse of economic largesse is everywhere. Americans can be so eager to rush forward to the future that they leave critical components of themselves behind in the past. Distrust for any kind of authority is a stereotype of Americans 'round the globe, especially when embodied in any kind of religious institution. American academia has embraced self-criticism beyond any conceivably healthy level when applied to one's own nation to the point it has become self-loathing. The only religion that all Americans can truly ascribe to is pluralism and indifferentism. Those "conservative" among us retreat into a siege state of living, perpetually at war with the world in which they have been placed in with no goal other than the preservation of their own cozy Hobbit-holes. Just like anyone walled up and surrounded by the enemy, they slowly start to break down. I'm sure you can think of many examples of this.

But they're not alone; wider society, plagued by all the aforementioned ills, also suffers from these things. Every single philosopher has warned against the evils of wealth gained through trade alone. Dinesh D'Souza - someone I became mildly familiar with when I had to shelve some of his books when I worked in a library - says that the fact America does not do this is what has made her stronger than everyone else. That may be so, but I will counter with this question: what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Nothing, but that's exactly what America has done. Rather than cut out the thing that has made us sin - unrestrained, amoral Capitalism - we have allowed it to continue to mutate into a monstrosity. It has tainted everything in our society and arguably fertilized the soil for Modern Liberalism; in its cancerous spread, nothing was spared. It killed our faith, our appreciation for beauty, our patriotism, and our families. Because what is the American Ideal, the American Dream? Economic independence. Wealth. A fully-furnished two-story house with a white picket fence, a loving spouse, 2.5 kids, two cars, and not a care in the world. The American Dream is not to spread civilization from sea to shining sea. The American Dream is not to liberate man from darkness and despair. The American Dream is not sovereignty from foreign influence. The American Dream is not a City on a Hill. The American Dream is Walmart and McDonalds within easy reach and the ability to do whatever we damn well please, bugger the consequences. America is the merchant who would not give away his wealth to maintain his soul, even at the command of Almighty God, and his destination is our reality and endgame at present.

Peace Through Strength in Columbia.

But I've labored enough on that; do you see the picture now? I think everyone from the most anti-traditional liberal to the most staunch conservative in America can now see how and why things are developing as they are. In hindsight the breakdown of the traditional American family in this country without a serious conversion was inevitable. There is still something that could be done about it, granted. An American Renaissance, wherein we rediscover ourselves.

But I want to make one thing perfectly clear.

Nothing can cure the human condition. If anything, the Duggar Scandal should prove that.

Liberals think that with enough progressive social reform they will create a utopia. They believe all problems can be solved if men simply become "Enlightened." Conservatives think that these changes are precisely what has made society this way, but their solution simply boils down to change nothing. You can ask the Ottoman Empire how well that went.

Traditionalists are not immune to this line of thinking. They believe that if we just bring back the Old Mass, if we just sort out the hierarchy, if we just restore Christendom, the whole world will be heaven on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the world in its 4,000 years of recorded intelligent human civilization could have conjured up a solution so simple as that, it would have been implemented long ago. Utopia as a Latin phrase means, "nonexistent place."

Idols get made out of these ideas, these times, these places, these people. While I in no way disparage my ancestors and I do acknowledge some of their ideas were better than ours, I maintain they were simply that: better. Christendom was not a utopia. It had the same moral ills we face today, because it was made up of people. There was hardship from within and without, because nature is a cruel thing and it relentlessly and callously seeks to remove us in its quest for dominance. I am convinced that without some kind of Divine Providence human civilization of any kind could never have emerged from our early days of barely scrapping to survive.

The Garden of Eden from the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry by the Limbourg Brothers, 1410s.

Humanity is a fallen species, destined to raise ourselves to the Heavens but cut short by our own iniquity. Our whole existence is, ultimately, a tale of equal parts glory and tragedy who's end has not yet come. We aspire to the highest chivalry but we dream of the deepest depravity. It is the great contradiction that is man. The only thing that can ever fix this is Salvation, attained at the end of our lives by the mercy of Jesus Christ. Then sometime unknown to any man at the day of Last Judgment (I have often theorized that the Day of Atonement will occur at precisely the exact moment when not a single human soul is expecting it) it will all be finally made right, independent of anything mankind does - in fact in spite of anything we do.

The Last Judgment

This is why God stresses forgiveness and pardon, because human beings are inherently sinful and do bad things, and forbearance is a necessity to get along with each other. This is also why God in the Law gave to the people of Israel the right of execution, because due to this sinful nature sometimes certain individuals are too dangerous to the common good of all.

The Chapter House at Parkminster has several paintings of the sufferings of the English Carthusian martyrs. This painting shows one monk hanging while another forgives the man who is about to execute him.

This is why the Scriptures instruct us to not become too attached to earthly things, for they are all passing. None of them is worth the loss of the soul through evil.

Antonio de Pereda (1611-1678), Allegory of Vanity (c.1634), oil on canvas, 174 x 139.5 cm. Collection of Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria.

This is why the Church stresses charity, because the Wheel of Fortune is merciless and cruel. Those who are rich may well be in rags the next day. Alms giving and kindness helps to make this world a bit more Heavenly by making the world a better place for some. Where charity abounds, so does contentment. The obligation to aid one's fellow man also combats the abuses that come with greedily amassed, ill-gotten wealth.

The Charity of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, 1895.

This is why the Church took the Warrior Code of Europe and baptized it to create chivalry, that between honest Catholic nations wars might be less destructive, more edifying, and that the issues that began them might quickly be resolved.

The Austrian surrender of Archduke Maximilian at Byczyna.

These are only a few examples of how Catholicism checks the streak of immorality which runs through humanity. Followed to the letter - as many Church Fathers attested to the Roman people - you would make no finer society. Christendom would go on to prove this. The only Utopia in Catholicism is attainable by a life of pious struggle at the closing of our time in this mortal realm.

Though Chesterton and his colleagues now have a very great dispute, he makes a fine analogy in his work, The Ballad of the White Horse. The central theme of the book is mankind's struggle against evil, embodied by the barbarous Northmen whom Alfred and the English - meant to represent men of goodwill - fight and defeat for a time. There is no absolute victory, just as there was not one in history; the British Isles had to fight for centuries to be free of viking incursion. The other way in which this lesson is taught is through the White Horse of Uffington. The White Horse is a real thing in the British Isles; an image of a white horse in rock that has existed on a hillside near the town of Uffington for as long as anyone can recall. Every year the people take part in what is known as "the Weeding." During this festival they clean away the grass and undergrowth that otherwise would consume the White Horse. When the vikings overtake the region of Uffington, the weeds begin to obscure the White Horse. But when Alfred the Great is victorious he reinstates the Weeding and the Horse endures onward by the efforts of good men.

The White Horse of Uffington from the air.

This is the ultimate analogy for Christendom: an endless fight against injustice with the assistance of God. I can hear the critics now who will point out to me a multitude of ways in which Christendom has at times failed in that charge, to which my first response will be to correct those which are not factual. But I will admit episodes where members of Christendom deviated from the plan, such as the Bamberg Witch Trials or the Hundred Years' War or the execution of Joan of Arc and so-on. All societies and civilizations will be foiled by bad men, but what matters is to what degree a people's principles and ideals are designed to foil these things. What matters is their moral checks and balances. You may well criticize the Holy Roman Empire for its vices - to give a static example - and I will ask what you hold up as superior.

Emperor Maximilian I and his family.

My point is that to Protestantism's credit there is no religious code of conduct that would allow Josh Duggar to rape young girls as a teenager and get away with it. Even though I do not really see the Duggars as "traditional," others do, and just so there is nothing in the traditional Catholic family or even the traditional Protestant family that would allow a family to subvert the due justice to one of its parts simply because they were kin. Any and all attempt to use this incident to attack any traditional family ethos is a manifest fallacy and amounts to calumny. It is also an insult to good families who do not make the subversion of justice their business.

Painting by W. F. Yeames, shows a Royalist family who have been captured by the enemy. The boy is being questioned about the whereabouts of his father by a panel of Parliamentarians.

Am I making myself clear?

While I in no way defend the actions of Josh Duggar or his family on the matter of his sexual vices, I will not tolerate this being used as a billy club to brain traditional families or to be snapped about like a whip to bring otherwise healthy traditional families into line with the sick modern world. For every family that can be brought forth who uses the label of "traditional" to engage in esoteric practices to shutter away and abuse their children, I can find many who would do no such thing. Just like how for every Mohammedan that can be found who will endorse ISIS I will find you ten who do not and if called to fight against them would do so as eagerly as myself. The key therein lies in not alienating them. 

I hope I have made myself abundantly clear on this matter and that my commentary and meditations have been helpful to you. Please share them with others and let me know your own personal thoughts. The combox is always open, as is my personal inbox. Lord knows I wish someone had offered me the same at certain points in my life. To those who truly were fans of the Duggars and distress now over what has happened, I offer you my sincere condolences. It's rough to lose icons when you realize they are only men. But consider that any energy you might spend defending them might be better spent insuring all involved receive justice, and then after that I suggest using that energy to do something else utterly unrelated and productive. I'll leave it to you to figure out what.

Fan Made Greater Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem by DeathPwnie.