Opposing gay marriage is already worse than illegal

Obergefell v. Hodges is ultimately less significant than the Eich affair.  Justice Kennedy might be sincere about freedom of religion being respected; it makes no difference if being known to disapprove of gay marriage will get you fired from your job and made unemployable thereafter.  There’s not much worse the government could do to you.  The First Amendment assumes a social context that makes its immunities from government coercion meaningful.  It was assumed that at least one of the following would be true:

  1. Most people would be self-employed.
  2. Employers wouldn’t care about employees’ beliefs.
  3. If they did care, there would be a diversity of beliefs among employers.
  4. At the very least, government and employers wouldn’t be taking orders from the same group.

The Church turned over heretics to the secular arm; she would not have claimed this constituted freedom for heresy on her part.  Now the media gives the orders.  Whether they’re executed by the Department of Justice or the Human Relations department of your company doesn’t make much practical difference for you.  The old distinctions are now artificial.  Government, NGOs, private corporations–it’s all the same group of people.  They went to the same schools, read the same papers, and often openly coordinate with each other.

I feel sorry for Christian bakers and florists, but that’s a small group of people.  I’m less afraid of churches being forced to perform gay weddings than I am of them not having to be forced.  The program for the upcoming Synod has just been released.  Kasperism is set up as an established consensus of the bishops.  The Church will approve adultery by the end of the year.  I give it two years after that before the Pope starts performing gay weddings in Saint Peters’.  He’ll be one of the last priests to do one.  If persecution of congregations comes, it will be to a small remnant of Evangelical and Mormon groups.  I’m hoping the persecution comes sooner rather than later, so that Catholicism can have the honor of getting in on it a bit before we cave.

Only two things affect most of us.  1) Being known to disapprove of sodomy will get you fired pretty much anywhere because “hostile work environment”.  2) Gay=good, sex=meaningless is official orthodoxy, so it is taught in schools.

We’ve got no one to be angry at.  Most gays would be happy to have us left in peace, but it only takes one couple willing to pretend they want your cake to sic the government on you, and it doesn’t take any gays at all to sic HR on you.  Most liberals and atheists would be like to leave us in peace, although they might feel vaguely guilty about their pro-civility unprincipled exceptions.  The Social Justice Warriors?  They’re just following what they’ve always been told is right and just. No one is abusing liberalism to harass us; the logic of liberalism allows no alternative.  We need assume no malice in the establishment–in fact, the argument against liberalism works better if we don’t.

Liberalism means tolerance.  Tolerance tolerates everything except intolerance.  Because tolerance is liberalism, everything but liberalism is intolerance.  Therefore, liberalism must tolerate nothing but itself.

Democracy is justified by principled opposition to hierarchy, that is by liberalism.  But if one accepts liberalism, then one must accept liberalism’s answers to all the fundamental political questions.  Thus, democracy is vindicated when the public cannot debate or vote on any fundamental issue.

Perhaps this is God’s judgment on Christians for jumping on the anti-racist bandwagon.  Liberals are always going on about how we’re just like racists, and we’re always fretting about what it will mean if most people start regarding us that way.  We never stopped to wonder if ostracizing people for racism, a sin no Doctor of the Church had ever heard of, was really something we wanted to play along with.  It’s true that sodomy and miscegenation are very different things.  One can argue against one without arguing against the other.  On the other hand, if ancestry doesn’t matter, then why not tinker with an institution designed to assure paternity?  If it does matter, then we shouldn’t be so quick to assume that all forms of race-consciousness are bad.  Anyway, there’s no point worrying about being lumped with racists.  It’s happened.  Now is the time to think calmly about how to live with it.  In fact, we should be reassured to find that ethnonationalists and identitarians still do exist.  This means that survival is possible, at least for a few decades.

Ours is the generation of anonymous blogging.  This may even be the golden age of anonymous blogging.  I can easily imagine that it won’t last long.  If some branch of the establishment decides we’re enough of a nuisance, it could make things much more dangerous for us.  Presumably this will eventually happen–the Cathedral can brook no dissent–and we will pass on to the generation of friends meeting privately to talk and complain.  No one will know when the golden age of that comes, because each group will be invisible to the others.  We might want to get started on this already.

62 Responses

  1. […] Opposing gay marriage is already worse than illegal […]

  2. I seldom get angry with liberals and Protestants. For the most part, what they do inexorably flows from their principles. Kasperite heretics and liberal Catholics on the other hand generally make me want to start punching walls. If I had a nickel for every Catholic friend on Facebook who reacted joyously to yesterday’s ruling, I could buy myself a cup of coffee.

  3. The Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man are nearly contemporaneous and both date from a time when the freedom of the Press and its influence were relative novelties.

    As Lord Acton shrewdly observes in his Lectures on the French Revolution, “In September 1789, the liberty of the press was only four months old, and the reign of opinion was beginning on the Continent. They fancied that it was an invincible force, and a complete security for human rights. It was invaluable if it secured right without weakening power, like the other contrivances of Liberalism. They thought that when men were safe from the force above them, they required no saving from the influence around them. Opinion finds its own level, and a man yields easily and not unkindly to what surrounds him daily. Pressure from equals is not to be confounded with persecution by superiors. It is right that the majority, by degrees, should absorb the minority. The work of limiting authority had been accomplished by the Rights of Man.”

    The first statesman to recognise the sovereignty of public opinion had been Necker, the baqnker turned finance minister. “[H]e identified public opinion with credit, as we should say, with the city. He took the views of capitalists as the most sensitive record of public confidence; and as Paris was the headquarters of business, he contributed, in spite of his declared federalism, to that predominance of the centre which became fatal to liberty and order.”

    I leave it to those better versed in American history than I to judge how far this applies to the United States.

  4. I’m less afraid of churches being forced to perform gay weddings than I am of them not having to be forced.

    Yep.

  5. Alexander Hamilton was a student of Necker.

  6. It’s absolutely terrifying how quickly everyone can go insane. I’m not hyperbolizing, when I think about it, I literally feel terror-stricken and need to drop to my knees and pray.

  7. A very good post that summarizes a lot of my thoughts on the same issue.

  8. “The Church will approve adultery by the end of the year. I give it two years after that before the Pope starts performing gay weddings in Saint Peters’.”

    What will you do then?

  9. > What will you do then?

    Gripe about it on the internet, of course.

  10. You don’t consider SSPX or Mel Gibson Catholicism an option?

  11. Re: SSPX/Gibson/sedevacantism/etc, if I was going to go all protestant (as opposed to Athanasian) I hope I wouldn’t do it in such a half-assed mealy-mouthed twisted-knickers self-important way.

    Real tests of loyalty don’t happen under good leadership: they happen when leadership is treasonous, heretical, inbred, weak, and incompetent. Any cheese-eating effeminate fag can be a loyal son of monarchist France under Louis IX.

  12. Yeah, I’m pretty confident the bishops will murmur for a few days about resisting this, and then set about finding ways to push their objections to it down the memory hole. The way they pushed their traditional teachings on usury, capital punishment, and male headship down the memory hole, and are currently trying to do the same to divorce.

    Sure, “but doctrine can’t change!!!” some red-faced neocon will scream at this conjecture. And of course it can’t change, but history has shown that it doesn’t need to. It can just be…. forgotten.

  13. Well, the RC church would face a massive backlash among believers outside Europe and the Anglosphere if it ever fully endorsed gay marriage. This is true of every truly international church. Heck, I seriously doubt that even the United Methodists are going to endorse gay marriage.

    The other thing going for us is what religion fundamentally is: the idea that reality is fundamentally personal. That means teleological ethics of some sort, which don’t go along with gay marriage very well.

  14. For what it’s worth, the only people on my Facebook (God, I really need to get rid of that thing) who have spoken negatively about the decision have all been traditional-leaning Catholics. My evangelical friends haven’t uttered a peep. The libertarians have been especially scummy. The one Mormon I know had some negative things to say about the RFRA here in Indiana.

    The usual suspect Catholics, on the other hand, the middle of the road ones, the ones that are at fully at home in weird, round churches with safety carpets, the ones who are always admonishing you to tone down your stridency in support of the faith, are out there subtly advertising their okayness-with-the-zeitgeist, exactly as you always knew, deep down inside, they would, all their protestations of orthodoxy notwithstanding.

  15. Bruce wrote, “You don’t consider SSPX or Mel Gibson Catholicism an option?”

    As Mgr Ronald Knox asked long ago, “Why did those who anathematized Nestorius come to be regarded as “Catholics” rather than those who still accept his doctrines?” “It is the same with the Orthodox; if you ask, “Who are the Orthodox?” you will be told “The people who hold the Orthodox Faith.” If you ask them how they know it is the Orthodox Faith, they say “Because it is held by the Orthodox Church.” And the Nestorians will say exactly the same of themselves and who is to choose between them?”

    What we require is a test, not a tautology and Catholics have a ready answer: “if you ask a Catholic “What is the Catholic Faith?” and are told it is that held by the Catholic Church; if you persevere, and ask what is the Catholic Church, you are no longer met with the irritatingly circular definition “the Church which holds the Catholic Faith “; you are told it is the Church which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.” There really can be no doubt that our labeling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other. Any other test would be either a vicious circle and therefore meaningless, or simply a reflection of the author’s private judgment.

  16. “here really can be no doubt that our labeling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other.”

    Can you give specific authors and quotes?

  17. josh:
    I don’t think everyone has gone insane suddenly. I think they were already insane, and current events have made that more manifest to a new group of folks.

    Modern anti-realism has been an insane religion all along, going back at least to Ockham. That moment when you feel like the whole world has gone mad isn’t actually the moment when the world has gone mad: it is the moment in which you see the madness which was there all along.

  18. I’m going to be posting an article upcoming about how this is the PERFECT opportunity to start killing Conservatism, and converting its adherents to the Reactionary way of thinking. They did everything right via the process and it got them nowhere.

  19. “Real tests of loyalty don’t happen under good leadership: they happen when leadership is treasonous, heretical, inbred, weak, and incompetent. Any cheese-eating effeminate fag can be a loyal son of monarchist France under Louis IX.”

    So we should be loyal to those who are not loyal to us? I mean, that’s on the same level as being allies with Israel, absolute idiocy. Showing loyalty to to a group of backstabbers no matter who they are is absolutely retarded.

    “Leaders” like this are, in sane times, defenestrated.

  20. Bruce – The infidel Gibbon is the obvious example; he has no criterion by which to distinguish what he repeatedly refers to as the” Catholic party” from the various heretical groups – Montanists, Nestorians, Monophysites, Novatians, Donatists – other than that the Church ultimately came to regard them as heretics and, in every instance, the orthodox party was the party that had the bishop of Rome in its camp.

    Even more amusing is Milman, a rather liberal 19th century Protestant, whose work became a standard text-book for Divinity students. I cannot remember it well enough to quote it, but the gist of it is this; he comments upon the extraordinary precision with which, time after time, the Bishops of Rome managed to foresee which side the Church would eventually take in a controversy, and “plumped ” for it beforehand. The Church fixes the date of Easter, the Church decides that heretics need not be rebaptized, the Church decides that the Incarnate combined two Natures in one Person ; but each time Rome thinks to-day what the world will think to-morrow. This uncanny capacity for taking the pulse of the Church is ascribed by Milman partly to the extreme cunning of the early Pontiffs, partly to their geographically central position, and so on. It never occurs to him that the party that sided with Rome was the orthodox party by definition.

    In Catholic historians, from Cardinal Baronius onwards, the criterion is explicit.

    The reason for this unanimity is simple: no other test can be devised. There is no explicit statement of the Faith, for example, in the sparse writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers from which the later heretics can be shown to have departed.

  21. So we should be loyal to those who are not loyal to us?

    The question is malformed (and thereby begged).

    Yes, you should be loyal to (e.g.) fatherhood and your own actual
    father, even when you aren’t haaaaaaapy with his leadership — and even if he himself disparages fatherhood.

    Any jackass can be “loyal” when he agrees with the “leadership”.

  22. Modernity always presents us with false choices, for which it proposes liberalism (“consent of the governed”) as a “solution”.

    Sedevacantism/protestanism (I’m “loyal” only to the extent that the Pope agrees with me) vs ultramontanism (the Pope
    is always objectively right about everything) is one of the oldest false choices in our civilization. But folks continue to fall for it, again and again and again.

  23. Zippy – “ultramontanism (The Pope is always objectively right about everything)…”

    The true principle is contained in Canon 1401: Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur [The First See is judged by no one] In other words, there is no recourse against the pope’s judgments or his commands.

    The corollary of this is contained in Canon 1372:: Qui contra Romani Pontificis actum ad Concilium Oecumenicum vel ad Episcoporum collegium recurrit censura puniatur [A person who makes recourse against an act of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council or the college of bishops is to be punished with a censure]

    If the Pope’s judgments are to be accepted and his commands to be obeyed, there is little point in discussing whether they are right of wrong, for there is no one on earth who can decide the question.

  24. Michael, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you meant there were quotes on this criteria from the early Church fathers. The explicit quotes I’ve seen are from the high middle ages, after the Great Schism.

  25. Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    If the Pope’s judgments are to be accepted and his commands to be obeyed, there is little point in discussing whether they are right of wrong, for there is no one on earth who can decide the question.

    In a world which does not believe in authority – a world which doesn’t even have a conceptual grasp of what authority is – it becomes impossible to even discuss such distinctions, let alone actually agree or disagree about them. Revolutionary calls for the defenestration of bad leaders are precisely what got us here in the first place. The same uncomprehending pattern is repeated over and over again through the centuries, whether it is 14th century Lollardy or unhaaappy modern wives frivorcing their husbands; and people just never learn.

  26. Look, that is a retarded argument. My dad is not a faggot. Bertoglio is a faggot and more importantly he does not have the special blood tie that bonds me to my father. I have had times where I have been unhaaaaapy with my father but he remains my father even long after death. (both of ours). Bertoglio will not always be my Pope.

  27. I’m not a Protestant or a Sedevancantist. I’m not even SSPX and the SSPX is not Sedevancantist. They just think that the Pope is a clown, a view that I share, because he is. I’m tired of hearing the ramblings of what is obviously a former catamite. He needs to shut up, stop being a sycophant towards the Left and the Jews, and be an actual pope.

  28. […] As WordPress and the Corporations of the world draped themselves in the rainbow flag in a figurative standing ovation, Bonald warns them that they Don’t want to be the first one to stop clapping. Then he follows up with a fantastic piece on how Opposing gay marriage is already worse than illegal. […]

  29. My own bishop said that while he’s disappointed by the ruling, the Catholic community will continue working to solve more terrible inequalities like racism, our broken immigration system, and the gap between rich and poor. As I grow older, I’m increasingly grateful to God for my dismissal from the seminary.

  30. If the Church goes gay, I’ll have to conclude the Orthodox were right all along.

  31. @ Roach

    Same here. Would you go SSPX or would you go East?

  32. Svar, two points.

    First, fealty to the Church established by Christ is more important, not less, than fealty to your natural father. This is in no way to disparage or minimize the importance of the latter: quite the contrary.

    Second, men who place lots of conditions on their fealty, much like ball-busting wives and feminist bridezillas, tend to inspire exactly the sort of simpering leadership they deserve — and then rage about it as they are overrun by phalanxes of effeminate queers, transsexuals, and other freaks. The connection between their own pathetic followership and pathetic leadership never so much as crosses their mind: they see themselves as victims, oppressed and shackled by unworthy leaders (untermenschen).

    Why would any self-respecting worthy man want to lead people like that: people who trumpet their conditional fealty and incipient disloyalty?

    If you want to fix things, start by fixing yourselves. If you want to purge the world of liberal rebellion, start by defenestrating it from yourselves.

  33. A basic question to ask yourselves is this:

    Do the key problems with modernity lie in deficiencies of leadership, or do they lie in deficiencies of followership? What keeps the Overton window shuttered outside of the narrow range of possibility defined by liberalism/leftism: a lack of potential leaders among the seven billion living people today, or a lack of respect for authority in followers?

    The question practically answers itself.

  34. I find the needless cynicism objectionable. It’s simply unreasonable to believe that in two years the Church will be performing gay marriages. Mostly because God would not allow it. You’re doing untold harm to souls by announcing this.

    Moreover I find Svar’s slanderous accusation against the Pope, that he’s a sodomite, especially outrageous.

  35. I wholeheartedly agree with ArkansasReactionary.

    It is worth noting that, in the history of dogma, whilst many developments could not have been predicted in advance, they are invariably found, in retrospect, to harmonize with previous teaching, often in surprising and illuminating ways..

    There is an analogy here in the natural world; if I have a cold, I can be pretty sure I caught it from someone else; however, if I have been in contact with someone infected, my chances of catching his cold are unpredictable; there are simply too many variables.

  36. @Zippy – It is a compounding problem, but I lay most of the blame at the feet of ‘the spirit of the age’. There is something quite demonic at work where it concerns the popularity of Liberal Democracy. The followers may be flawed and corrupted, and thus give rise to even worse leaders, but these leaders then corrupt the followers even more in a vicious circle. It descends towards total annihilation.

  37. I’m sure authority is our way out of this, but there’s the authority of men and the authority of tradition. When one conflicts with the other, what does a non-fag do?

  38. Bruce:

    Two thoughts.

    First, the “authority” of tradition is like the “authority” of scripture. Both are subject to interpretation, and the tendency is for them to devolve into the authority of me. The authority of actual men is less ambiguous, or at least less easy to “reduce” to the authority of me.

    Second, whatever we need to do to get out of the situation – and I don’t claim to have The Answer – I know that it does not involve the usual approach of doubling down and doing more of the same. And defenestrating men in authority is precisely what led us to where we are in the first place.

  39. God gives us the leaders we deserve.

  40. I suppose if I have the choice I would try to place myself under the authority of a Burke and not a Kasper. I don’t know if such an approach is an authority of me way of doing things

  41. Roach & Svar – I would advise against making a rash decision to default to Orthodoxy, as an Orthodox Christian myself. The differences between Catholicity and Orthodoxy are bigger than the fact that the heads of our churches are titular and can be removed for Liberalism, and this is impossible in the Catholic Church. There are other theological contrasts between our Faith and Catholicity that you should consider

    I must also say it is not Reactionary form to take such hard language against someone occupying such a historic office as the Papacy. I don’t believe in his infallibility, but I still give him leniency based on his position alone, the same deference I would give to an Eastern Patriarch. When he actually changes the Church doctrinally, then I think you may have grounds for such an acidic attack, but until then you should ideally give a begrudging respect for the Pope, if not for Francis himself, then for a good portion of his predecessors.

  42. My own diocese (Arlington) is led by Bp. Loverde. He used to be Bp. of Long Island. I know someone who lived in both places while he was Ordinary.

    Now northern Virginia isn’t exactly Malta, but it is more orthodox than Long Island, at least in pockets. And this has been good for the Bishop himself: he has himself moved further in the direction of orthodoxy.

    Leaders are not magical autonomous creatures. They reflect the nature of their followers — even in the person of the same man placed above different communities. A good wife can build up a good husband; a vicious harpy will wear down the strongest of men. Communities get the leaders they deserve.

    Folks are always deluding themselves that a good Pope will transform the Church in the direction of orthodoxy, as if leadership was ever primarily a function of a Great Man put over any old group of followers (Benedict XVI, anyone?). I think this is deluded. The kind of leaders we get are and will always be driven by the kind of followers we choose to be.

    It is always about repentance. It is never about the next clever move to capture power– because if that is what it is about, we are the bad guys.

  43. Zippy makes a good point. Did not the populations of Europe become Liberal LONG before the Church? This is not to excuse the failure of any Church in bending the culture towards Christianity, but Catholics are often lenient with the heretics among the congregation and harsh when it comes to the heretics among the clergy.

  44. Mark Citadel – You are right. Liberalism has very deep roots in Europe. The Catholic historian Lord Acton traces it back to Augustus: “The Cæsarean system gave an unprecedented freedom to the dependencies, and raised them to a civil equality which put an end to the dominion of race over race and of class over class. The monarchy was hailed as a refuge from the pride and cupidity of the Roman people; and the love of equality, the hatred of nobility, and the tolerance of despotism implanted by Rome became, at least in Gaul, the chief feature of the national character.”

    The Abbé Sieyès was not that wide of the mark, when he depicted the Revolution as a Gallic revolt against their Frankish conquerors. As Acton says, “The hatred of royalty was less than the hatred of aristocracy; privileges were more detested than tyranny” It was the Teutonic elements they attacked – hereditary nobility, primogeniture, and privilege

  45. Mark, I respect you and Zippy, but this whole “reactionary” and “historical authority” stuff just doesn’t ring with me. Certainly you’ve heard about the German Revolutionary Right, right? I just think all of this Monarchist stuff is LARPy and not practical in the American context. America has had it’s share of good thinkers and leaders like George Patton, Henry Ford, Huey Long, T. Jefferson, Charles Lindbergh, A. Jackson, Lawrence Dennis, Fr. Charles Coughlin, and Will Rogers.

    What America needs and what will definitely work in the American context is a party that is Far Right socially and culturally and Far Left economically. Monarchy won’t work here in the near distant future and it won’t help you connect with your average disenfranchised American. Also, look at the tale of Franco and see what happened to the Spanish nation when he trusted the backstabbing monarchs. Nation above all. Pandering to someone in the seat of historical authority didn’t do anything to help the Spanish nation. In the same way, pandering to Bertoglio, someone who is obviously a wolf in sheep’s clothing is going to screw us all over. Conservatives need to stop making appeals to established authority when those authorities are against us. I don’t owe anything to a fruitcake who panders to fags and trannies and Jews and liberals and Islamic immigrants and who makes me feel like a jackass for being a Catholic every time he opens his mouth.

    What’s needed is a hard hitting platform of national populism, nothing more and nothing less. The LARPing and the submissive mindset is not going to get us anywhere.

  46. Svar – Pascal gives the obvious defence of monarchy: “The most unreasonable things in the world become most reasonable, because of the unruliness of men. What is less reasonable than to choose the eldest son of a queen to rule a State? We do not choose as captain of a ship the passenger who is of the best family.

    This law would be absurd and unjust; but, because men are so themselves and always will be so, it becomes reasonable and just. For whom will men choose, as the most virtuous and able? We at once come to blows, as each claims to be the most virtuous and able. Let us then attach this quality to something indisputable. This is the king’s eldest son. That is clear, and there is no dispute. Reason can do no better, for civil war is the greatest of evils.”

  47. MPS, Pascal forgets about the weakness and decadence of leaders like Louis XVI, Juan Carlos and the British Royal Family. Not every monarch is like the Tsar or the Kaiser and if you live in America, there really is no need to press the monarchy because it’s a complete non-issue. What are the problems facing Americans today? Extreme cultural marxism, Jewish prominence in all American institutions (look at the first thing on the list), non-stop mass immigration, globalism, and ultra-capitalism.

    I mean look at the German Revolutionary Right (not the same thing as the Nazi movement), a movement that formed in the aftermath of the abdication of the Kaiser. Americans of all people need to learn that we need to move on, we haven’t had a king for almost 300 years.

  48. What’s nekeded is a hard hitting platform of national populism, nothing more and nothing less. The LARPing and the submissive mindset is not going to get us anywhere.

    What has American populism ever achieved? From the Anti-Federalists to the Buchanites, American populism has utterly failed to stem the tide of liberalism in this country. Monarchism by comparison has achieved some success in the old world. I don’t see European style Rightism being imported into the US anytime soon. Americans might find monarchism quixotic, but they are sure to brand revolutionary conservatism as blatant Nazism. It is just as much a non-starter.

    American conservatism,including paleo-conservatism is simply too intertwined with the sacred dogma of the free market. To be a “radical” rightist here means to follow anarchists like Rothbard or Hoppe. The influence of both of these thinkers loom large among far too many non-conventional rightists in this country. Hoppe’s notion of sovereignty, not De Maistre’s seems to be the guiding principal of neo-reaction. I recall one neo-reactionary commentator saying his ideal social order was the UAE or Singapore. That sounds like just the sort of nightmare scenario we should wish to avoid!

    There was an opportunity during the early post-war conservative renaissance for a non-liberal, non-American variety of conservatism, mainly thanks to the rising influence and confidence of Catholic thinkers. In the end, however, liberalism was able to subsume this challenge, finding a “compromise” by dressing liberalism in the veneer of Catholic political thought. Thus fusionism spawned.

    The so-called paleo-cons, who echo aspects of traditional Catholicism have also failed to learn this lesson. The paleo-cons like Fleming, Buchanan and Gottfried blundered in making alliances with radical libertarians like Rothbard and Hoppe. They should have pivoted to the left on economic issues beginning in the 70s, where they could have sought to appeal to working class whites, their natural support base. This “should have been” wellspring of support is now going extinct. Now, libertarianism is still “relevant” and its spokesmen are going around appealing to the youth with a message of unbridled individualism. Libertarians have completely repudiated their alliance with the dead weight of paleo-conservatism. Paleo-cons have nothing to show for it.

  49. “Pascal forgets about the weakness and decadence of leaders like Louis XVI, Juan Carlos and the British Royal Family” On the contrary, he was well aware of it; he simply thought it preferable to the sort of power struggles one sees in a republic. He points to Marius and Sulla, the Gracchi and Caesar and Pompey.

    You speak of two hundred years: in Rome, the kings were expelled in 509 BC and Octavian became the first of the Julian emperors in 27 BC, 482 years later.

  50. @ Ita Scripta Est

    I think I would call my views Revolutionary Conservatism like that of the German Revolutionary Right, Falangism, National Integralism, the Iron Legion, SSNP, Pinochet, and the Greek Junta (a Revolution to save the Nation).

    I agree that allying with the Libertardians was a mistake, I think allying with the non-Marxist Old Left like that of the likes of Huey Long, Samuel Gompers, Jack London, Orwell, and George Bernard Shaw would have been far fruitful. In America we have a neglected working class who are being screwed by capitalists in the GOP and by Cultural Marxists in the Left. A platform farther to the Left economically than the Democrats and much farther to the Right of the GOP will be a winning platform.

    Plus, the main issue is the Jews and their allies. They control the media and by extension the culture. Now that they’re so deeply entrenched it will be impossible to root them out.

    Btw, I agree with your assessment of the paleocons. I respect them and their insights but the issue is that Sam Francis, a fellow paleocon was right about them: They’re “beautiful losers”.

    @ MPS

    I don’t understand what you are saying. If you are implying that people go back to monarchy then I suppose you are right but I don’t you completely understand what I meant. A state is borne organically from the people in response to needs and crisises. The type of state that arises is irrelevant as long as it works, I could care less if it’s a Republic, a Monarchy (absolute or electoral), or a Military Dictatorship.

    Regardless, decadent elites are worthless and need to be hanged, whether they’re monarchs or the sort of rootless cosmopolitans elites we have not. Charles Martel = Great. Louis XVI = Fruitcake Fag.

  51. “elites we have not.”

    elites we have now

  52. “They should have pivoted to the left on economic issues beginning in the 70s, where they could have sought to appeal to working class whites, their natural support base. This “should have been” wellspring of support is now going extinct. Now, libertarianism is still “relevant” and its spokesmen are going around appealing to the youth with a message of unbridled individualism. Libertarians have completely repudiated their alliance with the dead weight of paleo-conservatism. Paleo-cons have nothing to show for it.”

    I managed to miss this. Ita, I don’t think we disagree on much.

  53. Svar, if you keep talking that way about a holy martyr of the Church, I’m going to start getting angry. Is this how a fruitcake faces death: http://www.andrewcusack.com/2006/the-last-will-and-testament-of-louis-xvi/

  54. Louis XVI’s only real blunder was supporting the American revolution. Still, he was worth more than all of our founding-traitors combined.

  55. What I find most ironic about Rightists attacking King George III or King Louis XVI is that they were two of the most moral monarchs who ever sat on the thrones of their respective countries. Neither was known for keeping mistresses and both were considered pious. If any generation of monarchs was to not be overthrown or rebelled against, those two were probably it. And all for what? Atheism, fag marriage, and race replacement. We get what we deserve I guess.

  56. Nathanjevans – It is a great mistake to imagine that the French Revolution was directed against Louis XVI personally, or even against monarchy. The leaders, like the Abbé Sièyes and Mirabeau did everything they could to preserve it. During le Grand Peur [the Great Fear] that swept the country in 1789, it was not the royal Intendants that were the object of the mob’s anger; it was the stewards of the manors and the tithe-proctors.

    Lord Acton was quite right, when he points out that “The hatred of royalty was less than the hatred of aristocracy; privileges were more detested than tyranny; and the king perished because of the origin of his authority rather than because of its abuse. Monarchy unconnected with aristocracy became popular in France, even when most uncontrolled; whilst the attempt to reconstitute the throne, and to limit and fence it with its peers, broke down, because the old Teutonic elements on which it relied – hereditary nobility, primogeniture, and privilege — were no longer tolerated. The substance of the ideas of 1789 is not the limitation of the sovereign power, but the abrogation of intermediate powers.” As he also points out, “the love of equality, the hatred of nobility, and the tolerance of despotism implanted by Rome became, at least in Gaul, the chief feature of the national character.”

    Napoléon was not the reversal of 1789, but its consummation.

  57. I apologize. I was taught that Louis XVI was weak, decadent, and effeminate, nothing like Charlemagne and Charles Martel. I see that I was mistaken.

  58. That is certainly the received wisdom, just as it is the received wisdom that Marie Antoinette was a graceless slut, wastrel, and traitor. The former is belied by Louis’ last will and testament which Bonald linked above, and the panegyric given after his execution by Pope Pius VI; the latter by Edmund Burke’s moving eulogy in her honor.

    As always, the received wisdom in these dark latter days is little more than a series of stunningly consistent lies invented to draw a thin veil of respectability over an otherwise naked power grab by bloodthirsty madmen — men who have sired a generation of perverse bastards who are, justly enough, an even bigger set of weak, decadent, effeminate nitwits than their slanders about Louis ever countenanced.

  59. No problem, Svar. It’s hard to predict the weird things I’ll make fights over.

  60. “As always, the received wisdom in these dark latter days is little more than a series of stunningly consistent lies invented to draw a thin veil of respectability over an otherwise naked power grab by bloodthirsty madmen — men who have sired a generation of perverse bastards who are, justly enough, an even bigger set of weak, decadent, effeminate nitwits than their slanders about Louis ever countenanced.”

    Looks like I have been made a fool by yet another Leftist lie, Proph. I acted like those Catholics who denounce the Crusades, Franco, or the Inquisition, a bunch of self-haters whom I despise for their blind acceptance of Judeo-Leftist lies.

  61. Svar, you’re looking at things from two incorrect standpoints:

    1) An American standpoint. America is fundamentally anti-Christian, period. Any state which is not EXPLICITLY Christian is anti-Christian, and even some states that are explicitly Christian are also anti-Christian.

    2) A very short time-window view. 300 years without monarchy? Monarchy has existed for 5000 years! 300 years is nothing, a blip, a germ, a chest cold.

    Now, let us address your concerns.

    1) A right wing party will not do you any good. For starters, in America at least, unlike Greece or Hungary, there is no room for even a Fascist party to rise in prominence, let alone a truly Traditionalist and anti-Modern one. Right wing parties can help in our goal, but ultimately parties have proved their uselessness for over 100 years now. Of the examples of junta you give, virtually NONE came to power using democracy. They all came to power through violent means. As such, they weren’t true ‘political parties’. They don’t correspond with any calls to create a ‘winning platform’.

    2) The concern about ‘LARP-ing’ is unfounded. Again, I stress that patriarchal monarchy is natural state of human society. It still exists across the Arab world. Given an epidemic disaster tomorrow, what kind of society do you think would emerge from a complete ruin of a country? A monarchy. Naturally, a strong leader would take power and that power would be held hereditarily and given to his sons. There would be no elections.

    3) You give an example of Franco handing over reigns to a bad monarch, but this is not a good critique of monarchy as an institution. What if Franco had claimed the crown for himself? Would you have objected to such a move? I would not have.

    I quote for you the Christian Reactionary martyr, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu:

    “I reject republicanism. At the head of races, above the elite, there is Monarchy. Not all monarchs have been good. Monarchy, however, has always been good. The individual monarch must not be confused with the institution of Monarchy, the conclusions drawn from this would be false. There can be bad priests, but this does not mean that we can draw the conclusion that the Church must be ended and God stoned to death. There are certainly weak or bad monarchs, but we cannot renounce Monarchy.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: