Friday, July 29, 2016

An Economic Third Way

For many in the South and elsewhere, the arrival of international corporations to a town is looked upon as a joyful moment; ‘Now economic progress can REALLY begin!’, they think to themselves.

Not only is this not the case, but these corporations, whose loyalty is to themselves alone, also bring with them agendas that deliberately undermine the traditions of the ‘backwards’ locals.

 . . .

Where a few decades ago one heard in the globalist agenda the names of Rockefeller and Rothschild, today one hears more often Goldman Sachs. As the Australian columnist Angus Whitely, in the above quoted article, also commented, Goldman Sachs is filling political positions in the USA and elsewhere. Craig Isherwood of the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia, when commenting on Turnbull becoming Prime Minister in October 2015, stated that his background with Goldman Sachs is a “black mark”, the bank having a record of causing “misery and economic destruction throughout the world”. The Greek debt crisis is cited as an example. (“Is Malcolm Turnbull another Goldman Sachs hit man?”,

Goldman Sachs does not hide its role as a factor in politics. Goldman Sachs Australia and New Zealand states that its “corporate advisory team” advises corporations and governments. Goldman Sachs in what is called among plutocrats “good corporate citizenship” is proactive in engineering social change.

In the world of corporate globalism “social change” is inherently whatever destroys the traditional foundations of a society, with the aim of creating a world without boundaries, where people, resources and capital can be moved internationally without hindrance. Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, is particularly noted for his homosexual advocacy. In 2012 he joined the Human Right Campaign to support same-sex marriage. Jason Farago, writing for The Guardian was scathing of Blankfein’s pro-gay activism, questioning its sincerely, and regarding it as a PR stunt:

“As Karl Rove taught us in 2004, same-sex marriage is an uncommonly useful tool to distract citizens from questions of economic justice or political responsibility. Eight years later, the public view of equal rights for gays and lesbians has shifted. But the use value of same-sex marriage in the political sphere remains: it shifts the focus of political discourse away from tougher, more fundamental questions of economics and power. And in this moment of anti-elitist consolidation, that is just as the lords of finance would like”. (Jason Farago, “Goldman Sachs’s CEO shows gay marriage is a no-risk trade”, The Guardian, 7 February 2012,

Malcolm Turnbull, like New Zealand’s John Key, imbibed the liberal moral relativism that is an essential part of corporate culture which the plutocrats avidly promote across the world. As Blankfein stated when endorsing same-sex marriage, “equality is just good for business”. Turnbull has a specific focus in promoting same sex marriage. (See: Turnbull has long been an outspoken supporter of abortion liberalisation, while touting his Catholic background. (“Turnbull defends abortion”, 8 November 2008,

Turnbull is also an avid Republican, having served as Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement. Such traditions as monarchy are seen an anachronistic in the “progressive” world of globalisation, where trading blocs are to take the place of blocs based on shared culture and ethnic kinship.

 . . .

But groveling at the feet of the corporate oligarchs for jobs is not the only option for those who oppose the communist, government-controlled model.  There is still the distributist model of wide-spread ownership of productive property.  Here is what Dr Ovidiu Hurduzeu, a Romanian economist and advocate of distributism, had to say about it in a recent interview (note: the reference below to ‘Christian-orthodox’ is another way of saying ‘Orthodox Christian’):

Why distributism?

To understand the importance of distributism, we need to compare it to both communism and capitalism, the two systems that distributism is opposed to. In a distributist society there is wide and equitable distribution of property and ownership. In communism you have collective ownership and collective redistribution of property. People do not have economic freedom; they are wage-slaves to the state. In the so called "free, democratic and capitalist" society, the capital, and most of the property, belong to a small class called ‘capitalists’, while the mass of the citizens are obliged to work for the few capitalists in return for a wage. Distributism does not separate ownership and work any longer. It seeks to establish an economic and social order, where most people have real, debt-free productive property. (In capitalism, the "property" of the common person is mortgaged or purchased on credit; it is merely a rented good). In practical terms a distributist order is achieved through the widespread dissemination of family-owned businesses, employee ownership, cooperatives, and any other arrangement resulting in well-divided property.

 . . .

What distributist principles of organizing an economy are most suitable to the orthodox countries? Is a "Christian-orthodox economy" still possible?

A Christian-orthodox economy is not only possible; it is the only way that could lead to the transformation of our societies for the better. When communism collapsed, the liberals injected the virus of a plutocratic economy and rampant individualism into our societies. If communists dispossessed the populace in the name of collective ownership and a communal monopoly, the liberals created a dispossessed "lonely crowd" that was forced to work for subsistence wages in the name of the "free market". Both communism and the "new capitalists" instituted master-slave relations in the former Soviet bloc. That is unacceptable from a Christian point of view. As Christians, we cannot accept the neoliberal tenet that "there is no such thing as society" (Margaret Thatcher). Individualism and ruthless competition are utterly unchristian. A Christian orthodox society is a cooperative one in which loving our neighbors is the norm, and the common rules are enforced in a way that maximizes personal responsibility. Due to their communal organization, there was simply no poverty among the first Christians; they had no fear of becoming slaves in order to support themselves. Today, a distributist society should challenge the neo-liberal economic model in the way the cooperative society of the first Christians challenged the slave-based economic order of the Roman Empire. We are not talking here about idealism, utopia or socialist solutions in the form of welfare and punitive taxation. We do not want to repeat the cycle of disempowerment and dependency. We need to provide the conditions for social justice through a widespread distribution of property, the remoralization of the markets, and recapitalization of the poor.

Does Romania have an intellectual tradition of non-liberal economic thought? What value does this heritage have for today's economists?

Indeed, Romania had a solid intellectual tradition of non-liberal economic thought. A mention must be made to the agrarian economists Virgil Madgearu (one of the leaders of the National Peasant Party), Mircea Vulcanescu (one of Romania's greatest thinkers ever, he died in prison as a Christian martyr), and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of the ecological economy. They belong to different economic schools and yet they share the same fondness for agrarian and Christian values. Today's Romanian economists are too busy following orders from the West to pay any attention to the great Romanian economists of the past.

How can the distributist principles be implemented in real economic policies? Are there any political forces in Romania that want to bring the distributist ideas into reality?

The country needs a new "Green rising" to complete what the Romanian agrarians left unfinished. "If the Peasants' Party is to be victorious in elections” - wrote Virgil Madgearu – “the shape of things would be changed.” The National Bank would no longer be the economic fortress of the Liberal oligarchy. Trusts would no longer enslave and exploit the state. Their selfish and venal leaders would no longer be enthroned in overseeing positions over the country's destiny. Civil liberties, nowadays suffocated, and stolen civil rights would be fully restored, and the constitutional-parliamentary regime would become a reality, benefiting the development of popular masses as well as civilization."

Unfortunately, I do not see any real chance for Romania of adopting sweeping changes like the ones envisaged by Madgearu in the 1920’s. There are no political forces in today's Romania strong enough to challenge the dominance of liberalism.

Do you see any relevance of the distributist model to Russian society in general, and the Russian economy in particular?

I think that distributism is germane to Russian realities and not a foreign import like communism and liberalism. And it is the only economic model that can vanquish the Liberals on their own ground (the economy). Russia, like the Third Rome, should not forget the lessons of Byzantine recovery. When confronted with a series of serious crises in the 7th century, the Byzantine Empire adopted a brilliant distributist strategy. As a consequence, it went from near disintegration to being the main power in Europe and the Near East. The pillar of this strategy was the peasant-soldier who became a producer rather than consumer of the empire's wealth. Fighting for their own lands and families, soldiers performed better. As staunch Christians, the Byzantines survived by simplifying their social, political, and economic systems within the constraints of less available resources. They moved from extensive space-based development to simplified, local, intensive development. (That's the lesson the Soviet Union did not learn, and failed as a result.) "In this sense, Byzantium” - writes Joseph A. Tainter – “may be a model or prototype for our own future, in broad parameters but not in specific details."

Today's Global Empire is an integrated hyper-complex system that is very costly to human society. It has reached the limits of its expansion and faces collapse because it tries to solve its problems in the same outdated way: investing in more complexity and expansion. So far its growth has been subsidized by the availability of cheap human and natural resources, as well as a "world currency" that the Global Empire totally controls. A multipolar world and a finite planet make investment in complexity no longer a problem-solving tool – the costs exceed the benefits. If Russia could adopt distributism and follow the Byzantium-like strategies of intensive development, the Third Rome can save herself and become a genuine "prototype of our future".

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Updating the Lord’s Prayer to Fit the Times

Our CEO, who art offshore,
Fiscal be thy brain,
Thy stock price climb,
Thy profits rise,
In boomtime as in bust.
Give us each day our digital pay,
And turn it into debt that we may be your debtors.
And lead us not into contentment, but deliver us from a simple life.

For thine is the genome and the earth, air, and water
Of every people, tribe, and tongue,
Always, now and forever, and to the ages of ages.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Donald Trump’s America

There are a few positive things that one may take away from Donald Trump’s speech at the RNC last night.

He seems to hold something of a familial view of the American people, with himself as a father figure, which is a step, however small, toward a restoration of hierarchy and monarchy. 

He wants to tear up the globalists so-called free trade agreements from NAFTA to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which only serve to destroy nationhood and empower transnational banks and corporations.

He wants to bring an end to the policy of regime change and nation-building.

He didn’t saber-rattle against Russia like some of the other RNC speakers before him did.

It was pretty much downhill from there, however.  Most disturbing was the total lack of any mention of strengthening the Church at home or abroad, except for one strange remark near the end, in which he promised to stop the IRS’s policing of political speech coming from the pulpits of evangelical churches.  There was no mention of this applying to any other Christians, whether Orthodox or non-Orthodox.  One assumes that they would be included as well should such a law be passed, but the fact that he singled out evangelicals seems to point to an effort to pander to them for their votes rather than any real desire to strengthen Christianity in the States.

This suspicion is only strengthened by his promise to protect ‘LGBTQ citizens’ from Islamic terrorists, a promise he did not see fit to make to Christians in the States or abroad in Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc.

Besides all this is the effect his ideology of American nationalism will have on anything resembling local cultures in the various States and regions of the union.  His brand of super-concentrated secular Puritanism/American exceptionalism will unleash a wave of greed and materialism and pride so corrosive that one should expect little of the history and traditions of the South and the other regions (save parts of New England) to come through it in reasonably good health.

Sadly, one sees the further drift of the States from faith in the Most Holy Trinity to faith in themselves, in the idea of America as the perfecter of humanity.

But, these things notwithstanding, let us suppose that Mr Trump did ‘make America great again’ as he defines that phrase.  What would it profit them in the long run?  There are a couple of ensamples from the Holy Scriptures that they ought to pay special heed to.

First is the northern kingdom of Israel under King Jeroboam II.  We read in II Kings 14 (,

23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years.
24 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.
25 He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gathhepher.
26 For the LORD saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel.
27 And the LORD said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.
28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
29 And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel; and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead.

Jeroboam II ‘made Israel great again’, increasing her territory and worldly glory.  Yet less than 30 years later, the northern tribes of Israel were led into captivity by Assyria because they forsook the worship of the true God.

Second is the southern kingdom of Judah under King Hezekiah.  We read in II Chronicles 32 (,

22 Thus the LORD saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all other, and guided them on every side.
23 And many brought gifts unto the LORD to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah: so that he was magnified in the sight of all nations from thenceforth.

 . . .

27 And Hezekiah had exceeding much riches and honour: and he made himself treasuries for silver, and for gold, and for precious stones, and for spices, and for shields, and for all manner of pleasant jewels;
28 Storehouses also for the increase of corn, and wine, and oil; and stalls for all manner of beasts, and cotes for flocks.
29 Moreover he provided him cities, and possessions of flocks and herds in abundance: for God had given him substance very much.
30 This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.

King Hezekiah likewise ‘made Judah great again’ in the Trumpish sense.  But because of her stiff-necked idol worship, Judah lasted only about 100 years more before Babylon came and desolated her land.

What awaits Americans if they sell their souls for Donald Trump’s vision of worldly greatness? 

* * * * *

Do not go a-whoring after the earthly riches and glory held out to you by Donald Trump, dear Southron.  There are other fathers--better fathers--Holy Fathers, and Holy Mothers, too, waiting to embrace you, to show you the path to true greatness by lowliness, and the path to true riches by poorness; who nurtured your Southern forebears of England, Ireland, and so on with the good things of Heaven and earth, and earnestly desire to do the same for you, their kinsmen.

King Ælfred the Great of England, the South’s holy patron saint, who spared no effort to rebuild Orthodox Christianity in England after defeating and converting the Danish invaders, and who desired the discomfort of a disease of the bowels that he might enjoy rest in Heaven rather than an easy life here on the earth--he wishes to be a father to you, to impart wisdom to you, to pray for you, to help you bear your burdens during your sojourn here on the earth.

St Andrew the Holy Apostle, Scotland’s patron saint, who endured hardships of many kinds and finally crucifixion for his burning love of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose X-shaped cross adorns the Scottish and Southern flags--he wishes to be a father to you, to pour into your heart the warmth of God’s love.

St Hilda, abbess of Whitby, and St Audrey (Etheldreda), abbess of Ely, whose monasteries helped to bring many heathen Anglo-Saxons into the Church and to strengthen the Faith in the English lands--they wish to be mothers to you, to purify your heart of the stench of the disordered passions that the sweet fragrance of the Holy Ghost may dwell there, that He might be united with you.

St Ninian of Whithorn and his mother St Theneva, St Cuthbert of Lindisfarne, St Moses the Ethiopian, St Patrick of Ireland, St Martin of Tours, St Leander of Seville, and all of our kinfolk in the Heavenly Southland--they are waiting.  They are waiting for you to rest in the tenderness of their love, which will help you in all the circumstances of your life.

Upheld by their prayers, guided by their hands, may all Southerners be freed from the tyranny of the passions and healed of their sinfulness, that we might be made worthy of political independence (which will only be squandered on sinful living if we are not first cleansed), that we might use it to honor the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost at all times, and all those Saints the Lord has honored as His friends.

This is true blessedness for a people, the stuff from which a Christian nation may be formed.

But that no one will think such things exist only in our imaginations--May God grant that soon we too may honor St Ælfred and all our Dear Ones as Georgia and other Orthodox countries honor theirs:

Tbilisi, November 24, 2014

On November 23 the Georgian Orthodox Church celebrated the St. George’s (Giorgob) Day. Great Martyr George the Victory-Bearer is venerated as patron-saint of the Georgian people and is particularly loved in Georgia, reports Gruzia Online.

On this day His Holiness Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II of All Georgia celebrated a festal service at the Holy Trinity Cathedral.

The Georgian president and prime minister were present at the service. They came to the cathedral together with their families.

The day before it was reported that on the occasion of St. George’s Day, Georgian president Georgy Margvelashvili had granted presidential pardons to 121 convicts.

According to the presidential order, 93 prisoners were to be released on that day, and punishment was mitigated for 28 more convicts. In addition to this, the prison sentence was reduced by half to one felon convict.

There were three women and three minors among those pardoned.

In Georgia, St. George the Victory-Bearer is commemorated twice a year: on November 23 (the Breaking on the Wheel of Holy Greatmartyr George) and May 6 (the Beheading of St. George).

Source:, accessed 22 July 2016

Tuesday, July 19, 2016


It is not for nothing that the global elite have their Davos and Bilderberg meetings.  After the people of the United Kingdom dealt their plans for one world government a great blow with ‘Brexit’, and just as other peoples from Texas and Vermont to Portugal, France, and Denmark were beginning to speak more boldly of following their ensample of peaceful secession from overbearing and over-centralized ‘unions’, out come the minions of the banksters et al.:  Islamic State terrorists and race war agitators.

On the Nice attack:

 . . .

The geopolitical context
The attacks in France are associated with changes in the geopolitical balance in Europe after the referendum on the withdrawal of Great Britain from the European Union. The United States uses its Islamist proxies against continental Europe, when European chances to gain geopolitical independence increased significantly after the British people voted for Brexit. This was demonstrated by the NATO summit in Warsaw, in which France took the most moderate position towards Russia.

Islamism - an instrument of Atlanticism
The CIA and British intelligence nurtured Islamism to counter the "Soviet threat". It was then, during the Cold War, and especially since the Soviet troops were brought into Afghanistan, when the ideological, resources, and institutional framework for global Islamic terrorist networks was established. In Syria, the Americans also prefer to rely on Islamists. The ISIS terrorists accidentally got new American and Israeli weapons. Despite the propaganda, ISIS has not committed any act of terrorism against the US and Israel, and does not threaten the security of these countries. At the same time ISIS directly threatens Russia, Iran and China, the main US geopolitical adversaries in Eurasia.

The purpose of the terrorist attack
The attack in France aims to demonstrate that the country cannot alone ensure its own security. The purpose of the attacks is to sow fear in the community, disorient it, and demonstrate the political elites of the consequences of attempts to conduct an independent policy. In addition, the US will strengthen US control over Europe by appealing to the need for closer cooperation with the US in the field of security. After other terrorist attacks (Paris, Brussels, perhaps - the downing of the "Paris-Cairo" aircraft) is another demonstration by Atlanticists of the fact that Europe is too weak and cannot be an independent geopolitical pole.

On the race war:

As the recent events (and subsequent incoherent media narratives) in Dallas continue to unravel, familiar patterns have already emerged that once again paint a now familiar picture of large-scale planning. We are now expected to believe this highly coordinated, professional “sniper” operation, whose numbers and details have now significantly changed, were conducted by the likes of a former vet and unknown accomplices for the purposes of targeting “white people,” and in particular, police.

Immediately given the symbolic title “Michael X” to affiliate the suspect with Malcolm X, the entire scenario, from the revised proclamation of cell terrorist to “lone wolf,” now smells of sub-par Hollywood script-writing (especially the ludicrous climax of “hidden IEDs” and a bomb-carrying Robocop executioner as the only rational means of halting the crazed assassin. As we will see, the event also echoes prior known false flags and staged scenarios, as well as fitting a general pattern of Soros-style color revolutions and agitation propaganda, on top of the fact that the evolving official story is preposterous.

While it may appear contradictory at first glance, the notion that such an event could fit the “progressive” mold of a color revolution is not far-fetched. Consortium news details numerous Soros-funded groups that have called for soft-power coups and regime changes through numerous fronts that include “social justice” causes, as well as right-wing groups like Right Sektor in the Ukraine. 

 . . .

As with 9/11 in the States, 7/7 in England, and other staged attacks, we are supposed to rally round the flag and support the corrupt, corporate-controlled government (which is funding and directing much of this chaos) like mindless, ‘Trooly Lo’il’ (Rev. R. L. Dabney, ‘Women’s Rights Women’) patriots. 

Through the prayers of the Mother of God and all our holy forefathers and foremothers, let us in the South and all other countries see clearly enough to do the opposite:  to not get sucked into their phony dialectical wars (Islam vs. the West, white vs. black, etc.) but rather turn away from these troublemakers, and work on nurturing Christian cultures in our respective villages, towns, counties and parishes, and States/countries.

Friday, July 15, 2016

Christian Reasons in Favor of Kingship

Dean Arnold has written a good piece on why monarchy should be considered as a viable form of government from an Orthodox perspective.  Since the heavily Protestant South would be expected to ask, ‘What does the Bible say?’, we will post a portion of his essay dealing with that question, in particular, how one should understand I Samuel ch. 8.  But the whole thing is worth reading:

 . . .

Biblicists who oppose monarchy are quick to turn to I Samuel 8, as it is the best passage, if not the only passage, that provides some kind of rationale for something other than a monarchical government.

In the story, Samuel has led Israel well for decades as a “judge,” not a king, but his sons are corrupt, and the elders insist that Samuel install “a king to judge us like all the nations.” Samuel is displeased, prays about it, and God tells him to do what they asked. “They have not rejected you, but rejected me,” God says, “that I should not reign over them.” (I Sam. 8:7)

On it’s face, this passage seems to provide nice ammo for refuting monarchism, but it has a number of serious weaknesses.

♦ Firstly, it is strange for Israel to get rebuked for wanting a king when a few hundred years before Moses laid out some rules for kings in Israel: “When you come to the land … and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses.” (Deut. 17:14-15)

♦ Secondly, Israel wasn’t rebuked for wanting a king. They were rebuked for wanting a king “like all the nations.” (This seems to fit with the previous point that God had already made proscriptions for a king.) Biblical scholar James Jordan points out that this phrase “like all the nations” can mean, in the original language, two possible things.

1: A king, as other nations have kings.
2. A king that acts like other nations’s kings, not one tied to Moses’s code of laws.

Jordan believes, because of the context of the passage, and Deut. 17, that the elders of Israel were asking for the second option. And this explains the verses surrounding both Deut 17 and I Sam. 8, warning against kings multiplying horses, gold, and wives. Other nations’ kings built military machines (horses), heavily taxed their subjects (gold), and sported large harems. Moses and Samuel both warn Israel’s king not to go in that direction.

♦ Thirdly, the days of Israel’s judges was no panacea for godly society. The book ends with a woman being raped in front of her passive husband, who then chops her up and sends the pieces to the twelve tribes to point out how corrupt things had gotten. The book is filled with similar atrocities. Judges ends by saying, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (21:25). According to Gleason, “the lack of monarchy implies anarchy.  The consciences of the populous were insufficient for bringing righteousness to the nation. A godly king was needed.”

♦ Fourthly, one of the reasons the Israelites were rejecting God by asking for a king was because to do so, at that time, would be violating the mosaic law. Jacob declared at the end of his life, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah.” (Gen. 49:10). The Israelites knew their king was to come from Judah, but that tribe was temporarily disqualified due to sexual immorality: “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation.” (Deut. 23:2)

Judah had slept with his daughter-in-law Tamar (unwittingly—she posed as a prostitute), and she gave birth to Perez (see Gen. 38, a rather bizarre interruption to an otherwise thrilling drama about Joseph). The tribe of Judah was in it’s ninth generation when the elders of Israel demanded a king. Saul had to be taken from another tribe, Benjamin. But he was replaced a generation later by David, from the tribe of Judah, who was now qualified to be king.

The writer of Ruth makes this crystal clear at the very end of the book, naming ten generations from Perez to David: “Now this is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David. (Ruth 4:13-22)

Pretty cool, huh? (Jordan explains this point well in the podcast link already provided, and Gleason writes about it here.)

♦ Lastly, those who use I Samuel 8 to argue against monarchy certainly cannot use it to argue for democratic republics as we know them today. The system under Samuel was a theocracy, a nation under specific laws from God. Whatever is argued for today, whether it be democracies, republics, loose confederations, or pseudo-anarchism, to argue that Israel before its monarchy modeled the ideal government is to argue for something even more radical for today’s sensibilities than monarchy. A few actually do this, but everyone else needs to chill a little bit.

Fr. John Whiteford, an Orthodox priest in Texas (ROCOR), wraps up his excellent article on this topic with this conclusion: “So one could argue that the most ideal form of government is a theocracy, but as the history of Israel up to this point demonstrated, such a theocracy only worked out well for the people when they were zealous to obey God, which very often was not the case. So monarchy is perhaps the second best system of government, but not one without problems … because for monarchy to work out well, you need a king that is pious.”

 . . .

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Secular Reasons in Favor of Kingship

An unrepentant criminal, pricked by his conscience, will try very hard to get rid of anything that reminds him of his crime, or that will reveal it to others.

Many in the American Empire, it seems, have and are suffering from a similar state of soul and mind.  Having in their land swept away the sacred political order in which Christ rules the nations through divinely anointed kings for a new order in which ‘the people’s will’ is sovereign, Americans are ever searching the world for a Christian king or queen (or anyone akin to them: Putin, Qaddafi, Assad, etc.) to depose lest their ‘experiment in liberty’ be discredited for the Antichristian sham that it is.

Below are a few words in favor of monarchy from a merely secular view (some from a Christian view will hopefully follow soon).  May they help bring them to their senses, with God’s help, before Americans, wittingly or unwittingly, finish their work in ushering in Antichrist (for it is the king who forestalls the appearance of Antichrist; see St John Chrysostom’s commentary on II Thess. 2:6, 7).

 . . .

Democracy has glaring defects.3 As various paradoxes of voting illustrate, there is no such thing as any coherent “will of the people”. Government itself is more likely to supply the content of any supposed general will (Constant 1814-15/1988, p. 179). Winston Churchill reputedly said: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” (BrainyQuote and several similar sources on the Internet). The ordinary voter knows that his vote will not be decisive and has little reason to waste time and effort becoming well informed anyway.

This “rational ignorance”, so called in the public-choice literature, leaves corresponding influence to other-than-ordinary voters (Campbell 1999). Politics becomes a squabble among rival special interests. Coalitions form to gain special privileges. Legislators engage in logrolling and enact omnibus spending bills. Politics itself becomes the chief weapon in a Hobbesian war of all against all (Gray 1993, pp. 211-212). The diffusion of costs while benefits are concentrated reinforces apathy among ordinary voters.

Politicians themselves count among the special-interest groups. People who drift into politics tend to have relatively slighter qualifications for other work. They are entrepreneurs pursuing the advantages of office. These are not material advantages alone, for some politicians seek power to do good as they understand it. Gratifying their need to act and to feel important, legislators multiply laws to deal with discovered or contrived problems–and fears. Being able to raise vast sums by taxes and borrowing enhances their sense of power, and moral responsibility wanes (as Benjamin Constant, pp. 194-196, 271-272, already recognized almost two centuries ago).

Democratic politicians have notoriously short time horizons. (Hoppe (2001) blames not just politicians in particular but democracy in general for high time preference–indifference to the long run–which contributes to crime, wasted lives, and a general decline of morality and culture.) Why worry if popular policies will cause crises only when one is no longer running for reelection? Evidence of fiscal irresponsibility in the United States includes chronic budget deficits, the explicit national debt, and the still huger excesses of future liabilities over future revenues on account of Medicare and Social Security. Yet politicians continue offering new plums. Conflict of interest like this far overshadows the petty kinds that nevertheless arouse more outrage.

Responsibility is diffused in democracy not only over time but also among participants. Voters can think that they are only exercising their right to mark their ballots, politicians that they are only responding to the wishes of their constituents. The individual legislator bears only a small share of responsibility fragmented among his colleagues and other government officials.

 . . .

A nonelected part of government contributes to the separation of powers. By retaining certain constitutional powers or denying them to others, it can be a safeguard against abuses.5 This is perhaps the main modern justification of hereditary monarchy: to put some restraint on politicians rather than let them pursue their own special interests complacent in the thought that their winning elections demonstrates popular approval. When former president Theodore Roosevelt visited Emperor Franz Joseph in 1910 and asked him what he thought the role of monarchy was in the twentieth century, the emperor reportedly replied: “To protect my peoples from their governments” (quoted in both Thesen and Purcell 2003). Similarly, Lord Bernard Weatherill, former speaker of the House of Commons, said that the British monarchy exists not to exercise power but to keep other people from having the power; it is a great protection for our democracy (interview with Brian Lamb on C-Span, 26 November 1999).

 . . .

A monarch, not dependent on being elected and reelected, embodies continuity, as does the dynasty and the biological process. “Constitutional monarchy offers us ... that neutral power so indispensable for all regular liberty. In a free country the king is a being apart, superior to differences of opinion, having no other interest than the maintenance of order and liberty. He can never return to the common condition, and is consequently inaccessible to all the passions that such a condition generates, and to all those that the perspective of finding oneself once again within it, necessarily creates in those agents who are invested with temporary power.” It is a master stroke to create a neutral power that can terminate some political danger by constitutional means (Constant, pp. 186-187). In a settled monarchy–but no regime whatever can be guaranteed perpetual existence–the king need not worry about clinging to power. In a republic, “The very head of the state, having no title to his office save that which lies in the popular will, is forced to haggle and bargain like the lowliest office-seeker” (Mencken 1926, p. 181).

 . . .

Source:  Leland B. Yeager, ‘Monarchy: Friend of Liberty’,, accessed 29 June 2016

Friday, July 8, 2016

More Steps Taken toward the One World Religion of Antichrist

Jay Dyer gives some historical background on the march toward the Church of Antichrist:

. . . As the Middle Ages gave way to the era of modernity through the new science of Bacon, Galileo and Newton, a paradigm shift in the view of the world took place: no longer was the world governed by God through His Church and the earthly hierarchy of the monarchy. Instead, the world began to be viewed as a treasure house of latent natural forces to be harnessed by man.  Man would eventually achieve total understanding of the universe and ascend to godhood in this new view.  “Science” became the new mythos: the new, all-encompassing narrative which could explain man’s great ascent towards divinity.  In fact, Bacon and Newton were themselves practitioners of hermetic occultism.  These are odd interests for those men simultaneously seeking to demythologize the world of “religious superstition.”  The science myth was a facade, since they were, as Frances Yates’ classic book The Rosicrucian Enlightenment demonstrates, practitioners of magic.

The new “science” gave birth to the Enlightenment: a socio-cultural revolution that sought to remake the social order on the foundation of flux, progress and “reason,” as opposed to theology and metaphysics.  Also roughly concurrent with this phenomenon was the Protestant Reformation, which would challenge the established authority of a single Church; an authority that had been the dominant force in Eastern and Western Europe for over a thousand years.  The Reformers themselves sought to remove from religion what they perceived to be superstitions and to place religious authority in the hands of “every ploughboy,” as Luther said, who could then reconstruct it as he pleased.  Ultimately, the enlightened Reformation ended in pure rationalism, and out of Germany came the infamous schools of Higher Criticism that would deny the biblical texts and ultimately dismiss any supernatural element in theology, whatsoever.  A new world was emerging from the ashes of the old.

 . . .

In my analysis, this gnosticism is the key to understanding the recent explosion of pedophilia in modern, post-Vatican II Catholicism. Journalist William Kennedy’s book Lucifer’s Lodge documents the evidence that Luciferians have infiltrated the highest levels of the Catholic establishment, even to the Vatican, seeking to use the Catholic Church as the vehicle for a one world religion of New Age Luciferianism.

Well-known scholar and ex-Jesuit theologian Malachi Martin, a Vatican insider and personal friend of John XXIII and Paul VI, has written numerous books on the status of the Church since Vatican II.  It must be noted first of all that there is undeniable and abundant evidence that Martin was himself a Luciferian.  In his book The Keys of this Blood on the papacy of John Paul II, Martin mentions the Satanic Black Mass that was celebrated in the Vatican following upon the coronation of Paul VI as pope (page 632).  The reason this is important is that he personally knew these popes.  The reason for this is that Luciferians operate on a principle Crowley termed the “revelation of the method.”  Because most occultists are gnostic dualists, they believe good and bad are flip sides of the same coin: they are both ultimate and necessary.  Thus, there is no reason why one cannot play both sides, so to speak. One may play a conservative, moral individual during the day, while at night participating in the black rites of Luciferianism.

 In this very important 700 plus page book, Martin discusses the goal of Vatican occultists to control the emerging world order.  It is beyond question, he admits, that the apostate Catholic Church, the “anti-church” as he calls it, is the primary vehicle of the United Nations and the Anglo-globalists to bring all religions into a one world religion where Orthodox religion is replaced with pagan and occultic traditions for mass control.  This is why the modern Catholic church must be resisted at all costs: if not, it will initiate the world into Luciferianism.  Only traditional Orthodoxy is the rallying force strong enough to repel the New World Order.

 . . .

Source:  ‘What Is the New World Order and Why Does It Matter’,, accessed 1 July 2016

Lately there have been some efforts to effect the absorption of some Protestants into the Roman Catholic fold:

Famous Italian journalist and religious expert Sandro Magister affirms the Pope Francis is making a path towards full Eucharistic dialogue between Protestants and Catholics. It is reported by Sedmitsa.RU.

The journalist refers to an influential Jesuit journal “La Civilta Cattolica”, where the issue is discussed on the Pope’s advice to the Lutheran woman regarding the Communion.    

The Pontiff does not offer a direct change of the Catholic doctrine, according to the article in “La Civilta Cattolica”, but makes a “little step forward”, compelling people to act in accordance with their own conscience. The interpretation of the Pope’s words, demonstrated by “La Civilta Cattolica” is particularly important in Magister’s opinion because all articles in this Jesuit journal get a prior approval of the Hole See. 

In fact, as Magister points, the Pope personally “previews and edits in the articles what he finds most interesting before they get published. 

Source:  ‘Expert: The Pope Strives for Eucharistic Dialogue between Protestants and Catholics’,, accessed 6 July 2016

As well as some of the Orthodox themselves:

 . . .

Initial Sorrowful Observations Regarding the Holy and Great Synod by Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus

 . . .

(1) We observe with sorrow the presence and joint prayer of heretical Papists, Protestants, and Monophysites at Matins and the Divine Liturgy of this great Feast of the Lord in the Church of St. Menas in Heraklion. As everyone is aware, this is prohibited by the Sacred Canons. The Orthodox Primates and other participating Orthodox Hierarchs trampled on the Canons of the Apostles and the Synods, wishing from the outset to send a message to the whole world, showing what great respect they have for the decisions of the Oecumenical Synods and, by extension, for the very institution of the Synod, about which they make bombastic declarations.

(2) The presence, at the commencement of the proceedings, of officially invited delegations of heretical Papists, Protestants, and Monophysites was an unprecedented innovation and one foreign to our Synodal Tradition. In fact, Oecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew addressed these delegates as “representatives of Sister Churches” before the Holy and Great Synod made any decision regarding the ecclesiality or non-ecclesiality of the heretical communities in question. Thus, Patriarch Bartholomew, through a fait accompli, sent another message to the members of the Synod: that he had no intention of calling the heterodox heretics. Instead, he called them Sister Churches. Never in the history of the Oecumenical or local Synods during the Byzantine period were “observers” present at such Synods, and as dignitaries, to boot, whose heretical doctrines were condemned by previous Oecumenical Synods. Heretics were, of course, invited, but as persons subject to trial, in order to defend themselves, and not as guests of honor. It was only at the First and Second Vatican Councils that the phenomenon of “observers” made its appearance. The Holy and Great Synod is evidently copying Roman Catholic models.

 . . .

Be on your guard, Southron.