These
are the inspired words of a holy Orthodox priest who reposed in Russia in 1908,
St John of Kronstadt. In them, one will
find a general rule for politics:
Monarchy is the best form of government for mankind, while democratic
forms are the worst. This is contrary to
the wisdom of the age, which reverses the rule.
Nevertheless, this does not nullify the truth of the former; it only
shows how deeply into apostasy and rebellion the modern world has fallen.
To
illustrate this, let us look at what some of the most unsavory cabals of men
have said about monarchy and democracy over the years.
The
Rosicrucians:
The three major objects of
the Fraternity are:
1. The
abolition of all monarchical forms of government and the substitution there-for
of the rulership of the philosophic elect.
The present democracies are the direct outgrowth of Rosicrucian efforts
to liberate the masses from the domination of despotism. . . . .
The American War for Independence represents their first great political
experiment . . . .
--Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages: Reader’s
Edition, New York, Tarcher-Penguin, 2003, p. 463.
The
Freemasons:
The main targets
of the Masons were: the hierarchical principle, respect for tradition, the
Church and the Monarchy. The Masons did not originate the attack on these – the
roots of anti-authoritarianism in both Church and State go back at least to the
eleventh-century Papacy. What they did was to use an already existing sceptical
and rationalist climate of opinion to intensify and give direction to the
revolutionary movement, “the mystery of iniquity”.
--Vladimir Moss, An Essay in Universal History, Vol. II: The
Age of Reason, Part 2, 2018, p. 116, http://orthodoxchristianbooks.com/books/downloads.php?book_id=756
The
Illuminati:
A concise five-point
summary of the beliefs of Illuminism was outlined by Nesta Webster:
1. Abolition of Monarchy and all ordered
Government.
. . .
--Terry Melanson, Perfectibilists, Walterville, Ore.,
Trine Day, 2009, p. 175
And
just for good measure, we will include a statement by a modern globalist,
Jacques Attali, praising the fall of monarchical power to the forces of
democracy:
In 1689 a political
bombshell bursts over London. The
country’s ruling monarchs, Mary and William of Orange . . . grant Parliament,
freely elected by the country’s middle classes, the right to look into public
affairs. Thus, after its sketchy Dutch
beginnings, the birth certificate of modern democracy is officially
promulgated. Parliament enacts laws,
guarantees individual freedoms, and authorizes the king to raise troops and
make war. England is the first market
democracy.
--A Brief History of the Future, Jeremy Leggatt trans., New York,
Arcade, 2009, p. 62.
Those
in the Exceptional States of America who may be feeling a twinge of guilt at
their never-ending celebration of the overthrow of King George III and their
rubbing ideological shoulders with the likes of Messrs Attali and Hall will
attempt to defend themselves by saying something like, ‘Yes, we rejected a
king’s rule, but we also did not succumb to democracy. We have charted the middle way: neither the despotism of a king nor the chaos
of a mob for us. We have established a
constitutional republic instead, the best of all forms of government.’
But
the Orthodox priest-monk of Platina, California, Blessed Father Seraphim Rose,
fortook them and their objection well in advance. Here he is quoting a staunch defender of
traditional ways, the Spanish nobleman Donoso Cortés (1809-53):
“The liberal school,” he
said, “...is placed between two seas, whose constantly advancing waves will
finally overwhelm it, between socialism and Catholicism.... It cannot admit the
constituent sovereignty of the people without becoming democratic, socialistic,
and atheistic, nor admit the actual sovereignty of God without becoming
monarchical and Catholic....”xxxix
“This school is only
dominant when society is threatened with dissolution, and the moment of its
authority is that transitory and fugitive one, in which the world stands
doubting between Barabbas and Jesus, and hesitates between a dogmatical
affirmation and a supreme negation. At such a time society willingly allows
itself to be governed by a school which never affirms nor denies,
[italics in original] but is always making distinctions.... xl“Such periods of
agonizing doubt can never last any great length of time. Man was born to act,
and will resolutely declare either for Barabbas or Jesus and overturn all that
the sophists have attempted to establish....”
--Orthodox Survival
Course, ‘Lecture 8: Meaning of Revolution’, p. 129, http://tinyurl.com/h8uqu66
The
republican form, as the American exceptionalists assert, is a sort of middle
way, but not the kind they think it is.
To them it is the solid ground of the golden mean betwixt the one and
the many. In actuality, as the quote
just above makes clear, it is inherently unstable, like a beam balanced on a
point that will soon fall one way or the other, either back to the God-ordained
order of kingship or the Satanic-inspired order of democracy.
Again,
the American exceptionalists believe that constitutional republics are the
highest expression of Christian political principles. And once again they could not be further from
the truth, as this kind of government is very friendly to the forces of the
devil:
. . .
--
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England,
South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð,
unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment