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 (+4th 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment