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.

Blessed Margaret of Lorraine, Duchess of Alençon

Blessed Margaret of Lorraine married René, Duke of Alençon at the age of 25 in the year 1488. She would bear the Duke three children in their four years of marriage as he reposed in the year 1492. Left a widow, she would take charge of much of the duchy of Alençon as well as the charge she already held of her children. She also arranged the marriage of her younger daughter Anne to William IX Paleologos, the Marquis of Montferrat. While her son was still a minor, "she ruled the duchy so capably that when her children came of age, their inheritance had increased over and above what had been left at the time of their father's death." (Joan Carroll Cruz, The Incorruptibles, 135)

It was during the early part of her widowhood that she had come under the instruction of St. Francis of Paola and developed an interest in living an ascetical life. When she was relieved of the duties to her children, she did end up pursuing the monastic life. She first joined the Franciscan Third Order and established a convent in Argentan for Poor Clare nuns. She would eventually take on the habit in 1519 and, though she would be offered it, refused the honor of being the abbess. In this, she humiliated herself greatly as she held the state honor of a Duchess but then would become a Sister. For the first shall be last and the last shall be first. This became her life.

When her body was exhumed in 1792, a "skeletal body was wrapped in thin cloth and transferred to the Church of St. Germain in Argentan" and the  casket held "a small reliquary that contained the heart of the saint" (ibid). But among the crimes of the traitors in 1793 included the desecration of the body of the saint as it was thrown into a common graveyard. Currently, only a few bones and the heart survive of the relics of this saint. As the Church has never been without its unsavory politicians, it wasn't until 1921 that this pious woman was finally beatified by Pope Benedict XV. Her daughter Anne would follow up her own political career by entering into a convent of Dominican Sisters of Catherine of Siena.

American Harlot

"Behold, I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast" (Rev. 17:4). She had the name, "Mystery, Babylon the Great" (17:5). There are metaphorical symbols that we may not fully understand but we are given to know that the Antichrist will find himself opposed to the Whore of Babylon just before her judgment. He will be God's instrument of vengeance against the Great Harlot. The Harlot has carried out great influence and has even gone to cause these kings who will work together with the Antichrist to overthrow the Harlot. We don't know who the Harlot is. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman has the following to say about what tradition has stated about her:

"Secondly, let it be considered, that as Babylon is a type of Rome, and of the world of sin and vanity, so Rome in turn may be a type also, whether of some other city, or of a proud and deceiving world. The woman is said to be Babylon as well as Rome, and as she is something more than Babylon, namely, Rome, so again she may be something more than Rome, which is yet to come. Various great cities in Scripture are made, in their ungodliness and ruin, types of the world itself." ("Lectures on Antichrist", Part 4)

In reading Richard Bauckham's The Theology of the Book of Revelation, he writes the following about this Mother of Harlots:

"From John's perspective Rome's evil lay primarily in absolutizing her power and prosperity. Consequently she pursued and maintained them at the expense of her victims. According to 18:24, it is not just for the martyrdom of Christians, but for the slaughter of all her innocent victims that Rome will be judged: 'in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who have been slain on earth'. There is therefore a sense in which Revelation takes a view from the 'underside of history', from the perspective of the victims of Rome's power and glory. It takes this perspective not because John and his Christian readers necessarily belonged to the classes which suffered rather than shared Rome's power and prosperity. It takes this perspective because, if they are faithful in their witness to the true God, their opposition to Rome's oppression and their dissociation of themselves from Rome's evil will make them victims of Rome in solidarity with the other victims of Rome. The special significance of Christian martyrdom is that it makes the issue clear. Those who bear witness to the one true God, the only true absolute, to whom all political power is subject, expose Rome's idolatrous self-deification for what it is." (38-39)

It is interesting that everything that Bauckham writes here can very elaborately be applied to the United States of America today. In the Harlot is found the blood of all the innocent, oppressed, prophets, and saints. It is her judgment that reveals to the world the evils of Babylon the Great and yet, the world, participating in her sins, has also become and taken part in the sins of Babylon the Great to such an extent that they mourn her death. Christians are told to join the courts of Heaven in celebrating the triumph of Heaven over the Whore of Babylon as she is ultimately devoured by even the very barbarous enemies of the Antichrist. Her sins have worn down the saints of the Most High to such an extent that those who provide faithful witness will already be in a state of desiring the ultimate triumph over the Great Harlot. They will not mourn for the rest of the world who partakes in her sins for next, the Antichrist who leveled her will also be slain.

But does this apply so strongly to Rome? Maybe the ancient readers viewed it as such but Babylon is called "Mystery" here. A "mystery", as the ancient Christians understood the term, was something that one was to be initiated into. As Newman gives us Babylon as a type, and Rome as a type, so maybe also the great misunderstanding of this Evil Harlot that extended her sins to the Heavens. On many issues, St. Augustine not only exonerated, but also proved why God allowed Rome to blossom and grow. It was not because of her wickedness, certainly not. But because she was morally superior to the other nations. Yet Rome became infatuated with its false deities and so it refused to acknowledge that it was the true God who delivered the Carthaginians and the Druids into her hands.

According to the Romans, the Carthaginians were slain for their infatuation with the evils and horrors of infanticide. There is some speculation that the Carthaginians might have even come from the same bloodlines as the Philistines and worshiped the same demons as the Philistines. This horrified the far more civilized Romans and they declared war on Carthage and subdued it. Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars, recounts the horrifying details of the Druid practice of human sacrifice. Horrified by this, Caesar, in his highest and most civil sensibilities, declared all-out war on the Druids until they put an immediate end to the practice. But Rome refused to admit that God had delivered these into her hands.

Rome's chief sin was not its immorality but its haughtiness and its self-deification.

Certainly Christians underwent many persecutions under Rome but these were at different intervals of time, with some persecutions being worse, some Emperors being more tolerable toward the Christian religion, and then settling down the next minute. These were persecution cycles they went through. Candida Moss declares it The Myth of Persecution but that is an instance of extreme nonsense from the anti-Christian world. There was persecution, but it exited at differing intervals until the Holy Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be legal. Even during and after Constantine, orthodox Christians still experienced different intervals of persecution which depended on the governing authorities of the Roman Empire. The sack in 476 A.D. spared the West and enabled Christianity to rule the Empire as Charlemagne was soon crowned as Emperor Augustus by the Pope of Rome. To the great fury of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople. But the result is clear. The subjection of the Roman Emperor, whether in the West or in the East, to the Church, proved decisive in Rome's survival. This is the argument that St. Augustine makes in The City of God. Though pride is the deadliest of all sins, it is hard to see that as extending to the offense of Heaven as greatly as the Harlot's sins. No, the sin here must be seen as unforgivable. Pride is a deadly sin but it is forgivable through the greatest acts of humility.

There are some who revel in the sins they commit and they look for ways to commit even greater sins. This is the manifestation of the sin of the Whore of Babylon. We have seen with our governors here in America how they revel and glorify in the sin of murder. One governor says, "I can kill them when they're 24 weeks in the womb!" And the next governor says, "I can kill them when they're outside the womb!" It's no longer that they are horrified by the sinfulness of their perversities but instead they go out of their way to increase the number of their sins! They bask in these sins. They raise their hearts to the skies and say, "Nothing shall happen to us! Those who criticize us are morons! Nothing to see here!" Everything of the Whore of Babylon, from persecution of the saints through murderous campaigns of the Ku Klux Klan's assaults and killings of Catholics, to the chaining of slaves, to the leveling of innocent civilians overseas, to even the slaying of infants! Everything of the Whore of Babylon is a sin of which the stench reaches to the heights of the Most High.

The religion of Antichrist is rather interesting. He will honor a god of forces and yet exalt himself above all that which is called God. Much the same, the Whore of Babylon seems to mimic or even foreshadow the religion of Antichrist in a sense. St. Hippolytus tells us that when Rome is subdued by the ten kings, these kings will hold sovereignty over democracies that resemble kingdoms. "As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms" (On Christ and Antichrist, 27). And St. John Henry Cardinal Newman remarks on the lust of the United States of America for its state religion:

"On the other hand, after having broken away from all restraint as regards God and man, they gave a name to that reprobate state itself into which they had thrown themselves, and exalted it, that very negation of religion, or rather that real and living blasphemy, into a kind of god. They called it LIBERTY, and they literally worshipped it as a divinity. It would almost be incredible, that men who had flung off all religion should be at the pains to assume a new and senseless worship of their own devising, whether in superstition or in mockery, were not events so recent and so notorious. After abjuring our Lord and Saviour, and blasphemously declaring Him to be an impostor, they proceeded to decree, in the public assembly of the nation, the adoration of Liberty and Equality as divinities: and they appointed festivals besides in honour of Reason, the Country, the Constitution, and the Virtues. Further, they determined that tutelary gods, even dead men, may be canonized, consecrated, and worshipped; and they enrolled in the number of these some of the most notorious infidels and profligates of the last century. The remains of the two principal of these were brought in solemn procession into one of their churches, and placed upon the holy altar itself; incense was offered to them, and the assembled multitude bowed down in worship before one of them—before what remained on earth of an inveterate enemy of Christ." ("Lectures on Antichrist", Part 2)

He further states of the American religion, "And further, let it be remarked, that there was a tendency in the infatuated people I have spoken of, to introduce the old Roman democratic worship, as if further to show us that Rome, the fourth monster of the prophet's vision, is not dead. They even went so far as to restore the worship of one of the Roman divinities (Ceres) by name, raised a statue to her, and appointed a festival in her honour."

Babylon is a type, Rome is a type, and currently, America is a type. If course for our history is not reversed drastically, the current state of both political affairs and religious affairs could usher in the Reign of Antichrist sooner than we imagine. Of the day and hour no one knows. And the Great Harlot shall not be revealed to us until her destruction. But we can clearly see how the United States of America fulfills so many characteristics. The question is whether it will continue to harden and claim that she is Queen, not a widow. Will she begin an even greater persecution of Christians than did even the Soviet Union? I resist speculating more for while the United States clearly fits the description of this effeminate Harlot, I do not believe any one will know until the coming of Antichrist who she actually is.

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, Monarchy is the Best Form of Government

Much time is typically spent by monarchists refuting and countering the arguments of democracy. With good reason. Democracy is a sham system of government that has proven to divide people. But perhaps it is also best to provide a strong argument for the case of monarchy. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, in his massive work, On the Roman Pontiff, covers the topic of monarchy first. He spends a devoted amount of time addressing John Calvin's arguments against monarchy because the Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of papal primacy. The Pope reigns and governs supreme over the entire Catholic Church as God's visible head. He argues that this must be so because God wanted His Church to be modeled after the best form of civil government: monarchy.

"Among the Greek [Fathers], blessed Justin teaches that the rule of many is harmful, and on the contrary, the rule of one is more useful and beneficial: 'The rule of one is freed from wars and dissensions and is usually free.' Also St. Athanasius, 'Truly we have said that a multitude of gods is a nullity of gods: so also, necessarily a multitude of princes makes it that there should appear to be no prince: however where there is no prince, there confusion is born.

"Among the Latin [Fathers], St. Cyprian teaches the same thing, and he proves it best and most eminently from the very fact that monarchy should be the best and most natural government, because God is one. 'For the divine authority, let us borrow from an earthly example: In what way has an alliance of power ever begun with trust, or ended without blood?' St. Jerome says: 'One emperor, one judge of the province. When Rome was built, she could not have two brothers as kings at the same time.' Lastly, one can consult St. Thomas." (Bk. I, ch. II)

He continues his argument citing the classics. According to Plato, "One dominion has been arranged for good laws, the law of these is best; that governance in which not many command, we ought to esteem as the middle: the administration of many others is weak, and also frail." Aristotle, who was Plato's student, repeats, "[a] kingdom is the best of these, a republic the worst." Seneca, commenting on the assassination of Caesar, "[T]he best state of citizenry is to be under just one king." Bellarmine is able to recruit the moral philosopher Plutarch, "[i]f the choice of electing were conceded, one should not choose anything else than the power of one." Finally, Homer's statement that "[i]t is not good that there be many; in war there must be one chief and one king." These philosophers build the rational argument to the case for monarchy that Bellarmine makes but Bellarmine is a theologian first and foremost. He doesn't stop with the human but ascends to the divine.

In accordance with the Divine law "God made from one every kind of man, as the Apostle says." He draws from this the same conclusion made by St. John Chrysostom "that this is so that there should not be democracy among men, but a kingdom." Not only that but in nature, we see that monarchy is the most natural form of government. For St. Cyprian tells us that "[t]here is one king for bees, one leader among flocks, and one rule among rams" and St. Jerome adds that "cranes follow one by the order of the litter."

We observe in Scripture how easily a monarchy formed.

"He did not (as Calvin says but cannot prove), make the government of the Hebrews an aristocracy, or a government of many, but was plainly a monarchy. The princes among the Hebrews were first of all patriarchs, as Abraham, Jacob, Jude and the rest; thereupon generals, as Moses and Joshua; then judges, as Samuel, Sampson, and others; afterwards kings, as Saul, David, and Solomon; thereafter again generals, as Zerubbabel and the Maccabees."

And Bellarmine is not without evidence or examples of this. The confusion is of course is a titular confusion. People think monarchy means having a king but a monarch need not be a king but any sort of ruler. Bellarmine points to the examples set by Abraham, Judah, Moses, and the Judges of Israel. Abraham waged war against four kings with no consultation from any senate, Judah judged his daughter-in-law accused of adultery, with fire, and consulted no senate. Moses commanded thousands of the Jews to be killed for idolatry with no consultation from any senate. The judges only answered to God.

Monarchies have provided untold stability in leadership in countries throughout history. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine states, "[t]here cannot be any doubt, whether that form of ruling the multitude would be better that more fittingly and easily acquires its proposed end. The end of government, however, is the unity of the citizens among themselves, and peace, which that union appears principally to be centered on that all might think the same, wish the same and follow the same." Of the four greatest Empires of the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, only the Romans did not emerge to power under a monarchy. But there was much civil war going on inside the Roman Empire until the Triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, and Mark Antony. After Caesar’s assassination, the Empire was left entirely to his son Augustus. Under Augustus began the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) as the civil wars and strife were ended. The monarchy of the Assyrians lasted 1240 years, the Scythians were the oldest monarchy in Bellarmine’s day, and the Roman monarchy lasted for 1495 years until the Turks toppled Constantinople. We might also add the longevity that was experienced by the Persians and the Ethiopians. Republics evaporate and if they survive, are typically held hostage to civil wars and strife as we observed in the Roman Empire.

There cannot be a doubt, Bellarmine, in one fell swoop, provides the most extensive and comprehensive argument in favor of a simple monarchy.

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!

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.

The Demon in Democracy - Ryszard Legutko

This book was extremely relevant and important in light of the current political climate we face today. The subtitle is Totalitarian Temptations in a Free Society. That free society is defined by the author, Ryszard Legutko, as a liberal democracy. Lgutko, aside from having suffered under Polish communistic dictatorship, has also held an active role in the European Union's Parliament. He gives a stark warning about the temptations that creep up in a liberal democracy and draws strong comparisons between the two forms of government throughout the duration of his book. Not just the forms of government but the ideology and political theory they obsess over.

He starts by laying out his own introduction of his life experience. His life experience is important as this shows his qualifications in judging the matter. His position as a professor of ancient philosophy and political theory. His position in the European Parliament. And his sufferings under Polish communistic dictatorship. Indeed, he was actually a product of recent censorship back in 2019 when the Alexander Hamilton Forum tried to have him give a lecture at Middlebury College. The warnings he gives about the temptations should not be taken with a grain of salt.

The ideology starts with the warped end of history view. Both liberal democracies and communist dictatorships see their era of history as the most progressive and incrementally driven forward of all historical eras. This pattern continues as they see one era of history as more progressive than the next and gradually driving toward their goal. They view those who are romantic toward another era of history as being backward, a threat to their goal toward progress. This view of history leads both liberal democratic ideology and communistic ideology into a form of utopianism. They view their systems of dogma as politically superior to all the rest. Any one who questions it is taken as a traitor or an attacker of the most perfect form of government and should be annihilated.

The utopian vision both philosophies hold leads them to sharing and investing in similar if not identical politics. They view the politics of the nation as the one doctrine that everybody should hold to. All matters of life should center around the communal activities of the communist government or the shared vision of the democratic state. Those who oppose this or cast doubt on the processes are seen as traitors. They claim the goal is to liberate man from politics but in doing so, they have made man even more political than before.

They ingrain this ideology in through education and the political system. They reinforce an ideology of the duty that man has to his government. It revolves around either the majority or the dictatorship or both. The ideology is intended to subject man. While glamorizing how dignified man is, this dignity is degraded into his relationship with the government and is stripped of the moral context that it is meant to remain in. From this, we navigate to religion.

Religion is held in contempt by both communists and liberal democracies. Liberal democracies claim to be multicultural but the thing that gets in the way most with this is the transcendent aspect of religion. If religion holds a central role, it puts man under a different governance than the majority. Communists have declared it to be the opium of the people hopeful that it will die out. Liberal democracies seek to subvert religion. Warping it into obeisance to the liberal democracy first and foremost. Religious people seek to conform their religion to the liberal democracy or even to the communistic regime hoping it will appease the blood-thirsty tyrants seeking to stamp it out. He gives a strong condemnation of the changes brought to the Catholic Church by Vatican II. He points out that even as the Church tried to capitulate to the world, it still remained hated and in disgust.

There is a hopeful note to be gained from this. A genuine practitioner of religion is not only seen as a threat to the liberal democratic regime and communistic regime, but it was ultimately religion that capsized communism. It may very well be religion which will capsize the liberal democratic onslaught of modern times as well. It may take years, even decades, but with the considerations of the lessons we have gathered from recent history, only a genuine religious and moral ethos appears to be formidable in combatting the system of liberal democracy. This book is strongly recommended.

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 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.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's final words: "Dear me, I think I am becoming a god!"

Well if the Left didn't try to immortalize every one enough, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made one final statement as she went out into the proverbial night. Though it is difficult to know exactly what her last words were, we can assume based on how the advocates of judicial activism responded to her death, that it was very likely "Dear me, I think I am becoming a god!" And unlike Vespasian who stated this as a way to mock the Imperial cult in his dying breath, she meant it. Donald Trump once famously said, "We worship God, not the state." To which the Democrats booed him and refused to stand up. People thought they were godless but we know better. The Democrats have a god. That god is the state. So last night, Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced in her dying breaths that was being assumed into the cult of democracy to be venerated by the worshipers of the democratic religion for ages to come. She said, "Dear me, I think I am becoming a god." And the Left had made her one ages ago.

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 8, Trump is "Bad" for Democracy But That's a Good Thing!

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep debating over what to have for lunch." -source unknown but oft attributed to Benjamnin Franklin

One political dogma I have often criticized is democracy. Exactly, what is democracy? I do not even think the proponents of democracy know quite well what democracy is. In one breath, they'll say "majoritarian rule" but in the next, they will say the will of the majority to impose its views on the minority. Well the second part is a good thing. Democracy is the will of the majority to impose its views and policies on the minority. Simply put, you cannot consistently claim that democracy is about majoritarian rule while claiming that the majority is prohibited from imposing its views and will on the majority. This is why Murray N. Rothbard rightly critiqued democracy as "a system replete with inner contradictions" (Man, Economy and State with Power and Market, 1279).

"Does the system of democracy permit itself to be voted democratically out of existence? Whichever way the democrat answers, he is caught in an inescapable contradiction." (12879) If the majority can vote to end democracy, then it is a self-terminating system of government. If the majority cannot achieve this, then democracy cannot purport to effectively establishing a government but is merely symbolic. "So if the majority wishes to end the voting process, democracy cannot be preserved regardless of which horn of the dilemma is chosen." (1280 If democracy is about "change" then it must let itself be voted out of existence. If democracy is about majority rule, then it must allow the majority to either elect a dictator or undemocratic policies. If democracy is merely a matter of cooperation, on the other hand, then it must permit the minority to have as much equal ruling power as the majority. The internal contradictions are only extrapolated in democracy.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the Presidency with 46.1% of the nationwide vote compared to Hillary Clinton's 48.2% of the nationwide vote. While this is inherently an undemocratic, non-majoritarian victory, it is impossible to tell who would have come out and voted differently and where and in what states had the election rules been based on a strict majority. Of course, this isn't even in a direct democracy. A direct democracy involves the people voting on policy changes but an indirect democracy involves people voting for others to vote for the policies they want. American politics does not have and never will have a direct democracy because the elected politicians love power too much. That may seem cynical but it is fact. If majoritarian rule ever did enter into this country, you would see a lot of policies changed that the politicians of both parties have stated they want. Voting for a person to carry out policies requires more complicated studies than merely voting in regards to policies. The real culprit against democracy in this country is the personality tests we've turned local, state-wide, and federal elections into. Democracy in America is a mess.

This is why democracy is something worthwhile to consider being nuked. Without democracy, people aren't worried about who is leading them nor voting them out. This is so abundantly and overwhelmingly obvious. Democracy is a system set up for failures. There is a point in which democracy even becomes nothing more than a fragile religion. If Trump is "bad for democracy" or an "assault on American democracy" then that is actually a good thing. The democratic system is filled with contradictions and fallacies. The least concern is an assault on democracy or voting rights. Rather, the strongest concern is the fight for individual liberties. The natural rights of life, liberty, and property. The freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, freedom to associate and peaceably assemble, freedom of the press. It is when these things are taken away that we transpose into collectivism and totalitarianism. If democracy becomes a threat to those freedoms, then democracy must step aside.

Orwell spoke this warning in his novel 1984 in the torture scene. The character Winston is being forced into the collective brain of society. The collective brain of The Party. It is democracy and majoritarian rule when unleashed to fulfill their concepts that can quickly become a threat. Orwell probably never meant that interpretation but as Rothbard has pointed out, the democratic system is rife with contradictions. Democracy is literally a modern day god that is worshiped by the adherents of its religion who cannot see where it will inevitably lead.

Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment (3 - Bayle and Hume on Monarchy)

Bayle and Hume on Monarchy, Scepticism, and Forms of Government - Sally Jenkinson

For the most part, people tend to speak favorably of the form of government of their home country. It is typical for Americans to praise a republican form of government and to praise the American Revolution and to scorn a monarchial form of government since that is what the American republic broke away from. But Bayle and Hume approach their theories of government from a slightly different perspective. Both are under monarchies but "[b]oth followed the sceptical mode in philosophy, and both applied critical argument to received constitutional ideas of their age" (Monarchisms, 62). Though sceptical this does not mean that their views were not pragmatic. They were "committed to a the promotion of an Enlightened society" and while long known for their philosophical works, are now becoming more known for their political works as well (62).

Scepticism can be understood different ways in different contexts. For the purpose of the study on Hume and Bayle, it is necessary to come to a definition on how scepticism can be applied to their approaches on political philosophy. "In epistomology the word 'scepticism' is used mainly in opposition to to the word 'dogmatism'" (63). Dogmatic thinkers appeal to authority to support their arguments and pre-conceived ideas. Sceptical thinkers refrain from passing judgment. This is the trend that is seen in the writings of Bayle and Hume. Sceptical thinkers will question theories "of government advanced by a rival" (64). They may not necessarily promote a theory. He questions "both the validity of a theory, [and] also the good faith of those who advance it" (64). Finally, the sceptical thinker puts in place an alternative theory to the one demolished.

The three main classical theories on monarchy are monarchy as rule by one person, monarchy as rule by one person in the interests of all, and monarchy as power transferred by inheritance. In Aristotle's six-fold system, "government could be that of one, the few, or the many" (65). Thus, the inverse relations of monarchy, aristocracy, and polity as opposed to tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. But this does not mean that a monarchy need not be governed in such a way as to promote the interests of all. And for monarchies, it was commonly argued that if power was routinely transferred to the ruler's heir, "there was less risk of violent conflict among contenders for office" (66). Thus, a monarchy was typically seen as a guarantor of more stability.

Bayle's position is a critique of those who praise a certain form of government over another. Bayle begins with a critique of Hobbes. Hobbes "had once attempted through his translation of Thucydides to persuade his compatriots that disorder and confusion follow from the republican form of government" (67). But this would never convince someone with anti-monarchial positions as they would already approach the question with the position that republican governments provide order. Such was Bayle's reasoning. "Bayle notes that different circumstances produce different forms of government" but the one that keeps the peace the best is the one that is to be praised (67). Bayle, in his Dictionnaire, makes similar arguments against hereditary power. While other forms of government have their weak points, they are not "as are kings, susceptible to infancy or decrepitude" (67-68). The reign of Charles VI "precipitated 'the darkest and most turbulent dissention' in France" (68).

Hume makes the attempt to argue for a hereditary monarchy. In his Treatise on Human Nature, he reasons that "men are commonly induced to place the son of their late monarchy on the throne and suppose him to inherit his father's authority...the presumed consent of the father, the imitation of succession to to private families, the interest, which the state has in chusing the person, who is most powerful, and has the most numerous followers; all these reasons lead men to prefer the son of their late monarch to any other person" (68-69). Hume is inclined to the position that "humankind is apt to base its institutions on imagination, so that even an act of chance, conquest, is characteristically transformed into a tradition" (69). If government is supposed to secure society from such convulsions, then the greatest risk to disorder would be a doubt emerging in the line of succession. Thus, a hereditary monarchy would erase such doubts. Hume's belief is that governments eventually arise naturally. Government development is to arise naturally and the most natural form of government would have to be a one ruler society, a monarchy. Yet, he also maintains that government can be oppressive, so oppressive that people might be justified in revolting against it (70).

In his "weak case for hereditary monarchy and prudential, retrospective, case for resistance to tyranny, Hume manages to defend the status quo of the constitution of church and state in Britain in the eighteenth century" (70-71). The Revolution of 1688 is defended, "whereby the monarchy was transferred from a Catholic dynasty to a Protestant dynasty...he defends the establishment...of a new hereditary monarchy...'the linear heir' - is likely to provide a more stable transfer...the mixed hereditary monarchy is superior to the absolute hereditary monarchies of the European continent" (71). The civil sovereign must "protect society from disorder as a means to the end of promoting enlightenment" (71).

For both Bayle and Hume, "[a] government must be neither so tyrannical that it is overthrown, nor so pusillanimous that it dissolves into tumult and chaos" (72). Experience taught that society was at risk if the monarch did not support some form of public religion, though it was not necessary as to which religious preference the monarch supported. Bayle and Hume defended "the absolute sovereignty of any regime as a necessary...condition of public peace" (73). Diplomatically, monarchy had to be supported in France, republicanism in Geneva, and mixed government in the Netherlands. Neither accept dogmatical ways of thinking in "their preferred alternatives to the ideas of their opponents" (74).

Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment (2 - Absolute, not Arbitrary Power: Monarchism in the Thought of the Huguenots and Pierre Bayle)

'Absolute, Not Arbitrary, Power': Monarchism and Politics in the Thought of the Huguenots and Pierre Bayle - Luisa Simonutti

This second chapter focuses on some of the historical controversies that develop in Enlightenment France under the reign of Louis XIV between the Protestants and the Catholics. "In the writings of the Catholic controversialists, and by certain voices on the Huguenot side, the French Protestants were defined as...Idolators of royal authority" (Monarchisms, 45). It is within the context and history of these disputes as well as the ongoing religious wars, that the Huguenots would eventually adopt a more absolutist stance on the Divine right of kings.

The Huguenots were actually quick and vociferous to defend the authority of the French monarchy as they continued to seek pacification with the Crown. One such text, read out "[t]hey are persaded that after that which they owe to God, they are obliged to render obedience without limits to Your Majesty." (45) They believed that giving the king his proper obedience would guarantee them the "freedom to serve God according to their consciences" (45). But the anti-Huguenot literature was printed out in an effort to form the Huguenots into obedience and compliance with the state religion. These authors believed that in the promulgation of edicts, there would be a path created "that would quiet the Huguenots and allow [the king] to retake control little by little, instead of having the country in constant revolt." (46) But the Hguenots persisted in their diligent obedience to the king, and in a text known as Advertissement aux Protestantes des Provinces, a distinguishment was drawn between the Huguenots, the Muslims, the Pagans, and the Arians.

"But  one has never seen them armed  against their princes and they have never wanted to defend their worship by force of arms: they have left that maxim to the pagans, the Muslims, and the false church of the Arians. And why have they acted like that? Because they have made it a point of inviolable conscience to never defend themselves against their Sovereigns, no matter how unjust and cruel they were." (46)

It was Antoine Arnauld who became the author in charge of responding to the polemics of the Huguenot Pierre Jurieu, "claiming that that the latter's sole purpose was to render Catholics suspect in the eyes of all the princes of Europe" (47). Jurieu maintains that Huguenot rulers could not exert tolerance toward Catholics in the same way Catholic rulers could exert tolerance toward Huguenots because Catholic rulers swore allegiance to one who was king of kings. This meant heresy could effectively despoil a king of all his rights to authority. In conclusion, the king should trust the Huguenots only because "they are the only party of whose loyalty he can be perfectly sure." (48)

Arnauld rebukes this polemicist severely, arguing "from the very origins of the sect the Reformed had always at the tips of their tongues a very significant proviso to their loyalty, that is, that the kings should not command them to act counter to their conscience and religion" (48). He looks at definitions provided in De Jure Magistuum by Theodore Bézè and Vindiciae contra Tyrannos in which the term is used "to describe only worthy kings who were entirely lacking of the characteristics of the tyrant" (48). The Protestants' sole reason for their loyalty to the Crown is the perseverance of their religion while Catholics were loyal to the Crown even before the king's conversion to Catholicism and in the events leading to the Edict of Nantes. The French Reformed "recognized in royal power the form of government which was better adapted to to protect the existence of the Huguenot subjects and the legality of the Protestant religion" (49). The main criticism from the Protestants was generally directed at Papism. Arnauld would take to the defense of his own religion as he writes Le véritable portrait de Guillaume Henry de Nassau, nouvel Absalon, nouvel Hérode, nouveau Cromwel, nouveau Néron, "a violent reprimand directed at William III who, according to Arnauld, in his inhumane ambition had, like Absalom, taken up arms against King David, his father; ...like Herod, had attempted to kill the infant futre King of the Jews." (50) William of Orange was comparable to Oliver Cromwell in that he overthrew the legitimate king. "William of Orange was another Nero who cruelly attacked Catholics" (50). Arnauld saw such fierce attacks hurled by the Huguenot Jurieu against Catholics and took it upon himself in his Apologie to defend the king and to propose laws which would further the authority of the Crown (50-51).

It was here that Pierre Bayle emerges to defend the Huguenot position in the Dictionaire and the Commentaire philosophique. Bayle was aware of the difficulties when it came to "a concept of universal tolerance which, beyond the confessional connotations, was still unable to base itself on either reason or morals" (51). The case for the rights of the people "has been upheld not only by the seditious and by dissidents, but also by 'many people of great judgment and exemplary virture' (52). Because not even religion can guarantee the possession of truth, "the rights of conscience are to be found in the awareness that the human soul is pervaded by an 'invincible ignorance' which urges it to choose what appears to be true, but the nucleus pf which is beyond its knowledge." (52) Bayle argues that the right of the sword to does not extend to potentially fallible errors of conscience and that this right does not extend to persecute religions (53). In Lettre d'un refugié françois à un nouveau converti, he writes:

"Concerning subjects who are oppressed for their religion taking up arms, with no intention to do violence to anybody but only to procure an honest liberty to follow the light of their conscience, disposed to be loyal to their sovereign in all other matters, I have known very able and very pious people in this country who have said it is licit, and that we should be ashamed of what our Fathers have said in this regard." (53)

In his Avis aux refugiez, Bayle argues that two diseases that could infect France are a the seditious and defamatory books and a spirit of republicanism "that wants no less than to introduce anarchy into the world" (53). Venice and Holland may have had republican elements to their societies but they were by no means encouraging of disobedience and every man had the duty to be obedient to the state in which he served. The main distinction being the power residing in a single individual in a monarchy.

Elie Merlat's response in Traité du pauvoir absolu des souverains pour servir d'instruction, de consolation et d'apologie aux Eglises Reformées de France qui sont affligées was to defend the full absolute authority of kings and to condemn any such hints at sedition as indefensible by true religion. "It is only God, the sole magistrate of kings and princes, who may eventually punish their crimes or oust tyrants from power" (55). Merlat makes his case from the Scriptures. Merlat further defends the authority and right of Louis XIV to persecute the Huguenots as "a personal choice...in relation to the Papacy and the Gallican clergy" (55). The restoration of the Edict of Nantes is only about restoring a fundamental law to French society.

And so in the Huguenots is a philosophy of obedience to the Crown similar and possibly distinct from the Catholics. Perhaps Arnauld's criticisms are correct of his opponents or perhaps they are slander. There's no way for us to read into the minds and thought processes of these Huguenot thinkers.

Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment (1 - Spinoza on Republics)

I hope to do a chapter-by-chapter synopsis of this book in the coming posts. Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment is not a philosophical-political work arguing in favor or against monarchial views in the age of the Enlightenment. It is rather an intellectual history of monarchist views and monarchist authors, as well as republican authors who argued that monarchist governments were the best way to sustain republican forms of government, throughout the Enlightenment era. The Enlightenment era has come to be known as the age of democracy and classical liberalism but that is far from the truth. While there were certainly many revolutions, democratic uprisings, rebellions, and attempts to cripple monarchial regimes, the Enlightenment was filled with numerous philosophers and intellectuals who fought to preserve monarchial systems of government and in government. As our great age becomes infatuated with democracy, it is important to recollect on the monarchist ideals of the past. Especially as we witness democracy come to its dying gasps for oxygen.

Spinoza on Res Publica, Republics, and Monarchies - Hans Blom

The first chapter focuses on Benedictus de Spinoza's response to Pieter de la Court's assessment of the current state of the Dutch Republic. De la Court takes a strong anti-monarchial stance on governance and attempts to explain "that monarchies suffer from the unbridled passions of their monarchs, whose greatest good would seem to be the oppression and exploitation of their subjects, with unfaithful foreign politics in their wake" (20). Thus,  de la Court fancies a "well-ordered popular government [that] promotes commerce and trade and thus the general well-being in ways that a monarchy can only dream of" (20-21). Such an argument is bizarre to say the least. Wouldn't a popular government that is well-ordered be controlled inevitably by people who would take the same negative role a monarch would? Thus enters Spinoza to explain that the philosophy that "'Right makes might' captures the nature of politics as much in monarchial as in non-monarchial rule" (21). Spinoza sees human nature the same everywhere and "the several forms of government differ by circumstances, not on principle" (21).

If it wasn't clear, Spinoza by no means intends to argue in favor of monarchism. Spinoza instead intends to address the shortcomings of de la Court's arguments against monarchism and explain that monarchies have a tendency to work just as well as popular governments. This is similar to F.A. Hayek's own assessment of autocratic rule in The Road to Serfdom. That said, Spinoza does argue that any government's duty is to care for its people and "a well-ordered monarchy is the more absolute, the more it cares for the well-being of its people" (21). As Hayek also points out, "Nor must we forget that there has often been more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies...The fashionable concentration on democracy as the main value threatened is not without danger. ... The false assurance which many people derive from this belief is an important cause of the general unawareness of the dangers which we face." (Road to Serfdom, 110-111)

Back to Spinoza. One of the concepts appearing in Spinoza is potentia multitudinis or the power of the multitudes. Spinoza develops a philosophy that "not only in a state of nature does right equal might, but that this also holds for the political state. ... the rights a state can exercise over its subjects will never exceed the power of the state's body, that is, the multitude" (Monarchisms, 25). Marxists conclude then that the multitude is the power of the state while libertarians jump to the conclusion that the multitude is an individual in an ontological sense "in practice, and according to Spinoza, it will never be the case that each and every individual of the multitude is rational...and thus fail to be an individual in the Spinozan sense" (25). But is Spinoza's philosophy fitting in either category? The two key elements for Spinoza's conception of the multitude are his focus on man as "a particle of nature" who is not his own master, but carrying on "his natural determiation" (25). The second element is his view that the republica must establish its relationship with God "a conceptual structure or frame to which men...relate in their capacity as actors in society" (25-26). The multitude is therefore a collective unit "guided as if by one mind" (27).

De la Court takes up a defense of popular government with the view that equality is the necessary regulation to ensure a functioning popular government (29). He takes the view that ordinary people with their actions and endeavors make the best rule and that "[m]onarchial rule is the worst form of government because its supposed advantage of a single-headed government to avoid dissension and lack of political virtue, in practice turns into its disadvantage: the king will be manipulated by his courtiers and reduced to a bundle of lusts" (30). De la  Court's stance against monarchy seeks to take the worst of monarchy and come to the conclusion that popular government is therefore the "lesser of evils". /this is a classical way to understand republican reactions to monarchist viewpoints. Spinoza and de la Court certainly agree on the basic ideas of government, that the state be as one body with one mind, but they differ in their treatment of monarchial rule (37).

Spinoza's republican ontology, "allowed him to insist on the reality of Orangism in the Dutch Republic. A monarchy, provided it be well-ordered, does not preclude liberty nor the well-being of the people, if only it is understood that for a state to be guided una mente veluti it has to have the proper institutions that adhere to its conatus" (39). This conatus is arrived at by "showing that a stable republic...is an individual" and the second step pointed out "the motivations of the Dutch republicans to promote a strong republic by liberating the energies of its citizens by way of an appropriate political organization" (38). Spinoza's stance thus can be considered a form of constitutional monarchy with the monarch acting as the one mind for the republic or state.