Demonocracy: The Great Human Scourge!

The End of Democracy

Review: Christophe Buffin de Chosal, The End of Democracy, Translated by Ryan P. Plummer. Printed in the U.S.A.: Tumblar House, 2017.

Introduction

One cannot speak too highly of Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s The End of Democracy. In a fast paced, readable, yet scholarly fashion, Professor Buffin de Chosal* demolishes the ideological justification in which modern democracy rests while he describes the disastrous effects that democratic rule has had on Western societies. He explodes the myth of Democracy as a protector of individual liberty, a prerequisite for economic progress, and a promoter of the higher arts. Once Democracy is seen in this light, a far more accurate interpretation of modern history can be undertaken. The book is a very suitable companion to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s iconoclastic take down of democracy in Democracy: The God That Failed, released at the beginning of this century. Buffin de Chosal has spoken of a follow up which will be eagerly awaited for.

Democratic Governance

The idea of rule by the people is a scam, one perpetuated by those who, in actuality, are in control of the government. Through the “democratic process” of voting and elections, a small, determined minority can impose its will despite majority opposition:

We often hear it said that ‘in a democracy,

it is the people who rule. . . .’ Rule by the

people is a myth which loses all substance

once confronted with the real practice in

democracy. [13]

Quoting from a Russian philosopher, Buffin de Chosal continues his criticism:

   The best definition [of democracy] was

given by the Russian philosopher Vasily Rozanov.

‘Democracy is the system by which an

organized minority governs an unorganized

majority.’ This ‘unorganized majority’ is the

people, aggregated and individualistic,

incapable of reaction because disjointed. [28]

He expands upon Rozanov’s theme:

. . . [C]ontrary to what [democracy’s] principles

proclaim: one can say that the majority

almost never wins. Democracy is not the

system of the majority, but that of the most

powerful minority, and it has this power

not simply due to its numbers, but also and

above all due to its organization. [31]

Power does not reside in “the people” and certainly not in the individual. In democracy, the only way to express one’s preference or protect one’s rights is through the ballot box every so often. “Each voter,” writes Buffin de Chosal, “in a democracy, is the depositary of a tiny particle of sovereignty, in itself unusable. His sole power consists in dropping a ballot into a box, whereby he is immediately dispossessed of his particle of sovereignty at the profit of those who are going to represent him.” [Ibid.]

Popular democracy has always been condemned and feared by most thinkers since the beginning of human societies. It was not until intellectuals saw demonocracy as a way they could attain power that they began to advocate it as a system of social order. Prior to the democratic age, most of the learned understood that democracy would result in mob rule and the displacement of natural authority with demagogues. In short, the worst would rise to the top as the author describes the typical characteristics of a contemporary politician:

   The ideal politician, on the other hand, is

pliable, convincing, and a liar by instinct. He is

not attached to any platform and has no

ideological objective. The single thing to which

he is truly committed is power. He wants its

prestige and advantages, and seeks above all

to be personally enriched by it. Any politician

who presents this aspect is recognized as fit for

power in a democracy. . . . It is therefore not

surprising that democratically elected assemblies

are almost exclusively comprised of

these kinds of men and women. Elected

heads of state almost always fit this profile,

and international institutions, such as the

European Union, consider it the only

acceptable profile. . . . [35]

Democracy and the State

Since the advent of modern democracy, the principle benefactor of its rule has been the State and the politically-connected financial elites who are in actuality the true rulers of societies. Instead of putting an end to the supposedly despotic rule of the Ancien Régime, which Democracy’s proponents claim to have existed throughout the monarchial and aristocratic age, governance by the people, has instead witnessed an increase in state power and control of individual lives to an unprecedented level in human history. Few, if any, pope, emperor, king, prince, or duke have ever possessed such suzerainty.

In contrast to what has been taught in classrooms, on university campuses, and espoused throughout the media, individual rights and freedoms were far better guarded in the age prior to Democracy’s ascendancy. Pre-revolutionary Europe had social structures which insulated individuals from State power far more effectively than under modern democracy.

   The concept of an organic society was abolished at

the time of the French Revolution. The corps and

orders were suppressed, the privileges were abolished,

and everything which allowed the people to protect

themselves from the power of the state was banished

in the name of liberty. [24]

And in return for giving up the order that protected them from state depredations, the people received “sovereignty:”

They were given the false promise that they

would no longer need to defend themselves

from the state since they themselves were the

state. But if a people organized into corps and

orders are incapable of exercising sovereignty,

how much more so a people comprising a formless

mass of individuals! [Ibid.]

Historically, all of the democratic movements which supposedly stemmed from the people were, in fact, a falsehood, perpetuated largely by revolutionaries who sought to replace the established order with themselves. While legislatures, congresses, and democratic bodies of all sorts have been interpreted as the fruition of the masses’ desire for representation, the reality was quite different:

   Democracy is not, in its origin, a system of

the people. In England with the advent of the

parliamentary system just as in France during the

Revolution, it was not the people who were seen

at work. Even the Russian Revolution was not a

phenomenon of the people. To regard the people

or what the communist elegantly call the ‘masses’

as the agent of change or political upheaval is purely

a theoretical view, a historical myth, of which

one sees no trace in reality. The ‘people’ were

the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the

victims of the revolutions, not the engines. [13]

Not only was propagation of the myth of popular support for democratic ideals propounded for the survival of the new social order, but putting these tenets into practice was accomplished, in large part, by the role of the “intellectual” an often neglected feature of standard historical analysis and the reason behind much social transformation:

The ‘nation’ met the desires of the philosophers

who wanted to transfer power from the monarch

to an enlightened, philosophical, and philanthropic

class who, moreover, ought to be financially

comfortable. The educated bourgeoisie of the

time were the protagonists of this idea, and a

portion of the nobility formed their audience. [13-14]

The intellectuals promoted Democracy because it would open up for them considerable opportunities for position and income in the nation state. It must be remembered that it was the intellectuals who justified the idea of Absolutism. Later, the intellectuals turned on the monarchies and sided with the emerging republican classes rightly believing that democratic governance would give them greater opportunities for power in the emerging nation states.

Democracy and Modern History

While most historians see the advancement of democracy and the development of legislative bodies over the course of the last centuries as an advancement in the human condition and one that has emanated from the people’s desire for greater political representation, Buffin de Chosal presents a far different and more accurate interpretation. “Democracy,” he asserts, “is not, in its origin a system of the people.” [13] All of the social movements which eventually led to the destruction of Christendom did not come from the people seeking a greater “voice” in their governance.

“The ‘people,’” Buffin de Chosal argues, “were the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the victims of the revolutions, not the engines.” [Ibid.] Liberté, Éqalité, Fraternité was not a popular cry, but one coined and used by the “enlightened” classes to mobilize and justify their overthrow of the French monarchy and with it the destruction of the Church.

    The French Revolution was built on the

idea of the ‘nation,’ which claimed to bring

together the intellectual, social, and financial

elite of the country. It was on this foundation

that democracy was established and that it

functioned during almost all of the nineteenth

century. [Ibid.]

A similar historical narrative can be seen in England.

The rise and eventual triumph of representative democracy in England was not one that percolated from the masses itching for more freedom. “The appearance of the parliamentary system in England,” Buffin de Chosal contends, “was tied to the great movement of Church property confiscation begun under Henry VIII and continuing until the coming of the Stuarts.” [14]

After Henry gorged himself on the Church’s wealth, he sought to bribe as much of the nobility as possible with his ill-gotten gains to insure his power. An envious Parliament, however, wanted its cut of the loot which led to the great internecine struggle between Crown and Parliament which eventually ended in the suzerainty of the latter with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The real power from then on rested with an oligarchical legislative branch:

The families who had thus helped themselves

to the Church’s goods, morally justified by

Protestant ethics, formed the gentry, the class

of landowners who sat in Parliament. Parliament

was not then, as one might believe today, an organ

of poplar representation. It was an instrument

in the hands of the gentry to defend its own class

interests. [16-17]

That Parliament and the monarchy would become the two dominant ruling structures was the result of the breakdown of the feudal structure which was taking place not only in England, but across Europe. European monarchs continued to gain more and more power at the expense of the feudal landed elite. The gentry’s power and wealth was also on the wane with the rise of commercial centers which most of the time aligned themselves first with the kings and then later with Parliament. The eventual triumph of Parliament, however, did not mean greater democracy for the people:

 

The financial incentives for England’s adoption

of the Protestant Reformation are therefore

intimately connected with the bolstering of

Parliamentary power. The Parliament in England

was used to put the monarchy in check and to

replace it with an oligarchic class of wealthy

Protestants to whom the kings were required to

submit. This is why the overthrow of James II

in 1688 was a true revolution. It was not a

popular revolution or the overthrowing of a

tyranny, but it was the rebellion of a class

implementing the transfer of sovereign power

for its own profit. [17]

The Church and Democracy

The Faith, too, has not escaped the ravages of the democratic order. This, of course, has not been by happenstance, but the enemies of the Church have craftily used Democracy to woo the masses away from Christianity and replace it with the State as the societal authority as it has taken over nearly all of the practices, duties, and services once performed by the Church and voluntary organizations. Once Almighty God and His Church were pushed to the side, Democracy’s proponents turned on the family to reduce its role in society through the liberalization of divorce and the acceptance of remarriage, the promotion of feminism and its society-wrecking notion of “working women,” all of which has led to the creation of the “dysfunctional family.” The disruption of the procreative function of the traditional family is the primary reason for the demographic nightmare that Occidental populations are facing which, if things are not reversed, will mean replacement in the West by the more fruitful Muslims.

Intricately linked with the democratic nation state has been the notion of religious liberty. Most Western constitutions have codified in their legal structures religious liberty which implies that all religions are basically the same and should be allowed to flourish despite how many errors they contain or blasphemies that are uttered. Catholicism is thus, under modern democracy, no different in the eyes of the State than any other creed or even non-Christian sects as Buddhism, Islam, or Judaism.

Of equal importance and one of the great pillars which the modern state rests is the Jeffersonian concept of “Separation of Church & State.” The dogma is strictly held today and has been embraced throughout academia, the press, and even among the general public. Sadly, most Catholics hold to this sacrosanct secular tenet despite it being condemned by Church authorities since it first reared its head during the Enlightenment.

While most of the book does not deal with the effects that Democracy has had on the Church, Buffin de Chosal’s analysis opens up a number of fascinating fields for future studies of how the democratic order supplanted the Church, which led, in part, to the triumph of Modernism at Vatican II. Moreover, his analysis raises questions as to why most Catholics have championed Democracy despite its harmful effects on the Church.

The Family and the State

The forces behind people’s rule understood that to attain ultimate victory they had to reduce the status of the natural hierarchical structure of society. The Church was the first victim in this societal leveling, then came the aristocratic structure of governance. After the Church and the monarchies were either liquidated or reduced to insignificance, Democracy turned its sights on the most important institution of society – the family and its patriarchal structure. Once this natural, order-producing social organism was disabled, the democratic state could, and did, move in to supply and take over the all important duties and services that the family naturally provided – education, the transmission of values and mores to its offspring, fidelity to the Church, and respect for legitimate authority. The breakdown of the family created a vacuum which the democratic state systematically moved into and willfully took over which, of course, shifted the populace’s allegiance away from the family and Church to the government and bureaucratic structures.

From its inception, the democratic state has done almost everything in its power to attack and reduce the traditional family structure through a whole host of economic, social, and regulatory measures. As a perceptive social theorist, Buffin de Chosal makes note of this which many conservative and traditional groups have failed to grasp in their blindness to Democracy. There has been no better example of the State’s attack on the family than public education:

. . . The democratic state does the same with education.

It makes it free and compulsory so that it is subject to its

regulatory powers. In certain countries, like Germany,

homeschooling is even prohibited to the point that it is

impossible to escape the curricula, teaching methods,

and educational values the government wants to impose. [78]

As with all democratic schemes, public schooling has been one of social engineering:

. . . the justification is social: to make education accessible to

all at very low cost. But the real objective is to form the

voters of tomorrow by transmitting to them from childhood

the thought patterns, values, dos and don’ts one wants them

to adopt. ‘There can be little doubt that compulsory education

was an extremely important step towards the totalitarian state.’ [78]

“Free” compulsory schooling was both the “carrot and stick” that democratic “reformers” used to attract and compel the family to surrender their children to the state and have their ideas, thoughts, values, and morality shaped by the government during ones most impressionable years. None of Democracy’s grand social engineering schemes could have been accomplished without a pliable citizenry indoctrinated by mass compulsory public schooling.

The Market Economy

The author takes a refreshing look at the market economy that sets straight the inaccurate and often times hostile analysis of it that frequently comes from conservative circles. He distinguishes and rightly points out that “pure capitalism” or the “unhampered market” is an “excellent thing” [123]. The free market is intimately tied with private property which is a prerequisite for a just Christian society:

[Capitalism] proceeds from respect for private property.

As capitalism is the reinvestment or saved money for the

purpose of making new profits, it presupposes respect for

property rights and free enterprise.   It has existed in Europe

since the Middle Ages and has contributed significantly to

the development of Western society. [Ibid.]

He insightfully notes that “bad capitalism” often gets lumped in with its “good form” while the latter gets the blame for the baneful excesses of the former. “Monopoly capitalism,” “corporatism,” “the mixed economy,” and “crony capitalism” are not the result of the market process, but stem from “intervention” brought about by the State in favor of its business favorites through participatory democracy. In a truly free market, entrenched wealth is rarely maintained but is constantly subjected to challenges by competitors:

But what one ought to designate as bad

capitalism is the concentration of wealth and

power this wealth procures. This danger does

not stem from capitalism itself but rather from

parliamentary democracy, for it is democracy

that enables money powers to dominate the

political realm. [Ibid.]

The “monied interest” did not exist under “traditional monarchy,” but was a product of Democracy and the protection and extension of the “bad capitalistic” paradigm that came into being and was expanded by the rise of popular representative bodies. Assemblies, legislatures, and congresses, which emerged, became aligned with the banking and financial interests to bring about the downfall of the monarchies.

The concentration of political power could only be attained after the control of money and credit were centralized in the form of central banking and the gold standard was eliminated. Central banks have been an instrumental part of the democratic age, funding the nation state’s initiatives and enriching the politically- tied financial elites at the expense of everyone else.

Wealth concentration is not a by-product of the free market. Rarely are firms able to maintain their dominance for long periods of time. Many turn to the State to get protection and monopoly grants to ensure their position in the economy:

. . . capitalism only becomes harmful when

it grants political power to the money powers.

This was only made possible thanks to the advent

of parliamentary democracy, which was an

invention of liberalism. It is therefore the

foundational principles of political liberalism

(equality before the law, suppression of privileges,

centralization of political power, censitary suffrage,

and the accountability of ministers to the legislative

houses) which have enabled the rise of a wealthy class

and its power over society. [124]

Such sound economic analysis abounds throughout his tome.

Future Prospects

The author rightly sees that because of its nature and the type of personalities that it attracts, modern democracy cannot reform itself, but will eventually collapse from financial stress, war, and/or civil strife:

Parliamentary democracy rarely produces true

statesmen, as its party system more often

promotes ambitious and self-interested persons,

demagogues, and even communication experts.

These are generally superficial and egocentric

individuals with a very limited understanding

of society and man. These politicians do not

have the makings of statesmen. They are

adventurers who use the state to satiate their

hunger for power and money or to benefit

their party. [147]

Efforts to reform it, however, should not be totally dismissed since they could lead to more fundamental change and ultimately the creation of a new political paradigm for Western governance. Populism and the various movements around the globe which fall into that category should be encouraged. Populism, because of is lack of definite ideological underpinnings, has meant different things at different times to different people. Most populists, however, do not want to get rid of democratic forms of government, but want the system to be more “responsive” of its constituents instead of favoring entrenched political elites. Populism is a symptom of the growing failure of modern democracy’s inability to “deliver the goods” that it promises to a now growing dependency class.

As a means of getting rid of totalitarian democracy, populist movements and themes should always be encouraged:

In Europe, the only political forces today

which could, in the more extreme of circumstances

assume this rescue role are found on the side of

populism. Conservative in its values, sometimes

classically liberal when it is a matter of opposing

the stifling interventionism of the state, and yet ready

to defend social gains . . . populism is the only

political current which comes to the defense of

those interests of the population denied or ignored

by the parties in power. [148]

He adds:

Populist parties, from the simple fact that they

can bring together voters from both the left

and the right, have a chance of coming to power

in the near enough future. The deterioration of

of security conditions in Europe due to mass

immigration plays in their favor. [148-49]

While he does not explicitly discuss it, a more concrete and ideological coherent idea and one of historical precedent, is that of secession. For all those who oppose the democratic order, secession is the most justifiable, logical, and practical strategy for the dissolution of the nation state. Secession movements, therefore, whether they do not outwardly condemn parliamentary democracy and only seek to establish a “better run” system, should always be supported.

Conclusion

The most likely scenario if there is to be a change in Western democratic life will be from a world-wide economic crisis and collapse of the financial system which will render the nation states unable to meet their financial obligations to their citizens. All economies are hopelessly indebted from their welfare state excesses and can never hope to meet their promises which now runs in the trillions. What will emerge in the aftermath of a collapse is hard to predict, but some form of authoritarianism is likely which will be centered on a one-world state with a single, irredeemable currency.

A return to a saner, pre-democratic world is only possible by the revitalization of the Catholic Church and its placement once again at the center of Western life. The Catholic Church is the moral and spiritual authority designed by Almighty God for the salvation of souls. Majority consent via the democratic process does not trump eternal laws.

Before this can take place, however, the current band of apostates, heretics, rapists, sodomites, embezzlers, and thieves need to be driven from Christ’s Church and cast into the exterior darkness. After such cleansing, all of the decrees of the wicked Second Vatican Anti-Council with its embracement of Democracy and the heretical notion of religious liberty must be condemned.

While the financial demise of Western-styled democracy will be evident for all to see, its ideological underpinnings which have justified its existence needs to be extirpated. Any hope of it being reconstituted to better serve “the people” needs to be shot down. There is no better place to start the de-mystification of Democracy than with Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s magnificent, The End of Democracy.

 

*Professor Buffin de Chosal teaches economic history at the United Business Institutes.

 

Buffin-de-Chosal

ChristusRex@ChristusRex16

posted by editors/7-18-’19

Patrick Buchanan and the July 4th Celebrations

P Buchanan

In a gushing recent op-ed, columnist and author Patrick Buchanan praised President Trump’s July 4th celebration:

 

As master of ceremonies and keynote speaker

at his ‘Salute to America’ Independence Day

event, Trump was a manifest success.*

Buchanan took to task those on the left who denigrated the event as an ego trip for the President and as, in part, a celebration of the country’s slave-holding past. He noted that the left’s criticism was another example of “A specter of anti-Americanism [which] appears to be rising on the left.”

The columnist praised President Trump for not making the event one of partisan politics, but instead it was “to recite and celebrate the good things Americans of all colors and creeds are doing, and the great things Americans have done since 1776.”

He then quotes parts of President Trump’s speech noting its patriotic non-political zeal:

Together we are part of one of the greatest

stories ever told – the story of America. It is

the epic tale of a great nation whose people

have risked everything for what they know is

right and what they know is true.

 

What a great country! (F)or Americans nothing

is impossible. Ours is the most exceptional nation

in the history of the world.

Trump Independence Day

As a supposed traditional Catholic (actually a “neocon”), Buchanan’s praise for the speech and America’s past should make true Catholics cringe. Yet, this is what American Catholicism especially for those on the “Right,” have long become: cheerleaders for the American Deistic nation-state. Instead of trying to convert their homeland to the One True Faith – a sign of true patriotism – Buchanan and most Catholics “celebrate the good things Americans of all . . . creeds are doing. . . .”

So false religions are doing “good things?” Catholic teaching holds that false religions and sects – those not of the Catholic Church – cannot accomplish anything spiritually edifying. The Catholic Church is the only Church of God founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and it has the power through Christ to dispense the grace-infused Sacraments and is the sole mediator between God and man.

Buchanan’s praise of Trump’s speech seems to have ignored this basic Catholic tenet.

Not only have religious liberty and separation of Church and State, which are cornerstones of the American nation, been condemned by the Church but the US has, over the course of its history, sought to extirpate Catholicism from its body politic and will only tolerate it if its takes no part in the governance of the country.

Perhaps Buchanan is unware that the US has since 1776 captured, stole, and plundered Catholic lands and possessions in its pursuit of Manifest Destiny. The nation that Trump calls “exceptional” has over the course of its history repeatedly backed nearly every anti-clerical movement in Latin America especially in once Catholic Mexico.

After the US’s wanton defeat of Spain in 1898 which began its rise as a world power, it entered WWI which would fundamentally change it and the world forever. President Wilson’s decision to enter the war and the “peace” terms which he mostly dictated afterwards were largely aimed to break up the Austrian Empire, the last remaining Catholic power in Europe. Wilson’s hatred for Austria and its Catholicity was immense as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explains:

Austria was far more wicked than Germany [to

Wilson and the American Left]. It existed in

contradiction of the Mazzinian principle of the

national state, it had inherited many traditions

as well as symbols from the Holy Roman Empire; . . . .

Its dynasty had once ruled over Spain; it had

led the Counter-Reformation, headed the Holy

Alliance, fought against the Risorgimento, suppressed

the Magyar . . . and morally supported the

monarchial experiment in Mexico. Habsburg –

the very name evoked memories of Roman

Catholicism, of the Armanda, the Inquisition. . . .

Such a state had to be shattered, such a dynasty

had to disappear.**

Pat Buchanan is far from alone in this viewpoint and one can find a myriad of articles, books, and publications by Catholics extolling American “exceptionalism.” Nor is this a recent phenomenon, but has been a part of American Catholicism since the inception of the nation.

Sadly, had Catholics stayed true to the Church’s principles, America would be a far different nation and would not be suffering from a crisis in every sector of its society. The remedy is not to extol the nation’s anti-Catholic ideals, but to convert it to the One True Faith.

*https://buchanan.org/blog/trumps-patriotism-vs-the-new-anti-americanism-137266

**Quoted in Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.  New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction Publishers, 2001, p. x.

ChristusRex@ChristusRex16

posted by editors/7-10-’19

A Catholic View of the D-Day Commemorations

D-Day I

D-day II

Last week Western leaders convened to commemorate the 75th anniversary of “D-Day,” the Allied invasion of the Normandy coastline which began the bloody and destructive struggle to “liberate” Europe from Nazi domination. Not only were there solemn speeches given in honor of the men who were slaughtered at Normandy and across the battlefields of Europe, but the speeches reinforced the idea that WWII was the “good war,” and the millions of lives lost and the mass destruction that occurred, although lamentable, was necessary.

None of those who spoke, however, understood that WWII and the preceding world conflagration known as the “Great War” were the final death knell of the Christian social order which began at the Divinely-inspired victory by the Emperor Constantine over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge which soon led to the recognition and legalization of Christianity by the Edict of Milan in 313. World War II ushered in the complete triumph of secularism built upon and carried forth by the liberal nation state one of whose ideological building blocs has been religious liberty and pluralism. Not only were all religions, faiths, creeds, sects, and beliefs given equal standing, but the Deistic principle of “Separation of Church & State” would become a ruling feature of every Western governing and law-making body.

While the victorious nations of World War II celebrated D-Day, Catholics should only look upon such with distain and take no solace or pride in their historical relevance. The wars were fought not for the interests of Christ the King, or His Church, nor to spread Roman Catholicism, but instead were power struggles between the different forms of democratic collectivism. There was no talk of returning the world to a Christian social order. Moreover, the wars opened the door to Cultural Marxism which paved the way for immorality and depravity which are now commonplace throughout the world.

President Trump’s speech at the Normandy commemoration accurately expressed what the war was about:

We are gathered here on freedom’s altar. . . .

On these shores, on these bluffs, on this

day 75 years ago, 10,000 men shed their

blood – and thousands sacrificed their lives –

for their brothers, for their countries and for

the survival of liberty.*

The question which must be asked is: why did Catholics at the time participate in the mass human slaughter and destruction which had nothing to do with the Kingship of Christ? 

For American Catholics, the answer is simple: the “American Catholic Church” had, from its inception, come to support and actually encourage the national secular state created by the leading minds of the so called “Enlightenment.” In fact, Catholics took part in the “framing” of the nation’s Constitution, a document whose foundation is, in part, built on the heretical notion of “religious freedom” and “toleration” and one which makes no reference to the Blessed Trinity or Christ’s Church. Moreover, often times American Catholics ignored, looked the other way, or actively supported the United States’ efforts to expunge Catholicism from the Western Hemisphere.

Most Catholic intellectuals, be they of the liberal variant or conservative/revisionist types have also interpreted the Second World War in secular terms. Patrick Buchanan in his study, Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War:’ How Britain Lost its Empire and the West Lost the World, laments that the war was a geo-political disaster especially for Great Britain who lost an empire, thousands of men which led to its current demographic nightmare, and the impoverishment of its populace for generations. The US, too, although victorious and unscathed territorially, would see the expansion of the federal government in nearly all sectors of domestic life and would become the world’s policeman with a vast and burdensome global empire.

Why would a Catholic like Buchanan and others bewail the loss of Protestant England’s overseas possessions? Such a mindset is dominant among Catholic thinkers who, like the Church in which they belong, have long since given up their mission to evangelize and convert all nations to the One True Faith.

For a Catholic, the West was not “lost” by the decision of the 20th century liberal democratic powers to engage in a senseless, horrific cataclysm, but instead, was lost when Northern Europe and England chose to follow the diabolical “teachings” of the likes of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and Henry VIII which split Christendom and led ultimately to its decline and destruction. The sundering of Christendom is at the root of the social, economic, and political crisis that the modern world suffers from. World War II was the consequence of Western man turning away from Almighty God in the mistaken belief that he could rule himself peacefully without Divine assistance.

While D-Day may be commemorated as a landmark of modern history, it should be seen as a grim reminder of just how far the world has deviated from a Catholic social order – the only order conducive for earthly peace and heavenly attainment.

*Tom Howell, Jr., and Dave Boyer, “Trump Extols Bravery of WWII Veterans.” The Washington Times, 7 June 2019, A1.

ChristusRex@ChristusRex16

posted by editors/6-10-’19

On the Feast Day of St. Pius V

Pius V

Before Cinco de Mayo superseded it, at least in Mexico and now in much of the US, May 5 was remembered and celebrated by Catholics as the feast day of the great Pope St. Pius V, Michael Ghislieri. The neglect of St. Pius V’s feast day not only provides a grim reminder of how once Catholic Mexico has imbibed the tenets of secular humanism, but it shows again the utter contrast between the pre-Vatican II Papacy and Church, and the Conciliar monstrosity which was diabolically launched in the 1960s.

Any comparison between the current occupant of St. Peter’s Chair or for that matter any of his Conciliar predecessors to the holy life and the magnificent reign as pope of St. Pius V is now surely blasphemous! If a comparison is to be made, Bergoglio should be considered the anti-St. Pius V!

No Pope Bergoglio

The anti-St. Pius V!

St. Pius V’s elevation to sainthood demonstrates again that the Church for all ages is something quite different after a couple of generations of Modernism led by the likes of Bugnini, Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger.

The monumental accomplishments as pope, despite a comparatively short reign, and the personal sanctity of St. Pius V are beyond reproach. He was recognized as a “servant of God” long before he passed away. Yet, after his death on May 1, 1572, he was not canonized until 1712. Moreover, he and St. Pius X, the great foe of Modernism, were the only two pontiffs canonized in the last 500 years! Becoming pope was no guarantee of sainthood in the True Church as Dom Prosper Gueranger writes:

Pius V did not receive this honour till about a hundred and thirty years after his death: so impartial is the Church, when she has to adjudicate this highest of earthly honours even to her most revered Pastors!*

Does one have to bring up how Newchurch has totally corrupted the process? The whole thing is a farce! It is so blatant that the speedy elevation of the Conciliar popes has been done to legitimize the Conciliar Revolution.

In a sense, however, the Conciliar popes are deserving of their Newchurch sainthood status, for they were instrumental in pushing through the vast changes which transformed the Church of St. Pius V into the current non-Catholic structure.

Only when the occupants of St. Peter’s Chair look to St. Pius V as a model for papal rule, will the office and Church become Catholic once again.

*Quoted from The Liturgical Year, Vol. VIII, Paschal Time Book II, 445.

editors posted 5-4-’19

ChristusRex@ChristusRex16

 

 

St. Isidore: Defender of the Faith

St.-Isidore-of-Seville

The heavenly grace which once flowed onto Spain when it became known as The Catholic Kingdom was due, no doubt, to the efforts of its many saints. One of the most important and instrumental in the Spanish Reconquista was Isidore of Cartagena (d. 636)

Isidore was one of the leading thinkers of the glorious Middle Ages whose thoughts were included in Canon Law and whose words Pope St. Leo IX believed should be held with “the same respect as to those of Jerome and Augustine, as often as a difficult case which could not be settled by Canon Law.”* Not only was he a great intellect, but Isidore was an indefatigable defender of the Faith who led the fight against the Arian heresy.

Isidore’s struggle against the Arians was crucial in Spain’s Reconquista, for if the heresy had not been expunged from the Kingdom, it may never have succeeded in ridding itself of Islam domination. Dom Guéranger, in his magnificent The Liturgical Year, insightfully explains that the lands which were overrun by the Moslems were never able to liberate themselves because they had embraced false teaching and crazily separated from Rome:

 

Contemporaneously with Spain, Asia also and Africa fell under the Mussulman yoke,

and have continued in their slavery up to the present day. . . . Spain, at the period

of her invasion, was Catholic, and Catholicity was the very spirit of the land:

whereas those other nations, that yielded themselves slaves to the Saracens, were

already separated from the Christian Church by heresy and schism.

God abandoned them because they had rejected both the truth of faith, and unity

with the Church; they fell an easy prey to the infidel conqueror.**

reconquista.jpg II                                                                     La Reconquista

Isidore’s life and heroic deeds are more than just a part of Christendom’s neglected past, but can and should inspire those today who combat the apostates, heretics, rapists, perverts, and embezzlers who have taken over Christ’s Church. Isidore did not compromise, “dialogue,” or seek recognition from the Arians, but condemned them forthright. In doing so, he laid the groundwork for Spain’s glorious recovery and the creation of a vast Christian world empire which led to the conversion and salvation of millions of souls.

*Don Prosper Guernager, The Liturgical Year, Vol. VIII – Book Two, 280-284.

**Ibid.

editors/Christus Rex / posted 4-3-’19 Feast Day of St. Isidore

ChristusRex@ChristusRex16