‘There Is No Demos without a Crowned Monos’

 

Mick Hume, chief editor of The European Conservative, has been very much exercised recently over the restoration of the unique identity of Europe’s nations, as opposed to their absorption into a bland, borderless, tradition-hating European superstate.  That is to his credit, but it is unhelpful that he links this project with an ideological faith in democracy:

‘Amid all the confusion and uncertainty about Donald Trump, trade tariffs, and the prospects for peace in Ukraine, one thing should be clear: the “End of History” dreamworld of the globalist elites is itself coming to an end. Their fantasy of a peaceful, prosperous borderless world order run by bureaucrats and bankers has been brutally exposed. 

‘Instead we live, as I wrote here last month, in “a new world of nation states.” Democratic nations now have to wake up and defend the interests of their people in turbulent times’ (‘Nationalism Should No Longer Be a Dirty Word,’ europeanconservative.com).

He is not wrong when he says, ‘The anti-nationalism and anti-populism of the EU elites is all about their fear and loathing of the demos.’

But the hatred of the liberal/globalist oligarchs for the people and their age-old, ‘regressive’ customs and traditions, and their efforts to obliterate the latter, are not overcome simply by implementing democratic government, something he implies when he states,

‘A revived attachment to the nation can offer a safe home for the masses cut adrift from their roots by the politics of the globalist elites. More than that, national consciousness and the defence of national sovereignty give people the chance to take democratic control of their destiny.

‘The nation-state, let us always remember, is the only model on which democracy has been proven to work; any talk of “Europe-wide democracy” or “global democracy” is merely a cover for rule by the unrepresentative bureaucracies of the United Nations, World Health Organisation or European Commission.’

For, echoing St Gregory the Theologian (+4^th century), government by a multiplicity of people, whether the many (democracy) or by the few (aristocracy), necessarily creates disharmony, which ‘is the first step to dissolution’ (Oration XXIX, II).

There are ways to manage this disharmony, to make it less damaging to the nation.  One of Dixie’s best statesmen, John C. Calhoun, recommended the concurrent majority, allowing each of the distinct interest groups in a country to have both representation and veto power within the government, as a means to protect minorities from encroachments by the majority and to encourage unanimity in decision-making, so that the common good can be served:

‘Calhoun’s political concepts are still relevant. By creating a foundation for theories such as concurrent majority or nullification, Calhoun points to solutions. On the issue of the fundamental role of the veto, Calhoun seemed to be principled. As historian Charles M. Wiltse says: The concurrent majority is the negative of each interest on all the others – call it veto, check, nullification, or what you will – that makes possible resistance to the abuse of power. Without an effective negative, and this is the only effective one, there can be no constitution at all’ (Karol Mazur, ‘Calhoun’s Lesson for Europe,’ abbevilleinstitute.org).

We certainly agree with that.  But we also urge caution.  For this is the danger of our time, is it not? – to believe that some act of government, some constitutional change or some law, or some scientific advancement – something external to man – will solve our most pressing problems, whether Mr Hume’s democracy, Calhoun’s concurrent majority, and so forth and so along.

It is not so.  National healing, reform, etc., have much more to do with man’s internal life than with his external conditions.  The latter do matter, but not to the degree that we are led to believe they do.  The spiritual, the theological, must therefore be addressed as well.

We made a small step in that direction with St Gregory’s Oration.  We will now continue in that vein.  St Gregory follows the quotation given above by stating the Orthodox Church’s preference for monarchy (he is speaking about relations within the Godhead, but they are just as applicable to mankind, for we are made in the image and likeness of God).  Rule by a single will promotes unity; it keeps discord from bringing the nation to ruin.  There will always be a multitude of cities, corporations, families, etc., in any given country, but the king helps harmonize those many voices.

Furthermore, monarchy is one of the keys to the continued existence of the demos/ethnos.  The king is an icon of the people, the living image of all their traditions and all their history.  If he disappears, their identity is struck a terrible blow.  An example:

 . . .

The rest is at https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/there-no-demos-without-crowned-monos.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

‘Honeysuckle’

 

Profusive in its growth, and rambunctious,

Tumbling down in tangles

From the tops of the trees,

Leaves dyed with the deep green of spring –

Deep, like one sees in the sky at night –

Flowers of soft yellow and purest white,

Crowning oak and elm

With cornets of silver and gold

And covering the forest floor with a carpet

For the Lord to walk upon

When He comes in the cool of the evening,

Scenting the breeze with sweet incense,

 . . .

The rest is at https://www.reckonin.com/walt-garlington/honeysuckle.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

‘Ease LA’s Property Tax Burden with a Sovereign Wealth Fund’

 

Property taxes are one of the most irksome forms of taxation.  There are many drawbacks to them.

Property assessments can be, and often are, arbitrary, subjective processes, dictated by the whims of assessors.  The Louisiana law regarding assessments pretty much says it all:

‘Fair market value is defined by LA Revised Statute § 47: 2321 as follows:

‘Fair Market Value is the price for a property which would be agreed upon between a willing and informed buyer and a willing and informed seller under the usual and ordinary circumstances; it shall be the highest price estimated in terms of money which property will bring if exposed for sale on the open market with reasonable time allowed to find a purchaser who is buying with knowledge of all the uses and purposes to which the property is best adapted and for which it can be legally used’ (‘How does the assessor determine my home’s Fair Market Value for assessment purposes?,’ stcharlesassessor.com).

This is more akin to the pagan practice of divination by examining dead animal guts than it is a just and rational way to calculate someone’s tax bill.

Furthermore, if a citizen disagrees with said tax bill that the parish assessor lays upon him, the assessor is assumed to be in the right; all of the burden is on the citizen to prove otherwise and to navigate the bureaucratic labyrinth that has been set up to arbitrate disputes:

‘As a taxpayer, you have a certain legal responsibility to furnish accurate information on your property. Our office welcomes all information provided by the property owner. If you have complied with these legal requirements, you are entitled to question the value placed on your property. If your opinion of the value of your property differs from the Assessor's, you may come to our office to discuss the matter in person. Be prepared to show evidence that the Assessor's valuation of the property is incorrect. Our staff will be glad to answer your questions about the Assessor's appraisal. If, after discussing the matter with the Assessor, a difference of opinion still exists, you may appeal your assessment to the Ouachita Parish Board of Review according to procedures and published deadlines. After reviewing your appeal, if the Board agrees with the Assessor and a difference of opinion still exists, you may appeal the Board's decision to the Louisiana State Tax Commission. If the Commission agrees with the Board and the Assessor, you can plead your case before the courts should you choose to do so’ (‘Help / FAQ,’ opassessor.com).

How would a car mechanic or a school teacher ever find the time and/or money to make it through that appeal process?

And the coup de grâce:  If one fails to pay his property taxes (for whatever reason), his property is taken from him by the government.

With all that said, we also recognize that property taxes have been around for centuries and that they are very helpful for local governments in raising funds for critical services (education, emergency response, etc.).  In the spirit of improving the system rather than burning the whole thing down, let’s see if we can find some ways to reform it, to make it more bearable for the property owners who are carrying so much of the tax load for local government.

First and most importantly, votes on property taxes must limited to property owners.  This is akin to the closed political primaries that have recently been re-enacted in Louisiana:  Just as Democrats can’t vote in Republican primaries and vice versa, so also those who don’t pay property taxes shouldn’t have a say when determining property tax levies; allowing them to do so is an act of injustice.

Second, property tax increases could be capped.  California voters famously did this in 1978 with Prop 13, though this seems to create new problems of its own.  Circuit breakers, which lower property taxes if they exceed a certain percentage of an owner’s income, are another option.

Third, a sovereign wealth fund (SWF) could be established by the State of Louisiana that would reimburse Louisiana property owners at least a portion of the amount they paid in property taxes.  Norway has perhaps the most famous SWF, and President Trump has proposed establishing one at the federal level in the US, but one of our sister States, Alaska, also has a very robust fund, upon which Louisiana could model her own.  (Technically, Louisiana already has an investment fund like this, the Louisiana Education Quality Trust Fund, but its focus is limited.  Nevertheless, the experience in operating it should help in establishing a broader SWF.)

At the foundation of Alaska’s SWF is her mineral deposits, mainly hydrocarbons:

 . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2025/04/garlington-ease-las-property-tax-burden-with-a-sovereign-wealth-fund/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

‘AI and the Inhuman Modern State’

 

The French mystical writer Simone Weil (d. 1943) warned in the 20^th century about the cold, soulless, mechanical nature of government that had come into existence:

‘The State is a cold concern which cannot inspire love, but itself kills, suppresses everything that might be loved; so one is forced to love it, because there is nothing else.  That is the moral torment to which all of us today are exposed.

‘Here lies perhaps the true cause of that phenomenon of the leader which has sprung up everywhere nowadays and surprises so many people.  Just now, there is in all countries, in all movements, a man who is the personal magnet for all loyalties.  Being compelled to embrace the cold, metallic surface of the State has made people, by contrast, hunger for something to love which is made of flesh and blood.  This phenomenon shows no signs of disappearing, and, however disastrous the consequences have been so far, it may still have some very unpleasant surprises in store for us; for the art, so well known in Hollywood, of manufacturing stars out of any sort of human material, gives any sort of person the opportunity of presenting himself for the adoration of the masses’ (The Need for Roots, Arthur Wills translator, Routledge Classics, New York, 2003, p. 114).

She saw more keenly than she realized.  For it is no longer simply the case that ideologically driven revolutionaries; heartless bureaucrats; greedy oligarchs; etc., who are bereft of the warmth of Christian love and kindness, have taken over the offices of government and wield its power.  Now we are witnessing the transformation of the State into an actual machine, as AI is becoming an integral component of the governing system:

‘Artificial intelligence (AI) is writing law today. This has required no changes in legislative procedure or the rules of legislative bodies—all it takes is one legislator, or legislative assistant, to use generative AI in the process of drafting a bill.

‘In fact, the use of AI by legislators is only likely to become more prevalent. There are currently projects in the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and legislatures around the world to trial the use of AI in various ways: searching databases, drafting text, summarizing meetings, performing policy research and analysis, and more. A Brazilian municipality passed the first known AI-written law in 2023’ (Nathan Sanders, Bruce Schneier, lawfaremedia.org; many thanks to Dr Joseph Farrell for mentioning this article at his web site).

The authors explain why legislators are likely to adopt AI in their task of writing laws:

‘Congress may or may not be up to the challenge of putting more policy details into law, but the external forces outlined above—lobbyists, the judiciary, and an increasingly divided and polarized government—are pushing them to do so. When Congress does take on the task of writing complex legislation, it’s quite likely it will turn to AI for help.

‘Two particular AI capabilities enable Congress to write laws different from laws humans tend to write. One, AI models have an enormous scope of expertise, whereas people have only a handful of specializations. Large language models (LLMs) like the one powering ChatGPT can generate legislative text on funding specialty crop harvesting mechanization equally as well as material on energy efficiency standards for street lighting. This enables a legislator to address more topics simultaneously. Two, AI models have the sophistication to work with a higher degree of complexity than people can. Modern LLM systems can instantaneously perform several simultaneous multistep reasoning tasks using information from thousands of pages of documents. This enables a legislator to fill in more baroque detail on any given topic.

‘ . . . AI can be used in each step of lawmaking, and this will bring various benefits to policymakers. It could let them work on more policies—more bills—at the same time, add more detail and specificity to each bill, or interpret and incorporate more feedback from constituents and outside groups. The addition of a single AI tool to a legislative office may have an impact similar to adding several people to their staff, but with far lower cost.

‘ . . . There’s more that AI can do in the legislative process. AI can summarize bills and answer questions about their provisions. It can highlight aspects of a bill that align with, or are contrary to, different political points of view. We can even imagine a future in which AI can be used to simulate a new law and determine whether or not it would be effective, or what the side effects would be. This means that beyond writing them, AI could help lawmakers understand laws. Congress is notorious for producing bills hundreds of pages long, and many other countries sometimes have similarly massive omnibus bills that address many issues at once. It’s impossible for any one person to understand how each of these bills’ provisions would work. Many legislatures employ human analysis in budget or fiscal offices that analyze these bills and offer reports. AI could do this kind of work at greater speed and scale, so legislators could easily query an AI tool about how a particular bill would affect their district or areas of concern.’

We then come to an important part of the authors’ essay – why this new development in governance is necessary at all:

‘We should understand the idea of AI-augmented lawmaking contextualized within the longer history of legislative technologies. To serve society at modern scales, we’ve had to come a long way from the Athenian ideals of direct democracy and sortition. Democracy no longer involves just one person and one vote to decide a policy. It involves hundreds of thousands of constituents electing one representative, who is augmented by a staff as well as subsidized by lobbyists, and who implements policy through a vast administrative state coordinated by digital technologies. Using AI to help those representatives specify and refine their policy ideas is part of a long history of transformation.’

In other words, because society and government have become as complex as they have, lawmakers are required to use AI simply to fulfil their duties in the new, convoluted techscape.

But this begs the question:  Is all of this complexity necessary?  Is it beneficial?

It would seem not.  Just a glance at the toll that internet message boards, social media, and similar things have had on people, particularly the young – how they encourage the mutilation of language along with insults, bullying, impoliteness, addiction, murder, suicide, and any number of other evils – is proof enough that at least some of what modernity’s unholy trinity of science-technology-industry (to use the Southern Agrarian Wendell Berry’s words) has wrought ought to be rejected.

Miss Weil’s description of factory life is also worthy of consideration in this context:

 . . .

The rest is at https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/ai-and-inhuman-modern-state.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!