‘And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by
thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the
stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family: After that he is
sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle,
or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his
family may redeem him . . .’ (Leviticus 25:47-49, King James
Version (KJV)
of The Holy Bible).
‘And Naomi said unto her daughter in law,
Blessed be he of the Lord, who hath not
left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her,
The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen’ (Ruth 2:20, KJV of The Holy Bible).
‘And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be
the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without
a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be
unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age . . .’ (Ruth 4:14, 15, KJV of The Holy Bible).
I. The Family and the Nation
A nation is more than an outward union of
individuals, tied together superficially by a political or economic system or
ideal. A nation is a family - an
extended family, but a family nevertheless:
‘The family is older than the State. Man,
husband, wife, father, son, mother, daughter and the obligations and virtues
inherent in these names existed before the family grew into the nation and the
State was formed. That is why family life in relation to State life can be
figuratively depicted as the root of the tree’ (Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Sochinenia
(Works), 1848 ed., vol. 2, p. 169; quoted in Vladimir Moss, Autocracy, Despotism and Democracy: Part I,
2012, p. 12).
From the divinely established duties and
hierarchies of family life come not democracies and republics resting on
mythical Lockean contracts but monarchies, i.e., patriarchal societies. Metropolitan Philaret continues, ‘ . . . from
the pure elements of family there should arise similarly pure
principles of State life, so that with veneration for one’s father veneration
for the tsar [king - W.G.] should be born and grow, and that the love of
children for their mother should be a preparation of love for the fatherland,
and the simple-hearted obedience of domestics [children - W.G.] should prepare
and direct the way to self-sacrifice and self-forgetfulness in obedience to the
laws and sacred authority of the autocrat…’ (Sochinenia
(Works), 1848 ed., vol. 2, p. 169; quoted in Moss,
p.12).
‘Again,
Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov wrote: “In blessed Russia, in accordance with the
spirit of the pious people, the Tsar and the fatherland constitute one whole,
just as in a family the parents and their children constitute one whole’ (Sobranie
Pisem (Collected Letters), Moscow, 2000, p. 781;
quoted in Moss, p.13).
Louis de
Bonald, summing up Bishop Bossuet’s views, goes into more detail of this
development of family into kingdom:
‘Mankind descended from a first family.
Families multiply themselves, are held together by descent and by
community of locale and needs, and form tribes in which an elder, under the
modest title of judge, settles differences, unites the wills, and directs the
powers. Tribes, eventually joined
together through alliances, treaties, and sometimes by conquest, become
nations. In this final stage of society,
monarchical government arises as the only government that can preserve the
tribes and that retains in this last development of the social body all the
independence of the paternal power that existed at the beginning’ (‘On
Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux’, Critics
of the Enlightenment, 2004, p. 54).
Erik von
Kuehnelt-Leddihn adds, ‘Now we have to look at political institutions from the
point of view of cultural harmony. Since
the patriarchal relationship dominates in the theological, ecclesiastic and
biological sphere, it is psychologically not easy to organize political life
along egalitarian and “numeralistic” lines.
. . . there is in our psyche the active and passive desire for
“fatherhood”’ (Liberty or Equality,
1993, pgs. 139-40). Hence, the
importance of a king to a nation.
Such
thoughts were deeply embedded in the South from her beginnings, being founded
by Royalists (king-friends) and admirers of Sir Robert Filmer’s thoughts on the
hierarchical family and patriarchy (David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed, 1989, pgs. 212, 274, 279-80). We will see the importance of recognizing the
paternal order of the family and the nation momentarily.
II. ‘What Is a Nation?’
Though
some, perhaps many, will try to deny it, the South is a distinct nation, a
separate member in the body of humanity.
Following the definition of the Slavophile Vladimir Osipov, we see that
this is undoubtedly true: ‘What is a
nation? Faith, blood, language and the
land’ (Quote from P. Walters, ‘A New Creed for Russians?’, Religion
in Communist Lands, vol. 3, no. 4, 1976; quoted in Vladimir
Moss, Twelve Lectures on the Theology of
Politics, 2009, p. 102).
Her bent
towards traditional Christianity; her origins from the people of the old West
Saxon (Wessex) English realm; her Old English speechways; and the influence of
the weather and land of the southeastern area of North America on the Southern
people - all these mark the South as a true nation.
The United
States Empire, by contrast, has been merely a mechanical assemblage of such
authentic nation-regions (the South, the Rocky Mountains, the Great Plains,
Hawai’i, Alaska, etc.) held together by force, their true cultures suppressed
by Washington, D.C. - or, rather, those who control its institutions.
. . .
The rest is
at https://identitydixie.com/2023/10/09/the-kinsman-redeemer-of-the-south-st-alfred-as-dixies-patron-saint/.
--
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