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.


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.


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.




posted by editors/7-18-’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.


posted by editors/6-10-’19

Holy Week and the Decline of the West

Holy Week

At one time, Holy Week — Palm Sunday through Easter Sunday — was recognized and commemorated by the Western world as a solemn period when earthly matters were put aside, and focus was directed to history’s most seminal event. Most businesses were closed or had reduced hours, especially during the Sacred Triduum of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. Entertainment and leisurely activities were curtailed while schools and universities’ “spring breaks” coincided with Holy Week as mankind contemplated, as best it could, the momentous events which took place in a small backwater outpost of the mighty, and at the time unknowing, Roman Empire.

Tragically, for the human race those days are a thing of the discredited past. Sports are played, most people work throughout the week, financial affairs are routinely conducted – while Easter Sunday is not seen as a celebration of the Resurrection, but of egg hunts. In politics, it can be safely assumed that there will be no acknowledgment of the week as thievery, war making, graft, and debauchery will continue as usual. The triumph of secular humanism is complete.

The Novus Ordo has succumbed to the world’s dictates and has blasphemously altered its beautiful and moving Holy Week rites, omitting and rewording certain passages from the Liturgy as not to “offend” the usual suspects. Of course, the abandonment of Tradition is nothing new for the Conciliar Church, but defines its existence.

Such disregard and ingratitude for what took place two millennia ago does not bode well for mankind’s future, especially in those lands and among those peoples who once revered these sacred days. The ominous eternal consequences of such indifference was warned about by the Divine Savior as recounted in St. Matthew’s Gospel (10:32/DRV): “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.”

Although most people do not realize it, the grave economic, political, and social problems which the West now faces are ultimately the result of the indifference toward God — with the neglect of Holy Week as a prime example. None of the current abominations such as abortion and “gay” marriage could have ever been possible had human societies been dedicated toward Christ.

This indifference will not go unpunished. The problems that the West faces today cannot be resolved as a matter of the right policy, but are at their core spiritual. Redress of social ills will not come about through the ballot box or reform. The forces that seek the West’s destruction must be fought on the spiritual plane. These forces have long understood this fact and have tried to — and largely succeeded in — removing religion from society, allowing it only on Sundays, and if trends continue, even Sunday worship will no longer be tolerated. Those who seek to preserve the fruits of Western civilization must realize that this is a religious contest.

The disastrous consequences of mankind’s attempting to set its own rules is on display for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. The cultural depravity that abounds in contemporary life is stunning and has gone on for so long and with such intensity that most people are now desensitized to it. Creating jobs, halting mass immigration, appointing “conservative” judges, and the like will do little to overthrow the cultural Marxism that permeates society today.

Until the Divine Entity on which Holy Week is centered is once again placed at the summit of Western life, the chances of resolving mankind’s various crises are nil.

editors/Christus Rex / posted Palm Sunday, 4-14-’19


On the Feast Day of Christ the King

CK 10-28-18


Today marks the feast day of Christ the King!

To a world that had long forgotten that Christ is King not only over individuals in their spiritual lives, but of all creation, Pope Pius XI in 1925 instituted, Quas Primas. The encyclical is an explicit rebuke to the concept that the civil authority is somehow outside or immune from His reign.

Every individual, organization, association, group, people, nation, authority, and state is subject to His Divine jurisdiction.  Tragically, and to mankind’s detriment, this feast day has been ignored by the wider world, and since the Second Vatican Anti-Council, 1962-65, it has been downplayed by the Conciliar Church.  For it is in stark contrast to what Newchurch now stands, for which is a man-centered, created faith which rejects its Savior’s charitable suzerainty.

In commentary on Quas Primas from Dom Prosper Guéranger’s magisterial, The Liturgical Year, a description of the world and its relationship with its King at the time of the encyclical was given:

To-day we sadly behold ‘a world undone,’

largely paganized in principles and outlook,

and, in recent years, in one country even

glorifying in the name ‘pagan.’  At the best,

governments mostly ignore God: and at worst,

openly fight against him, as we of to-day are

witnessing in the Old World and in the New. . . .

Christ is kept out of the State schools and seats

of higher education; and the rising generations

seem to be taught anything and everything save

to know, love and serve him.  Art and literature

all too frequently reflect the same tendencies.  [The Liturgical Year, Vol. XIV, 475]

To say the least, things have not improved as human society has deteriorated in every sense as mankind, which once knew the Truth, has now chosen with every effrontery to ignore it:

And since the spirit of evil reigns inevitably

whenever the spirit of Christ has ceased to reign,

in public and in private men are flouting the moral

laws of God, and some of the worst abominations

of ancient paganism are becoming matters of

every-day life. . . .   There is now an intense,

positive hatred of Jesus Christ in the militant

atheist, which differs in kind from the attitude of

the fiercest Roman or Eastern persecutor:  ‘If I had

not come and spoken to them . . . if I had not done

among them the works that no other man hath done,

they would not have sin: but now they have both seen

and hated both me and my Father.’ [Ibid., 475-76]

Those who lament the decline of Western Civilization seek remedies for the present crisis, but most ignore the one and only solution to it:

Even the statesmen’s well-meant efforts to find

a remedy for present ills and above all, to secure

world peace, prove futile because, whereas peace

is from Christ, and possibly only in the Kingdom o

Christ, his name is never mentioned throughout

their deliberations or their documents. [Ibid., 475]


Posted by the editors: 10/28/’18