MAGA's trends toward liberalism...

Christians are not talking about this enough right now. There are the common Woke critiques of the Trump Administration right now that even some self-professing Christians are going on and then claiming that they are doing what other Christians should. But these range on subjects that are either morally neutral or morally commendable. For instance, the ending of DEI should rightfully be praised by Christians. While the suffering that has been experienced by many races under the yoke of past white supremacy is not something that we should ever want to see come back, the problem with DEI and affirmative action is that it issued an ideology founded in a never-ending cycle of revenge politics. To truly move past our racist past, we can't allow either the past white supremacy or the current implementing of hiring people based solely on race to continue. People's attributes need to be looked at. Their work ethic, their ability to function on a team, and their commitment to creating a better life for their peers.

Immigration policy has been something frequently critiqued by Christians on the grounds that Christians are expected to welcome the foreigner. Christians are supposed to welcome the foreigner. The State has the right to establish proper order (Rom. 13:1-4). Immigration policies should be based on a combination of both the individual obligation and the State's obligation to be a guarantor of order in society. I've seen many Christians on both sides of the issue failing to properly synthesize that issue. Mass deportations are the current result of a past Administration which committed a dereliction of their duty to create order, allowing numerous people into a country unchecked. The Laken Riley Act, which was passed recently, received support from both Republican and Democrat Senators. I'm not saying Democrat and Republican support makes something inherently wholesome, but it shows that there needs to be real concern for the State to actually guarantee security and safety to its nation. I would hope that these mass deportations are being conducted in a humanitarian way, and that's the best I can state because I don't have control over the situation.

Cutting USAID has also recently been something that I've seen Christians taking issue with. And while cutting funding to charity groups has disastrous consequences for the charity groups that are doing legitimately quality work in improving people's lives, there needs to be something said about this. Government funding needs to be able to have oversight from the general public. Which means sending tax-money to a charity group is not a good thing to happen at any rate. All the tax-payer can see is that their money has been sent to a third-party group. They have no idea what this third-party group is doing with their money or even if they support that. It's like using tax-money to build a wall that many people don't support. Individuals should be allowed and invested with the authority to discern how their money is spent, even if its tax-money, and they should be allowed to see how government is using or abusing that money. Christians on both sides need to start looking at government distributism like that. Too often we hear the phrase "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" used as a justification for outrageous taxation, along with Romans 13:1-4. However, in creating proper order, the State needs to also honor the individual who was made in the image of God, otherwise, the tyranny of the collective will be implemented.

There are also a shocking number of Christians who are opposing the Administration's relative pivots on transgenderism and abortion from the previous Administration's. I'm not sure where these people got their theology from, but according to Christian tradition, God created mankind male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). There is also the historic condemnation of murder which applies to children in the womb as well as to those outside it. There are frighteningly very few Christians who are opposing sending money to Israel to use in an offensive against Gaza. While I support Israel's right to defend its citizens from being kidnapped by the terror group Hamas, I only support a defensive. At the same time, Ukraine also has a right to defend its own borders from Russia. But the Benedictine position would be to pursue peace between the Romans and the Lombards in regard to both issues. Christians on both sides have de-sacralized life by promoting a twisted anthropology defending the murder of the unborn, turning from the truth of creation, and salivating over war and the destruction of lives.

Which takes me back to the main point. While there are many legitimate concerns over the criticism of the Trump Administration right now, as there were many concerns over the Biden Administration, I've seen Christians on both sides missing the mark. Part of it is because of a grotesque negligence of historic Christianity, but there is also a political element to it as well. I can certainly understand the people who voted for Trump over Harris as a lesser evil, but the people who voted for him and are supporting him whole-heartedly while claiming that they are pro-life is frightening. We have a man who supports the abortion pill about to take over Human Health Services. Both J.D. Vance and Donald Trump have spoken out in favor of the abortion pill. MAGA has become liberalized to the same extent that the Democrat Party has become liberalized. What I mean by liberalized is this - there is a devaluation of the sacred among the movement that emphasizes the material over that of the sacred and even throws out the sacred. The material nation is now more important than the Church. Winning elections is more important than influencing culture for future generations. Joe Biden said in 2021 that democracy has prevailed. In 2025, we are finally seeing the effects of that victory that democracy has won. Democracy has won and it has conquered the Church. Well, rather, it looks like its winning. The Church will never be conquered.

I am very frightened by the liberalism that has been embraced by Christians who are in the MAGA movement. While there are some good things that the Trump Administration has done, there can be no doubt that a Christian cannot support the totality of this Administration. While it may be an improvement for Christians than the last Administration, which was even more divisive at this point, it's grotesquely imperfect. Put not your trust in princes. The worship of political leaders - Trudeau, Trump, Harris, Vance, Biden, etc. - is not something Christians should get behind at all. A lot of right-wing Christians have anger toward church leaders for failing to properly call out the Biden Administration and they are right to be angered about that. Left-wing theology is not the solution to the right-wing politics among Christianity. One failure of the Church this past decade is in the over-protection of republican forms of government and the neglect of the sacred aspect of the human condition. Had the Church been properly addressing this, we would not have the political idolatry. Man is hungry right now. They are hungry for God. But if the Church yields its evangelical duties, Man will find God in himself and exert power over others. This has been the frightening scenario for the last decade.

What would it take? (response to Mr. Roger Olson)

Mr. Roger Olson, an Evangelical historical theologian who, over the past several years, has demonstrated the political intoxication of American Evangelicalism from the "never-Trump side", blogged recently about the reaction to Trump's conviction by a Manhattan jury. My main response to his question is perceived fairness. When Democrats tell you in 2016 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted because that's prosecuting political opponents, then open an investigation in 2017 on their political opponent over "collusion with Russia" which was proven never occurred, then in 2020 complain about Trump attempting to investigate Biden, then start cheerleading over the conviction of a President, any effort to lecture the general populace on democracy, fairness, rule of law, is moot. Now, one could insist that it was a "jury of his peers" to defend said "fairness", but that ignores the fact of how Manhattan voted in 2020 (85-15 pro-Biden). This is a district where you are almost guaranteed to get a jury of your peers that's 10-2 Democrat, with strong Democrat ideologues, where Democrat bullies can bludgeon the other two to render in the desired verdict. Does that seem "fair"?

Mr. Olson also complains that Trump is a bully though. In his efforts to condemn people who still support Trump to Hell after this. Right. Trump is a bully. I've been abused by both people on the right and people on the left for solely being autistic. Now, Mr. Olson can deny my personal experience (which is called gaslighting and a form of bullying), or Mr. Olson can take my personal experience into account for why I find the left more venomous. Because even though I've been abused for my autism by people on both sides of the court, none has abused me more than those who are Biden-voters. While Joe Biden himself may not be a bully, his failure to control and stabilize his voting base is telling. When a significant portion of Biden-voters found on social media tell you things like you're a moron because you're autistic or that you shouldn't vote or be allowed to drive because you're autistic, you definitely have a much different perspective. Trump might be a bully but who he bullies are people who deserve it. I would rather have a President who refers to Biden-voters who abuse people based on their disability as human scum than what we currently have.

Mr. Olson, despite being an Evangelical, apparently has no concern for the Left-wing agenda. No one may sway his opinion on this, but I'm fully aware that Christians, even Evangelicals, are opposed to the Left-wing agenda of tax-funded trans surgeries for minors, tax-funded abortions, tax-funded overseas wars, gay marriage, abortion up to the point of birth, etc. Since Mr. Olson is a Christian and against all of that, I do find it curious he thinks the Left-wing agenda is no threat. Now, he does contradict himself a lot though. For instance, he will unequivocally support Liz Cheney who supports overseas wars but supports Robert F. Kennedy because he does not support overseas wars. To be honest, I've never honestly believed Mr. Olson was anything other than a hypocrite and a false Christian. But that's irrelevant. That the Left-wing agenda is dangerous, is something that I continue to have a lot greater concern about than anything Trump has said or done.

What would it take? What would it take to get me to see that a Trump Presidency should be feared? Okay, here's a good list: Masses of liberals who aren't ghoulishly promoting abortion but at least view it as a tragedy. Masses of liberals who can hold an intellectual conversation with someone who doesn't agree with them on a political issue. Masses of liberals who don't foolishly drift tot the argument that being an orthodox Catholic makes someone a pedophile-supporter. Masses of liberals who have a respectful tolerance for the beliefs of Christians who aren't shouting "HOMOPHOBIA!". Basically, liberals behaving like the opposite of human scum would have me much more inclined to see eye-to-eye with Mr. Olson that a second Trump term would be a very evil thing. Instead, we have just the opposite of that. I'm an independent voter and still undecided. I don't know if I want to vote for Kennedy right now or not. Kennedy has said some good things in the past. Trump had a lot of objectively good policies. What I think America needs more than a President is an exorcism and a mass conversion to orthodox Catholicism.

But I think that Mr. Olson shows overall a significant problem with Evangelicalism today. A lot of Trump's most bitter critics and supporters are among Evangelical Christians and self-described Evangelicals. Evangelicalism, without anything sacred to look toward in the Church, has effectively satiated its lack of the sacred with the sacred within the State. It's a very sad state that Evangelicalism is in. Mr. Olson's posts frequently dunk on the Evangelical Trump-supporters, and safe to say, they aren't listening to him, but he still dunks on them anyway. Never-Trumper Evangelical critics will certainly act like they aren't political but when 9 out of 10 of your posts each week are all about the political state of America and Trump, you don't really give a good impression to an outsider that you are in favor of that. Maybe it's the idea of having a god who responds to Mr. Olson's every call that makes him lose focus on the sacred. That kind of god is being advanced by many Evangelicals nowadays. I don't see much of a future for Evangelicals. For Catholics, apostasies will come and mass conversions will come. With the death of Evangelicalism as it inclines itself more toward replacing the sacred with the political, I think that we might see an objectively good thing for this country in a mass conversion to Catholicism.

How to cleanse right-wing brainwashing...

I speak from the position of someone who voted for Trump twice. I was never really what would be properly called a "Trumper" or "MAGA" even, except maybe to those on the hard left who see any opposition of any kind toward leftism as being "MAGA" or "Trumpism" or "Trump-supportive". Like how many Biden voters or Hillary Clinton voters do you really honestly know who actually gave whole support to the ideologies of those? Like most people, I just ended up voting for the lesser of evils. But nevertheless, I did venture more toward right-wing brainwashing. I think a lot of it is dictated by the news we watch. But there is a large responsibility that the left itself needs to take up in creating right-wing brainwashing. There's positive brainwashing and negative brainwashing. And the left contributes to a lot of negative brainwashing.

Pigeonholing is a tactic used frequently in rhetoric where someone puts someone in a position that they would not otherwise hold because of hasty generalizations or strawmanning or even guilt by association. And the left excels in it. I do believe this is how many otherwise conservative people, such as David French, get sucked into making excuses for the left even as the left attacks them. Because if they didn't stray toward the left, they'd end up in my position of being labeled a "MAGA". But that's the thing, these are labels that can be rejected. Labels aren't something that are handed out by people who aren't extemist. Labels are handed out by people who are extremists! I want to make that clear. Understanding that there is pigeonholing by left-wing extremists and anyone who undertakes in pigeonholing is, more often than not, an extremist, is a crucial component of this.

You're not an extremist just because someone says you are an extremist. In fact, you might be normal. I have empathy toward those who see January 6, 2021 as an insurrection. I think that it is an opinion. It doesn't make someone a defender of "MAGA" or a "Trumper" to be able to understand that the usage of the term "insurrection" to define that event is opinionated. What's more concerning is when politicians use the opinionated term as part of their investigation into what happened and so the legal search starts with a conclusion and then finds evidence to support that conclusion. Others, such as myself, see an otherwise organized rally that somehow erupted into a riot. And that's an equally justified opinion unless evidence proves there was an insurrection. When it becomes a matter of good and evil to see such a thing as an insurrection or people who became riotous and politicians start to use that as part of a legal investigation of the issue, that's dangerous. But an extremist, nevertheless, isolates people who see it as either/or into groups of us vs. them and ignores their own responsibility.

So during the Summer of 2020, the President had to hide in a bunker. That is a fact. He had to hide into a bunker because an organized group of people was committing violent acts, vandalizing the streets of Washington, D.C., and riot cops had to be called into to break everything up. Leftists denied this happened and yet video footage showed it happened. When confronted with this, leftists didn't call it out. They actually sought to justify it based on the nation's treatment of racial minorities...in the past. Most people tend to grow up, but extremists tend to grasp onto what happened in the past and act as if everything in the past is the same as today. That's why you get "Hitler" analogies. Obviously, no one's bringing back Hitler. Though due to the fact that Nazism is a variation of socialism and both right and left cling to socialism, it's understandable why so many make these Hitler analogies, on both right and left. The point is, that the Summer riot could also be categorized as an insurrection.

An insurrection, I think, is something that should be defined before the word is thrown out. Generally speaking, insurrection refers to acts that are intentionally undermining the Civil Government. It's impressive to me how many leftists will insist that our government institutionalizes racism and then will somehow care about that government being undermined. That's just cognitive dissonance disorder. Either you care about the institution or you think the institution is inherently racist. The fact that intent is typically emphasized is why I don't think that January 6, 2021 was an insurrection. I'm not saying it may have been, I'm just saying I don't think that happened. The only insurrection I am aware of that happened with certainty was the insurrection in Seattle that occurred in 2020 with "CHAZ".

Going back to my original point, extremism happens on both sides. I don't know what side it is more common with, but the hard rightists typically see the media make comments ad nauseam about right-wing extremism. Then they see on social media video clips of various examples of left-wing extremists and they are hurt and wounded by the fact that there is so much demonization of the right. More than that, but people in the middle, who hold more socially conservative views, see all of this, end up being pigeon-holed along with the more extreme bunch of the right, and end up being categorized as "MAGA", "Trumpers", "Nazis", and "extremists" as well. No one likes being called things they aren't, but it's a part of labeling. Cults typically divide the world into two categories of good guys vs. bad guys. It's easier then to glorify violent acts such as the knifing of Derek Chauvin (leftists recently) and the death of George Floyd (right-wing extremists in the past and today). Or even Kyle Rittenhouse's usage of force against people trying to kill him. Even justified violence should not be glorified. It reminds me of what Elyas says to Perrin Aybara in The Wheel of Time. The moment you start to love that axe is when you need to get rid of it.

The left has engaged in what I would call "negative brainwashing". By creating such a negative picture of the right, that more people on the right have started materializing that in response to the left-wing extremism that is both justified by the media and supported by politicians. Did Nancy Pelosi ever call out those who vandalized a crisis pregnancy center? While opposing right-wing extremism continues to be necessary, it must be remembered that left-wing extremism has media and corporate support. Both should be opposed equally. Those who are of the Kingdom of God know that the enemies attack it from all sides. The warfare is not a material one, but it is an important one. For the left to actually get rid of right-wing extremists, they themselves need to stop thinking like extremists of seeing people as two groups, those for, and those against, their ideological group think. But one thing I give credit to the left on, they at least know that the Kingdom of God is their main enemy.

King Olaf II of Norway

Olaf Haraldsen, the son of King Harald Grenske who was one of the petty kings in Norway, played an important role in the conversion of the Norwegians to Christianity and centralizing them through the Christian faith. Olaf was raised by his step-father, Sigurd Syr, as his father was killed in battle by the Swedes. In his coming of age, Olaf led a series of military campaigns against the Swedes, the Finns, and the Danes under the guidance of his foster-father, Hrane who was also called the "foster-father of kings". He was called a king as was Norwegian custom at the time to declare any one who commanded a ship in battle a king. Since the Swedes were responsible for killing his father, he began his military campaigns against the Swedes. He fought off witches in Finland, and then came to the West to assist King Ethelred in battle against the Danes. The Danish King Svein was mysteriously killed during these campaigns, some attributing the death to St. Edmund. This was similar to how St. Mercurius is traditionally held to have felled Julian the Apostate. It is highly possible that Olaf converted to Christianity while assisting the English against the Danes. He had planned to head out to Jerusalem but a figure appeared to him in a dream and told him that his bloodline would reign in Norway forever and that he must return to become king of all Norway.

In the Summer of 1012, King Ethelred died and the Danish King Canute took Queen Emma's hand in marriage and forced the Anglos under the dominion of the Danes. He had Ethelred's son Edmund, who had succeeded his father as king, murdered. This move effectively placed Canute as the de facto King of England and an usurper at that. Olaf was requested to remove the presence of the Danes from England and if he could do so, he would be granted all of Northumberland. Olaf came with force and seized a significant portion of Northumberland from the Danes. Having accomplished that, he returned once again to Norway to drive Earl Hakon, the Dane, out of Norway and did so with the promise that Earl Hakon would leave Olaf alone and never engage in battle with him again. Olaf had now secured the wrath of both the Swedes and the Danes in his young military career.

Olaf was determined to free Norway from the yoke of foreign masters and has become a symbol of fierce nationalism for Norwegians,

"I know the inclination of the people well, -- that all want to be free from the slavery of foreign masters, and will give aid and strength to the attempt. I have not proposed this matter to any before thee, because I know thou art a man of understanding, and can best judge how this my purpose shall be brought forward in the beginning, and whether we shall, in all quietness, talk about it to a few persons, or instantly declare it to the people at large. I have already shown my teeth by taking prisoner the Earl Hakon, who has now left the country, and given me, under oath, the part of the kingdom which he had before; and I think it will be easier to have Earl Svein alone to deal with, than if both were defending the country against us." (The Saga of Olaf Haraldson, 33)

Due to his fierce nationalism and defense of his family, many of whom held positions as kings over the differing parts of the Uplands, for Norway was divided into different lands governed by individual kings at this point, Olaf would gain favor among the electing kings. These kings met in a counsel to elect a supreme king. There had not been a supreme king of all Norway since Olaf Trygvason had died in the year 1000. He had been a convert to Christianity but seized most of the property of the descendants of the Harald Harfager that the kings of the Uplands couldn't determine what god it was he had actually believed in. They placed their trust in Olaf Haraldsen though.

But Earl Svein, who had served as an Earl alongside Hakon over Norway, was a traitor. He stirred up rebellion against Olaf, among those who had even sworn allegiance to Olaf. Olaf was left alone with his step-father Sigurd Syr, who continued to supply him with the men he needed in Viken in order to fend off the rebels. Olaf came with 100 well-equipped men who drove the Earl out of Norway. After a battle where Svein's men suffered massive losses, the Earl went to seek his brother-in-law, Olaf the King of Sweden, for assistance against Olaf the Thick. The Earl would die in Sweden. Trondhejm and Viken both received Olaf as king and built the Church of St. Clement in Nidaros. At this point, those who were aligned with Olaf the Thick were deeply Christian. Before the battle against Earl Svein, they held Mass, and they went into battle with crosses painted across their shields.

"It was King Olaf's custom to rise betimes in the morning, put on his clothes, wash his hands, and then go to the church and hear the matins and morning mass. Thereafter he went to the Thing- meeting, to bring people to agreement with each other, or to talk of one or the other matter that appeared to him necessary. He invited to him great and small who were known to be men of understanding. He often made them recite to him the laws which Hakon Athelstan's foster-son had made for Throndhjem; and after considering them with those men of understanding, he ordered laws adding to or taking from those established before. But Christian privileges he settled according to the advice of Bishop Grimbel and other learned priests; and bent his whole mind to uprooting heathenism, and old customs which he thought contrary to Christianity." (ibid, 56)

Olaf, having heard how other regions within his domain had allowed practices contrary to Christianity, set out to reform the code of laws in order to orient them to Christianity. The decline of Paganism within Europe is seen through the works of Sts. Olga, Ludmilla, Wenceslaus, Vladimir, Olaf. The turn of the millennium signified the collapse of Paganism and the victory of Christianity, resulting in the beginning of civilization. The Christianization of Norway was more successful at first in the region of Viken as the people there were more acquainted with Christian tradition, but slowly, Scandinavia was fully recognizing Christianity much as Rus' had done shortly before and Bohemia before that. After gravely inflicting punishment on Christians who were adhering to Pagan practices, five of the Upland kings rebelled against him. Olaf subdued those kings, one of whom was Hrorek, a kinsman who would make an attempt on the king's life, and he seized their lands. Olaf would eventually exile Hrorek to Iceland, refusing to put the rebel to death on account of his relation.

Olaf had been pursuing an alliance with Olaf of Sweden. But Olaf of Sweden remembered the early campaigns of King Olaf and the raids he had made against the Swedes. For this, Olaf of Sweden held a permanent and insatiable grudge against the Norwegian king. Yet he had promised his daughter Ingegard to Olaf II. However, due to his grudge, Olaf refused to make good on his word and married Ingegard to the Russian king Jarisleif instead. The Earl Ragnvald, who had been behind the previous marriage arrangement and had desired peace with Norway, was given the Earldom of Lagoda as a marital gift and had Olaf of Norway married to the Swedish king's daughter Astrid instead. This enraged Olaf of Sweden even greater. The Swedish people, troubled by the broken promises of Olaf, held a Thing to coronate Olaf's son, Onund the kingdom. The Swedish land was divided between Olaf and Onund with the Norwegian King Olaf forming an alliance with Onund. This alliance strengthened in 1021 when Olaf of Sweden died and Onund became sole ruler of Sweden.

Olaf continued the spread of Christianity throughout Norway, often through forceful tactics. The Halogaland people were fierce opponents of Christianity. Disgusted by their Pagan practices, Olaf threatened them to embrace Christianity and give up these practices. They did so and churches were built and Norway continued to be a bastion of Christianity in Scandinavia thanks to the tactics of Olaf. Though this may be seen as imprudent on the part of the Norwegian King, it should be noted that Christian law gives legitimate rulers the right and authority to protect the spread of Christianity by the usage of force, censorship, and suppression.

Ten years into Olaf's reign as Supreme King of Norway, Canute the Great of Denmark and England forged a territorial claim on the Norwegian lands held by Olaf. This included all of the Uplands, the Orkney Islands, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland. Canute the Great was hellbent to claim them back for himself stating that because of the Danish Earldoms of his father, he was entitled to those lands. Canute was able to fuel rebellion in the midst of the Norsemen by planting spies among their ranks. Much of the Swedish men deserted from Onund and only the strongest remained with the brothers-in-law as they fought against Canute and the rebels. The Saga explains why the people eventually rebelled against St. Olaf.

"He punished great and small with equal severity, which appeared to the chief people of the country too severe; and animosity rose to the highest when they lost relatives by the king's just sentence, although they were in reality guilty. This was the origin of the hostility of the great men of the country to King Olaf, that they could not bear his just judgments. He again would rather renounce his dignity than omit righteous judgment. The accusation against him, of being stingy with his money, was not just, for he was a most generous man towards his friends; but that alone was the cause of the discontent raised against him, that he appeared hard and severe in his retributions. Besides, King Canute offered great sums of money, and the great chiefs were corrupted by this, and by his offering them greater dignities than they had possessed before. The inclinations of the people, also, were all in favour of Earl Hakon, who was much beloved by the country folks when he ruled the country before." (ibid, 192)

Olaf fled to Russia where his sister-in-law, Ingegard was with King Jarisleif. There, the Queen offered him dominion over any Russian lands he desired, including Bulgaria, and Olaf even considered joining a monastery. He realized that his deposal had ended his reign. There was nothing he could do to win his throne back. But in a dream, he heard Olaf Trygvason call him to remember his right over the land of Norway and with few men and the aid of Onund, he would head back to Norway one last time.

Olaf was questioned as to whether he should mutilate the traitors and plunder them as he had done though with the Pagan sympathizers, to which he responded,

"The bondes have well deserved that it should be done to them as ye desire. They also know that I have formerly done so, burning their habitations, and punishing them severely in many ways; but then I proceeded against them with fire and sword because they rejected the true faith, betook themselves to sacrifices, and would not obey my commands. We had then God's honour to defend. But this treason against their sovereign is a much less grievous crime, although it does not become men who have any manhood in them to break the faith and vows they have sworn to me. Now, however, it is more in my power to spare those who have dealt ill with me, than those whom God hated." (ibid, 217)

Not intent on punishing them more than necessary, Olaf even distributed pieces of silver on behalf of the souls who had betrayed him.

King Canute had placed a bishop on the episcopal throne in Norway who encouraged and egged on insurrection against King Olaf. This bishop rallied up the bondes who would soon fight against Olaf. Olaf II would eventually fall in the Battle of Stiklestad. Thorer Hund and Kalf Arnason confronted the King and killed him. It is uncertain if Kalf dealt the wound in the neck or if it was Thorer Hund. Thorer found the King's body lying on the ground and saw the King lying as if asleep, not dead. The blood still flowing, it went up to where Thorer had been wounded and healed him as if he was never wounded. Thus, Thorer would be the first of the King's opponents to testify of his sanctity. King Olaf had also healed the son of a widow when he was in Russia of a boil that grew and festered upon his neck. Olaf's body was hidden from the rebels during the skirmish but a blind boy who had not seen anything in much while found himself in a cabin where the body of the king had been hidden and was found to be healed of his blindness upon the unbeknownst to him encounter.

King Canute broke many of his promises and placed his son Svein on the throne of Norway rather than Kalf Arnason, the leader of the rebel army. Svein ruled as a tyrant, which greatly led to the people's penance over their slaying of the saintly king.

"King Svein introduced new laws in many respects into the country, partly after those which were in Denmark, and in part much more severe. No man must leave the country without the king's permission; or if he did, his property fell to the king. Whoever killed a man outright, should forfeit all his land and movables. If any one was banished the country, and all heritage fell to him, the king took his inheritance. At Yule every man should pay the king a meal of malt from every harvest steading, and a leg of a three-year old ox, which was called a friendly gift, together with a spand of butter; and every house-wife a rock full of unspun lint, as thick as one could span with the longest fingers of the hand. The bondes were bound to build all the houses the king required upon his farms. Of every seven males one should be taken for the service of war, and reckoning from the fifth year of age; and the outfit of ships should be reckoned in the same proportion. Every man who rowed upon the sea to fish should pay the king five fish as a tax, for the land defence, wherever he might come from. Every ship that went out of the country should have stowage reserved open for the king in the middle of the ship. Every man, foreigner or native, who went to Iceland, should pay a tax to the king. And to all this was added, that Danes should enjoy so much consideration in Norway, that one witness of them should invalidate ten of Northmen." (ibid, 253)

The attitudes of the people began to change and they chased out Bishop Sigurd who had inspired the insurrection against King Olaf and Olaf's body would be disinterred by Bishop Grimkel who had discovered the body almost as if it had been asleep for a year, rather than dead. Many more healings were attributed to Olaf II. Olaf fell on July 29, 1030 A.D. and was disinterred on August 3, 1031 A.D., only a little over a year after his martyrdom. His body was moved to Clement's Church which was replaced by Christ Church. It is possibly now hidden under another Church today called Saint-King's Church in Norway, but archeologists have been trying to determine whether this is so. In the year of 1034, Kalf Arnason made a venture all the way to Novgorod where he inquired of King Jarisleif to make King Magnus, the son of Olaf II, King of Norway. Those who had been Olaf II's opponents in battle were reconciled together with Olaf's son.

Olaf II is a symbol of nationalism for his fight against foreigners sapping off the fields of a country they belong not to. Olaf II is greatly venerated in Norway to this day. With the emphasis on solidarity, we tend to forget the Church also holds to subsidiarian values as well. If these values are neglected, we fall under the tyranny of the collective brain. Olaf II embraced both as he united his country through Christianity and ended Paganism and crushed heresy and he liberated his country from foreign oppression at the same time. Today, the liberal media talks unendingly about the dangers of "Christian nationalism" and yet we see it as a virtue in Olaf II. What the media hates is Christianity in general because if people believe in God, there is no means to oppress any one into collectivism. St. Olaf II of Norway, pray for us!

To Sedevacate? - Pt. 1

I decided to pick up St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine as I wrestle with the question of what to do regarding Pope Francis. It is possible he is an Antipope and I have indeed referred to him as such before and while the sedevacantist position has its grounding in historical theology, I don't think one should ever jump to it rashly on the basis of a few texts. In the next part, I'll show that St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine can definitely be read to support the sedevacantist position but for now, I want to go over some of the things he states about whether or not the Pope could be a heretic. There is a distinction he makes between occultic (hidden) heretics and manifest heretics. Only the latter is ipso facto excommunicated but the former, while holding error, can still in fact be full members of the Church. I'll discuss this distinction more in my next post too. Bellarmine has this to say about four opinions on whether the Pope can err:

"1) Should the Pope define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy and that this has in fact happened thus. This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his book on councils recorded the errors of even general councils that the Pope approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a manifest lie, as well show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book that the Pope can err with a general council.

2) The second opinion is that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment on matters of faith not with the Pope but with the Church or with a General Council.

3) The Third opinion is another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.

4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics. ...

From these four opinions, the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, ch. II)

We see that the opinion that the Pope can only be deemed infallible when speaking in agreement with the Church and with the Councils on his own is not necessarily heretical as determined by Bellarmine. Of course, Vatican I seems to suggest that this opinion is now a heresy but, it limits the Papal authority to a matter of ex cathedra statements. If the Chair of St. Peter is derived from the Church, then only speaking in accordance with the Councils and the Church, and not of himself, can the Pope be said to be speaking infallibly. So there is a legitimate case to be made still for the second opinion. That said, regardless of how the ex cathedra statement is interpreted as, it is only when he is defining a matter of faith. We have had multiple encyclicals and councils containing errors as of recently that have never been submitted as de fide statements. To say the Church is bound to error when it is only made pastoral and not as a matter of dogma is erroneous. For the Church is only bound to that which is a de fide matter. Neo-Catholics aren't particularly conservative as they pretend to be. They've only been concerned with conserving the mistakes made by liberals. Some of them have even insisted the Church is bound by everything a Pope says or does, which is highly inaccurate. This is why Bellarmine also states that, "just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more should he endeavor to destroy the Church" (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. II, Ch. XXIX)

Now, Pope Celestine I shows in his epistle that Nestorius lost authority the moment he began to preach his heresies. But we note in the case of St. Cyprian that he viciously disagreed with the Pope's question on whether or not heretics should be rebaptized. Dom John Chapman notes this instance, commenting that "St. Jerome...tells us: 'Bl. Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejecting the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain." (Studies on the Early Papacy, 48) The Pope had Tradition on his side in this matter. Though he never defined the position as a de fide statement, the Pope had the Tradition on his side, St. Cyprian did not. St. Cyprian could have definitely been considered a Donatist heretic but he was not. He was not because he was moved for what he felt was orthodoxy and his push toward his position was for what he resisted as a heresy. Citing St. Vincent of Lerins Chapman writes, "For who is so mad as to doubt that blessed Cyprian, that light of all saints and martyrs, with his colleagues shall reign for eternity with Christ? Or who, on the contrary, so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and the other plagues, who boast that it is by the authority of that Council that they rebaptize, shall burn with the Devil for ever?" (50)

We might finish this section with words of the Great Enunciator, Marcel Lefebvre,

"To be a heretic, it is necessary to be pertinacious in adhering to the error; it is not enough to have uttered an heretical phrase. For example, on the subject of the Blessed Trinity―a very difficult subject subject―we might make a mistake or blunder in speech and say something that is not very orthodox. If someone points it out to us we retract; but if they accuse us of heresy, or excommunicate us...how frightful." (Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, 16)

I want to also add that sedevacantists should not be treated as heretics or Protestants. That is grotesque slander from the Neo-Catholics who have shown that they only intend to conserve every single mistake the liberals in the Church have made via "pastoral" decisions any way. Sedevacantists may adhere to the position that the See of Peter remains vacant as a heretic holds that position but they are still in a valid Apostolic Succession. The current situation the Church is in right now is comparable to the Great Schism of the 14th century. That year in which we had a multitude of claimants to the Papal Throne and holy people on both sides adhering to the other as legitimate. We are in that situation currently. Sedevacantists must be treated as our fellow brethren. They are often better Catholics than some of those who uphold the current Pope as legitimate too.

The inherent moral superiority of monarchies

"Many authors glorify war and revolution, bloodshed and conquest. Carlyle and Ruskin, Nietzsche, Georges Sorel, and Spengler were harbingers of the ideas which Lenin and Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini put into effect."

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Part Four, ch. XXIII

Monarchies are inherently morally superior. What more is there to substantiate from this? We have the existence of the revolutionaries who do not care to discriminate over those they slaughter. They have sent women to the guillotine, shot children, looted stores. Does it matter whether they even have a "good" cause? For the degenerate revolutionaries, their only concern is to reap death, intimidate, so that they can hold the power they want. Starting with the French Revolution, barbarism has prevailed among the deranged opponents of monarchism. While one could insist the Colonists were the civilized traitors to His Imperial Majesty but the Founding Fathers of America also intended for a blend of monarchy with aristocracy. The degenerate revolutionaries in France took their treasonous vampire-like activities a step further than we've probably yet to come across even today, but don't worry, the revolutionaries are trying to think up new sordid activities!

"We are told that in this sadistic se orgy, pregnant women were squeezed out in fruit- and winepresses, mothers and their children were slowly roasted to death in bakers' ovens, and women's genitals were filled with gun powder and brought to explosion. We cannot continue to dwell on these unspeakable horrors and should not be surprised that Sade was invoked in whose pornographic writings long passages are devoted to philosophical (and antireligious) reflections." (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, The Myth of National Defense, 90)

To emphasize the civilized and generous nature of monarchies, it is important to reflect on the nature of their restraint in punishing those who have come against humanity. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia cites the First Statute of English Parliament under Her Majesty Mary Tudor as stating,

That the state of every King consists more assuredly in the love of the subjects towards their prince than in the dread of laws made with rigorous pains; and that laws made for the preservation of the Commonwealth without great penalties are more often obeyed and kept than laws made with extreme punishments.

The philosopher and historian Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn details and compares the usage of capital punishment in Russia during the Tsarist regime and then during the Soviet regime. Capital punishment figures of 87,000 at a low understatement for the years of 1918-1919 alone. In Tsarist Russia, in the years of 1826 to 1906, the numbers of those sentenced to death were 1,397. 233 of those had their sentences commuted and another 270 were sentenced in absentia. (The Gulag Archipelago, Part 1, ch. 8)

"Capital punishment has had an up-and-down history in Russia. In the Code of the Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov there were fifty crimes for which capital punishment could be imposed. By the time of the Military Statutes of Peter the Great there were two hundred. Yet the Empress Elizabeth, while she did not repeal those laws authorizing capital punishment, never once resorted to it. They say that when she ascended the throne she swore an oath never to execute anyone—and for all twenty years of her reign she kept that oath....And one can very easily blacken Elizabeth's reputation too; she replaced capital punishment with flogging with the knout; tearing out nostrils; branding with the word "thief"; and eternal exile in Siberia. But let us also say something on behalf of the Empress: how could she have changed things more radically than she did in contravention of the social concepts of her time?" (Solzhenitsyn, ch. 11)

It is true that while St. John Chrysostom upholds the right of the State to wield the sword of God's vengeance against its obstructers, the same Chrysostom also

"Secular judges indeed, when they have captured malefactors under the law, show their authority to be great, and prevent them even against their will from following their own devices: but in our case the wrong-doer must be made better, not by force, but by persuasion. For neither has authority of this kind for the restraint of sinners been given us by law, nor, if it had been given, should we have any field for the exercise of our power, inasmuch as God rewards those who abstain from evil by their own choice, not of necessity." (On the Priesthood, Bk. II)

While it is not of necessity for a State to restrain itself from the usage of capital punishment, the State that does successfully restrain itself is certainly rewarded. This is why the Tsars never formally abolished capital punishment even as Empress Elizabeth never executed anyone. Mary Tudor, whom Protestants taint as "Bloody Mary", put to death a total of 277, and that was due to the nature of heresy and treason being interconnected during her reign. That is far less than the numbers totaled by the Soviets!

Naturally, when the power is handed down to the masses, the masses divide themselves against each other. They desire to subdue the other. This creates demonization of the other and there is lack of unity and headship as people compete to rule and lord over each other. This is why we see mass deaths and mass bouts of immorality in revolutionary societies. They are governed not by civilization, creed, or family, but by blood-lust, power, greed, money, and evil. After all, monarchy is the best form of government that money cannot buy! So naturally, mob mentality is invoked among the revolutionaries and they turn upon each other, demonizing each other, and subduing one another. They take turns doing this as there is an inherent instability in ideology but the degradation is all the same. The downward devolution of society persists as revolutionaries take to the streets demanding whatever form of justice they foolishly believe they're not getting at a given moment. This does not happen in monarchies. Monarchies are civilized, stable, and governed by the rule of love. We are united as children to the monarch. He is not our comrade but our father and friend!

Poe's Law Strikes Again!

So today, I posted the above meme on my Facebook feed and very quickly got a sharp, "fake news" warning. CNN never put this in their clip. That's when I remembered where I first saw it was in an article from The Babylon Bee which read "Media Now Claims Shooter Was Factually Arab, But Morally White". While the article may have been making a joke, it's hard to lump this as a slanderous claim based on the way we've seen the mainstream media and CNN behave toward the past two shooting incidents. Both of them, the media was very quick to assert that "racism" played a key role in them.

While I do affirm that all crimes are essentially crimes of hate, it's important to note that, legally speaking, to be a "hate crime", one must actually have deliberate racist intent. The problem is that neither of the past two shootings in either Georgia or in Colorado possessed racist intent. The Colorado shooting does not appear to have a political or religious intent either. Though it is accurate to say that both men had political and religious problems inspiring their shootings, neither of them possessed racist intent.

The media has held this ideology though for the past year that whenever a black man is shot by an officer, the black man must have been doing everything right and posed no perceivable threat whatsoever. This has produced dangerous thinking in how we judge people. People are not to be judged based on their skin color but on the quality of their character. In many cases we have found the black man who was "minding his own business" was actively resisting arrest, was armed, in one instant, stole an officer's weapon, etc. That's not a racist statement to make. It is an observation of events. Just because someone is a shooter doesn't necessarily mean the police will shoot them. If they start firing at the cops, a shoot-out may occur and that would generally lead to the shooter's death. But if the shooter voluntarily surrenders himself to police custody when the cops arrive, they will take him peacefully.

This is what these past two shooters did. That is why both of them are still alive. And not to defend the Georgia shooter as what he did was deranged enough, but he didn't shoot the massage therapists with racist intent. This is lacking in the explanation of the shooting. Clearly this man was severely messed up. He may have benefited from having a confessor or a spiritual mentor (I guess he was Baptist so it would be the latter) but it may have helped him significantly with his sexual temptations. It seems like the church just abandoned him. But he did not possess a racist intent.

The media was quick to declare the Colorado shooter a "white man". That was factually untrue. He was Middle Eastern. He was definitely not white Caucasian which is generally what is meant when the media uses the term "white". But that didn't matter to the media. What mattered was that his skin was pale and he was taken into custody peacefully. So can we blame The Babylon Bee for this satire? Can we blame people who were misled by the photo above? Not really.

There is a law called Poe's law. It is a statement on parody. When the parody becomes so close to the reality that the difference between reality and parody is so skewed that one can no longer tell the difference between what is real and what is the parody. One can be forgiven for having thought the clip was a real CNN banner but it wasn't. It was from The Babylon Bee. But this testifies to the fact that the leftist woke media has so vilified and slandered an entire race of people, the likes of the vilification and slander having not been seen since white people did it to blacks in the 1960s, that we have reached a situation where such parody can be mistaken more easily as reality.

What scares our political elite?

A book I strongly suggest right now is The Myth of National Defense, edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. From the year 2003, the series of essays that are included in it contains a strong warning about the current state we have reached in recent times. It's main thesis is on national defense and the neo-conservative abuse of national defense. But the essays that it includes are well worth the time to peruse. As I was reading it the other day, I came across in the essay titled "The Will to be Free: The Role of Ideology in National Defense" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, the following:

"The famed zoologist Richard Dawkins has offered the intriguing proposition that ideas have striking similarities to genes. Many apparent paradoxes in biological evolution disappeared once biologists recognized that the process was driven by the success with which 'selfish' genes (rather than individuals or species) could replicate themselves. Dawkins suggested the term 'memes' be applied to ideas, whose capacity to replicate in other minds likewise determines their spread. No matter how useful this parallel between cultural and genetic evolution may ultimately prove, it at least helps to disabuse us of the illusion that an idea's validity is the sole or primary factor in its success. Those who doubt that false ideas can be tremendously influential need only glance at the worldwide success of so many mutually exclusive religions. It is not simply that they cannot all be true simultaneously; if one is true, then many of the others are not simply false, but badly false. ... The State, for instance, appears to have played no part in the birth and initial growth of Christianity, and the draconian efforts that many governments devote to the suppression of dissent testifies to the threat posed by that kind of autonomous ideological development. ... A people who have successfully fabricated the ideological solidarity necessary to overthrow their domestic rulers would be extremely difficult to conquer, as we have already observed." (291-294)

This scares our ruling class big time. Tucker Carlson compares what is going on in America right now similar to winning a tennis match in which the victors seek to smack the loser on the face. Biden won, the Democrats have majority control in both Houses of Congress, be happy! But it's a lot more complicated than that. The Democrats needed more than just to win. It's not like winning a tennis match 6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 0-6, 7-6. You just barely eked out a close victory getting decimated in a couple of rounds on the way, but you won, your opponent has no victory claim. It's not like that. For the Democrats, this is an ideological war. Ideas can spread like a wildfire and with increasing polarization, Democrats are well aware that an electoral college victory of 306-232 is not enough to win against the will of 74,000,000 voters that are charged against their ideologies. They need to make certain this ideology of "Trumpism" cannot spread ever again. They won't care about nullifying the Constitution on the way. They can interject their own interpretations after all. The goal is to win the ideological war and Trumpism has proven a most formidable opponent against the establishment philosophy of permanent Washington. For the establishment neo-cons, Trumpism isn't just something to beat in an election, it is something that needs to die out permanently. The damage to the establishment caused by this ideology isn't going away any time soon.

Liberal Democracy and Free Speech

The most fundamental concept of a liberal democracy is free speech. Free speech enables rational discussion, the dissemination of ideas, and enables people to build and develop their rational thought. Baruch de Spinoza maintained as much in regard to preserving a liberal democracy. "Every man is 'by indefeasible natural right the master of his own thoughts', and he 'cannot, without disastrous results, be compelled to speak only according to the dictates of the supreme power'" (F.C. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. IV, 258). Government's duty is to promote the individual liberties to develop. While there are limits such as the prohibition of direct incitements to violence and disruption, "rational discussion and criticism do good rather than harm" and "[i]f the attempt is made to crush liberty and to regiment thought and speech...the result is that fools, flatterers, the insincere and unscrupulous flourish" (258). Free speech is essential for progress and intellectual development.

Ludwig von Mises also thought along similar lines in Human Action. All governments are inherently democratic in that the majority tend to submit to them. But if the majority prefer bad leaders, "is committed to unsound principles and prefers unworthy office-seekers, there is no remedy other than to try to change their mind by expounding more reasonable principles and recommending better men" (150). It is the dialogue that pushes onward the effort to place better men in power. But if the dialogue is lost, then the State begins to form into a quasi-theological belief system in which obeisance is awarded to the State at a religious level.

Free speech is fundamental to preserving the free exchange of ideas, allowing people to think what is already on their mind and to say it. The State has not the power to control the actions of an individual man. You decide whether you follow the State's doctrines or not. Only by force can they actually punish you for "wrongthink" or "wrongspeak". But the State has no power or authority to dictate what you can say. "In Soviet Russia, we have freedom of speech! You just get thrown into gulag if you say something the State doesn't like!" How accurate.

In light of the recent events from the Big Tech world, I draw great concern about this area. I am currently platformed but many people are being deplatformed. You might argue that it is a private entity. These Big Tech entities are private entities. And I also concur. But what we are witnessing is a thorough dive into what would be a State-planned economy. A system of State capitalism. This is what we have seen in Soviet Russia. The private entities conglomerating together with the State to set up rules for how to restrain themselves when what they really intend to do is restrain competitors. If this direction continues, it will get to the point where these Big Tech entities are more than just private entities. They will be agents of the State. Google is already an agent of China. So are many Big Tech enterprises. Imagine if they become agents of the State cooperating to do the State's biddings. We are seeing that happen as they huddle under the Democratic Party. The move toward State capitalism must be opposed with vigor.

The Leveling is Coming

"[T]he less idea there is an age, the more the age will vacillate between volatile enthusiasm (which creates heroes and geniuses of the moment) and indolence, and leveling becomes all the more a decadent urge, a sensate stimulation that excites momentarily and only makes matters worse, rescue more difficult, and the probability of destruction greater. ... Now everything is arranged so that rabble-barbarism can have its day. ... [T]he public keeps a dog for its amusement. This dog is the contemptible part of the literary world. If a superior person shows up, perhaps even a man of distinction, the dog is goaded to attack him and the witty fun begins. If it were really witty, really elevating, or even something noble conceived in dspair, it would be wrong and the public would cease to be base. But now everything is arranged. The nasty dog tears at his coattails, indulges in all sorts of rough tricks⁠—until the public is tired of it and says: That is enough now." Søren Kierkegaard, Pap. VII B 123 n.d., 1845-46

The cure is quickly becoming worse than the disease at the moment. It may already have been that for the moment. The latest plot by our leaders is to pay off those who have been crushed by the State with money from other people. This is the current leveling. Sure, it is income equality. We shall be secure financially, but what has been done is leading us to greater destruction. I won't say too much on this topic for Kierkegaard has put into writing what I have been unable to put into words. The State has taken no responsibility. Will the State accept responsibility? No, it will assert the cat did it. The responsibility therefore is on the cat to build up what the State has destroyed. This is flat-out evil, it is sinister. Whether it's in "combatting racism" or in providing stimulus checks, it seems the State has decided to manufacture this fictional entity of the public to promote their benefit for when they speak of "common good" it seems odd that those benefitting appear to only be members of the State and their allies in society. At any rate, to destroy livelihoods is inexcusable terrorism. That the State is at fault for that is clear for no virus or beast ever ordered the crushing of livelihoods. But the State's solution is to destroy the lives of more taxpayers just so it can promote the "welfare of the nation". It will print more money, pay more checks to its citizens, hike tax rates. The train we are on is veering to a wall that will destroy us. It must be rammed off the tracks somehow. For destruction, the State has embraced the idea that more destruction is necessary to repair the damages. We are not looking at a mere government here. We are looking at something far more comparable to that beast of the sea from Revelation. More dupes will generate the foolish propaganda that taxation continues to be necessary. More dupes will continue to inject the idea we need to promote more government welfare to care for our brothers. More dupes will continue to carry out this lie. What is happening right now is the State has been caught in the action of its wrongfulness. It can't hide it any more. So it will continue to lie and cheat to cover up its ass.

In defense of Confederate statues

I'm actually talking about all monuments here. Statues, cemeteries, war memorials, etc. Confederate monuments need to be defended, not because of what they stand for people who are revulsed by them but because of what they stand for the people who put them up. As I have written before, a compelling case can be made in support of the Confederate secessionist movement from the Union. Before casting judgments, that article should be read in full because I provided a very well sustained argument for the Confederacy.

People these days talk of "charity" and "love for your neighbor" as if that is the equivalent of "do not offend your neighbor". It is nothing of the sort. It is to be understandable that things we come across will offend us and cause revulsion. Some things will cause revulsion to us throughout our lives. This is part of becoming an adult. It is how we respond. The problem with Confederate monuments is not their existence but the response to their existence.

In the history following the defeat of the Confederacy there was a long and bitter reunification process called "Reconstruction". Reconstruction is almost universally disparaged by American historians. Former Confederate states were held under what was essentially a military occupation which damaged their economic production and held them as essential slaves of the GOP. The period of Reconstruction ended with the heated and contested Presidential election of 1876 as Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden soared in nationwide popularity with nearly 51% of the majority voting for him. His Republican opponent, Rutherford B. Hayes, staggered with three points less in the nationwide vote. For a long time 20 electoral votes were contested as Tilden held a 184-165 lead. Back then, 185 was the deciding number. After long and bitter contentions, the electoral votes were given to Hayes with the concessions that Republicans would withdraw military troops.

The period of Reconstruction ended. Then came the Jim Crow laws and with them, the Confederate monuments. While it is easy to connect these statues to a "culture of racism", historians tend to know that people are more complex then what our modernist sensibilities seek to limit to them. For these Southerners, it wasn't simply about an animosity they held toward blacks, it was an animosity they had been fostering from the Reconstruction period toward the Union. The Union were centralizers and oppressors. These statues were put up in protest. But statues were put up, nonetheless.

This is the difference between Black Lives Matter, Anti-fa, and White Southerners. White Southerners have a culture. BLM and Anti-fa are about cultural destruction and annihilation. To White Southerners, these things have strong significant meaning and represents their history of oppression. BLM and Anti-fa have been able to scream that they have victimhood status but they use their victimhood to drag people down to their own inhuman level. They do not build culture or contribute to society. They denigrate and degrade society. The people who put up statues of Martin Luther King, Jr., Booker T. Washington, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, these are the people who build and contribute to culture. Confederate statues were placed in protest of the Union and they built up a culture and contributed to American culture. The solution to their existence is not to destroy or remove them but to leave them up and add more statues of honorable men.

The Age of Regress?

We have reached not the age of progress which the liberals once promised to us but the age of regress. I commented to a friend of mine recently that in order to have a liberal democracy dissent must be allowed and permitted. Otherwise, the democracy turns into a dictatorship. But let's clarify further that the term liberal in liberal democracy only qualifies the word democracy. It does not indicate that democracy is inherently a liberal idea. The idea of liberalism has been corrupted ever since the 19th century from the idea of freedom once perpetuated to the idea of democracy. A dictatorship can certainly be just as democratic, if not more. A dictatorship is simply just the logical consequence of collectivism as a result from democracy.

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his article "Monarchy and War" in The Myth of National Defense places this accusation rather bluntly on democracy. Citing British Prime Minister Disraeli, "[t]he tendency of an advanced civilization is in truth Monarchy. Monarchy is indeed a government which requires a high degree of civilization for its full development. ... An educated nation recoils from the imperfect vicariate of what is called a representative government." (84) Kuehnelt-Leddihn recalls the political nature of the prosecution of Socrates under the Democratic State of Athens. Socrates was placed to death for the corruption of youth. According to Kuehnelt-Leddihn, part of that corruption was the teaching of monarchy (84). But that is not the least part where we see the brutality of democracy unfolding.

It is at the height of the French Revolution, inspired by the American Revolution, to overthrow the monarchy and establish a democratic and equal form of government where we see the full extent of this brutality. Kuehnelt-Leddihn accurately describes the Revolution as "a sadistic sex orgy in which the 'Divine Marquis' played personally and intellectually a leading role." (86-87) We tend to think of the crimes and horrors of the Revolution being an attack on the aristocracy but even the most vicious "sadistic sex orgy, pregnant women...squeezed out in fruit- and winepresses, mothers and their children...slowly roasted to death in bakers' ovens, and women's genitals...filled with gun powder and brought to explosion." (90)

For Robespierre, the goal was not just simply equality, but sameness. Even Goethe considered those who promised both equality and liberty as charlatans  (87). Robespierre not only dreamed of placing the men of France in one uniform and the women of France in another uniform, he also considered church steeples "'undemocratic' since they were taller than other buildings" (87-88). This outright barbarism of the French Revolution led to such a majoritarian rule in that "truth" was relegated to the possession of the majority (88). It is fair to say that Tucker Carlson is a stand-alone journalist who only follows where truth leads him to these days. My own mother hates the idea that only one man could possibly be telling the truth. But truth does not belong to majorities and as more and more people give themselves to demons, the lies usually remain with the majority and the truth belongs to the minority. As Our Lord even states, "broad is the path that leads to destruction, but narrow is the path that leads to eternal life" (Matt. 7:13).

It is no surprise then that Karl Marx's own ideology was drafted from the French Revolution. "Men have often made man himself into the primitive material of money, in the shape of a slave, but they have never done this with land and soil. Such an idea could only arise in a bourgeois society, and one which was already well developed. It dates from the last third of the seventeenth century, and the first attempt to implement the idea on a national scale was made a century later, during the French bourgeois revolution." (Capital, Vol. 1, Pt. 1, Ch. 2) The theories emerging from this Revolution about absolute equality and sameness do seem rather ominous of a certain set of theories emerging today. These theories exist in the form of critical race theory. Class was the focus of the French Revolution. These were why the buildings were "undemocratic". For critical race theorists, democracy is breaking apart because of this absence of equality too. Indeed, critical race theory derives heavily from Marxist thought. Critical theory always attempts to tear down the old structures, according to Paul Kengor (The Devil and Karl Marx, 392). There is a never-ending search for a new victim. The working class no longer satisfies so Black Lives Matter finds this in perpetuating a myth about extant racism in cops and then other ideas follow suit whether it is in queer theory to attack sexual normativities or in the invented concepts of "white privilege". This is cultural Marxism.

As we move further and further away from hierarchical structures, we move further and further away from a monarchial view of the family in nature, and as such in governance. We move further and further away from nature as a result. We grow the power of the government as a consequence. We become blood-thirsty for power. As Søren Kierkegaard noted, "Is it tyranny when one wants to rule leaving the rest of us others out? No, but it is tyranny when all want to rule." (in Garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, 487). The turning point for modern culture was indeed with World War I. It started as an old-fashioned territorial dispute which blossomed into a battle to defend democracy as the United States entered in 1917. "When in March 1917 the U.S.-allied Czar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate and a new democratic-republican government was established in Russia under Kerensky, [Woodrow] Wilson was elated. With the Czar gone, the war had finally become a purely ideological conflict: of good against evil." (Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, x). Everything Austria represented was inherently wicked to the American Left according to Kuehnelt-Leddihn. It "inhereited many traditions of the Holy Roman Empire (double-headed eagle, black-gold colors, etc.); it had led the Counter-Reformation, headed by the Holy Alliance, fought against the Risorgimento, suppressed the Magyar rebellion under Kossuth..., and had morally supported the monarchial experiment in Mexico." (x)

Church steeples weren't just simply undemocratic to Robespierre, no. Church steeples were a sign of a monarchial culture. Thus, the age of regress naturally makes enemies with the Church and with Monarchisms throughout. For democracies, there is no greater enemy than the Church. The Church is the prize to corrupt. The Church is the prize to destroy. The Church has the greatest bounty on its head for all democracies. Is it any wonder that the Great War only became ideological upon the abdication of the Czar? Is it any wonder that Marx held religion as the opium of the masses and an obstacle to his Communist philosophy? Is it any wonder that Robespierre held the steeples as being built too high and as a subsequent obstacle to his regime of "equality"? We are in an era of regress. An era given over to a cult of demons. We should conclude here with the Bl. Alcuin, "Neither should we listen to those who say, 'The voice of the people is the voice of God,' for the tumultuousness of the masses is always closer to insanity!"

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 11, Social Policies, Concluding Remarks

I saved social policies for last in this endorsement mostly because social policies, in my view, are best handled at the state and local level. However, with the Joe Biden camp and the Democratic Party, there is increasing concern that the federalist division of our government could greatly be erased leading to a mass centralized democratic form of totalitarianism. Democrats have vowed to pack the courts, appeal to judicial activism to wipe out state and local laws, erase the electoral college, and repeal the Hyde Amendment which permits states to withhold funding from abortion.

Republicans have certainly had a history of smiting conservatives when it comes to social policies. It was under the Reagan administration that no-fault divorce was introduced. In truth, I think had a Democrat like Tulsi Gabbard won the nomination, there wouldn't be any need for concern at all. Tulsi Gabbard is for ending the endless wars. She would be fighting against the deep state just as much as Trump. Certainly, she is a social liberal, but she is also a federalist. Here is where it is important to emphasize the primary significance of federalism in our country. Federation is the only check on centralized democracy. F.A. Hayek noted that in his work, The Road to Serfdom.

The judicial activism we have seen over the years has revealed a trend to clamping down on federalism. Texas should not be expected to permit abortion when the constituents of Texas oppose abortion. Alabama should not be expected to accept gay marriage when its constituents oppose gay marriage. What we've ended up with is a country where a few powerful elites get to determine the religious and social values of the entire country. Today's Democratic Party has determined that not only must we accept the socially "progressive" policies of the left, we must also pay for them. Joe Biden promises to repeal the Hyde amendment, pack the courts, and erase the electoral college.

If Joe Biden is elected, the state could potentially be even more centralized than it is right now. That's not a good situation. What I feel is most important in the current political climate is the allowance of the diversity of opinions. When we are hotly divided over our stances on political dogmas, the best path toward unity is federalism. Federalism allows smaller units to be united amidst each other which may have differing or stricter policies on a vast variety of issues. It would be nice if we could all be united under one head, but that is only possible in a state that is united by religion. That was possible in England when the Edict of Toleration was passed. That was possible in the Holy Roman Empire. It's not possible in our country because we aren't guided by a religious direction. Instead, we are guided by the elevation of secular political policies that have been given a metaphysical value.

Trump has proven a consistent defender of federalism to say the least. A Biden administration would lead us toward centralized government and mass democracy. That would erase any chance to be politically diverse.

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 10, The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is a critical issue though it should not be. There have been severe problems with the Supreme Court from its development and Thomas Jefferson warned of the judicial overreach of the Supreme Court.

If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

Jefferson's criticisms and the attacks on the judiciary branch go on. But the warning is quite clear. An independent judiciary puts us in a situation not just where we turn toward oligarchy but a situation where democracy rapidly takes a turn toward the worse in collectivism.

Regardless of where your stance on DACA is, when Justice Roberts became the tie-breaking judge to maintain the legality of Obama's executive order, he actually effectively transitioned our government into a form of dictatorship by executive order. The executive order has now become cemented in law. Now, any President in the future will be able to issue any executive order on impact. The courts should have never been allowed to become so powerful as to need to trust the appointees of elected officials. In essence, we're already on the verge of becoming a judicial oligarchy.

Judges freely issue unconstitutional gag orders which prohibit freedom of speech, judges decide how laws are to be interpreted effectively deciding what the laws of the country are, etc. This was already bad in the 1800s. Many people assume that the Constitution guaranteed the legality of slavery. It did not. States, after the period of time issued by the Constitution, had the freedom to determine their own laws concerning slavery. But Dred vs. Scott effectively over-ruled the states' rights to determine this on their own. Roe vs. Wade effectively made abortion legal. Obergefell vs. Hodges over-ruled the states' rights on the subject of gay marriage.

How else will federalism be over-ruled by the Supreme Court. Federalism is the only check on mass democracy in this country. Federalism is the only thing that has prevented our mass democracy from turning into a collectivist society. But as we see again and again, states' rights are trampled on and turned to dust. What we need are court justices who will defend states' rights on the courts. Judges who will not be of their own mind on how to interpret the laws but will interpret the laws in accordance with the legislature. The Supreme Court should have been the weakest of the three branches of government. Instead, it is currently the most powerful.

Joe Biden and the Democrats have planned to stack the courts with judges who will interpret the laws the way the Democratic Party sees fit. With the judiciary that powerful and fully under control by the Democratic Party, we'll become a uni-party system more like China.

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 9, Natural Rights are Under Attack

The Lincoln Project ad attacking the McCloskeys and Kyle Rittenhous as "white nationalists" can be viewed here. When I saw this ad, I was horrified. John Locke, one of the most prominent classical liberals and attributed thinkers to the founding of American ideas that are imbued into the Declaration of Independence cites the rights of life, liberty, and property as the three basic natural rights that man has. These also have been classically defended as inherent to man's natural rights by the Church as well. This is not some sort of secularist philosophy as asserted by the neo-Evangelicals and neo-Catholics of today's world who do the bidding of a socialist state. The ad also convinced me that this election might be more one of an assessment of ideas as to who we are as Americans. Do we value the natural rights of man or do we value chaos being let loose upon our fellow humans?

The McCloskeys were a couple that have absolutely nothing to do with white nationalists. They are painted this way by the rotten and degenerate ilk who run The Lincoln Project because such degenerate people assume private property is a sign that people are evil. It is not. I remember one homily I heard as a High Anglican in which the deacon proclaimed that money is not evil nor does Scripture state that money is evil. Rather the love of money is evil. That deacon was fairly soft-spoken in person. But on the pulpit he was a roaring lion. I do not know how he did it. The defense of property is not a matter of one's white supremacy. If it was, the degenerate morons who run The Lincoln Project should fork over their assets not to getting Biden elected but rather to helping hungry people be fed.

But the ad is more sinister given the nature that it spreads lies and falsities about both Kyle Rittenhouse and the McCloskeys. For starters, the "peaceful protesters" that came up to the McCloskeys actually barged onto the McCloskeys' lawn, broke down the iron gate that blocked the entrance, and shouted threats of terror to the life of the McCloskeys. The fact that the McCloskeys threatened the barbarians back with guns of their own is irrelevant to the assessment of the moral character of the McCloskeys. One always has the right to defend their personal God-given possessions seeing as God gave those to the McCloskeys, not to the hoard of barbarians. The life of the McCloskeys was reasonably in danger so the McCloskeys had ample recourse to the defense of their life. It is sickening that it is labeled "white supremacy" to defend one's own personal property and life.

Equally sinister is the continued slander of Kyle Rittenhouse. Reliable witness testimony and video footage evidence shows Rittenhouse's life was reasonably in danger. Rittenhouse remarkably only fired at the people who threatened him. He was fired upon first, turned his weapon, shot the man in the head. He was even involved in trying to provide medical aid to that man. It is a killing but not a murder. Murder must be deliberate. Rittenhouse fired back in self-defense. When one fires in self-defense, that regardless of the result of the weapon discharge, it is not murder. It is a self-defensive act. The Lincoln Project made a crucial mistake in their ad in showing Rittenhouse knocked to the ground. That led to the second set of shootings. Again, self-defense. One man even attempted to pry Rittenhouse's weapon away from him.

If we have come to the point in this country where it is a matter of racism or anti-racism when it comes to the defense of one's own life, liberty, and property, then the matter of Trump vs. Biden has become a bigger issue. It is a matter of natural rights or the freedom to be slaughtered by a hoard of barbarians that trounces on every single thing you have. Your freedom, your property, and your life. When it comes to the fundamental values of Americans, we face a decision to uphold to the classical liberal values of life, liberty, and property, or to condemn the defense of those things as a matter of white supremacy. No one explains how it is a matter of white supremacy.