Latin Catholic by birth, Byzantine Catholic by the grace of God.
Pro: Restoration of the Holy and Universal Christian Roman Empire.
Caveat: The author makes no claim to being an exemplar of Catholicism or Monarchism (or blogging).
Under the patronage of St. George. Please view at 1024x768.

My Photo
Location: Upstate, New York, United States

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

No king, no immigrants

With all the leftist Catholic piffle ruffling about that immigration restrictions were unknown during The Catholic Era (which isn't entirely true), it behooves us to remember the main difference between then and now:

  • The Catholic Era was run by monarchs, we live in democratic regimes.

Thus, the subjects used to be guaranteed leadership that spoke not only the indigenous languages but also Latin; had to be Catholic else they would lose claim to the throne; was bred for hundreds of years for the job of kingship; and could make just about any decision they wanted without bowing to public pressure.

So a king can effectively rule over different tribes on the same plot of land, and said barbarians for the most part realize that they are under the thumb of the king. But in a democracy, the more tribes there are, and the less any one of them dominates, the more factionalism there will be for government loot and cultural dominance. Neighbor will be against neighbor and discord will spread throughout the land.

Read your Aristotle, people!

Since we know that Democracy and Socialism are Blood Brothers - where goes one goes the other - economic libertarianism will never triumph for long in a democratic state. Thus there will always be state largesse to be handed out to favored parties, and the greater the spread of citizen demographics, the greater the conflict.

Imagine a state where the two principle exports are copper and iron. Both are failing to due outside competition. The government decides it has the money to subsidize one of these. Immediately, copper workers and iron workers become hostile parties. Now imagine that there are two national languages in this example nation ... say Tagalog and Finnish. The government already has limited funds, do they print official documents and teach school in one language or the other, or both? Of course, our nation here has two religions ... Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. The Hindus don't like the smell of burning cow from the Zoroastrian's barbecues, and the Zoroastrians don't like the smell of buring live widows from the Hindu funeral processions.

And as you'd expect, the feminists have made inroads here.

So now we have two competing industries, times two competing language groups times two competing religions, times two competing sexes. Now the body politic is factionalized into no less than
sixteen groups that bear varying levels of hostility towards eachother.

In a democracy, you can't keep this bottled up. Democracy in fact promotes this kind of frothing greed and jostling for power. Even if the law says one thing (I.E.: no widow immolation, or voting ballots in Finnish), a faction can still fight to get it's attorney general elected, whereby the law will not be enforced, or get judges appointed to quash the law by fiat - which only angers and emboldens the competition further.

So if good liberal Catholics want to support a heterogeneous democratic society, they have to expect the nonsense that comes with it: beer barrell smashing, race riots, red paint thrown at fast food patrons, church bombings, bra burnings, cross burnings, and other forms of belligerence towards one's fellow man that haven't been dreamed up yet.


Anonymous Mark Amesse said...

Great post, I just sent the link to my two yahoo groups.

Friday, May 05, 2006 12:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home