Comments on: Kurds Behaving Badly–Again

By: sexual blond girl

sexual blond girl — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:14:47 +0000

sexual blond girl...

Thanks. I gave a link of this letter in my blog....

By: Nicholas G.P. MOSES

Nicholas G.P. MOSES — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:18:32 +0000

Perhaps I am mixing up my religious sensibilities with my political ones, alas. The reason I only mentioned Cromwell and William was because they were the only ones relevant: I wanted to express disdain at the idea of taking the Glorious Revolution as a wholesome precedent, and perhaps that disdain is colored by my utter disgust for the Protestant Ascendancy, but so be it.

As for the rest, evil men we will always have with us, but how disgraceful is it to reminisce about an order that, while it was often working far out of step with Christianity, owed its deep roots to the faith and not to an intellectual movement dedicated to its wholesale atrophy? The ancien régime, like our present rulers, broke many laws of God, but only rarely did they deny that Divine Law actually existed and try to create a society built upon natural lawlessness.

By: Mark Depré

Mark Depré — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:27:23 +0000

Mr Moses,

What's wrong with "regicide" ?????

I live in the "kingdom Belgium" and I hope and pray to see that glorious day when a Flemisch Cromwell
(or Jehu) will send "our" smirking and mediocre king (who is a puppet on a string in the hands of the quasi-socialist regime here)
to hell like just like Ollie did with the rotten Stuart (the house of Achab) aka the house of Coburg).

You complain about the gruesome murderer king Billy ?

Well...why do you mention only William III ? Almost all english kings were gruesome murderers : John without Land, Edward III (and his bloody sons), Edward IV,Henry V, Henry VI, VII, VIII,Richard III, the Stuarts (especially the beast Charles II who was the most rotten thug-untill Tony Blair-England has ever known) ....they were all murderers, thieves and adulters (even the best of them) just like most of the Bourbons, Habsburgers and many popes.

I hate socialism as much as you (and the good people of Chronicles) do but your nostaligia for monarchs and the "ancient regime"
is a disgrace :you can reject socialism, cultural marxism, egalitarian mass democracy and feminazism without longing for the return of the rule of kings and popes. You can hate todays tyrants without longing for the return of yesterdays tyrants.

By: TJF

TJF — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:58:53 +0000

One final note before saying good by. Common folks have almost never run or controlled a government. Even in the apparently exceptional cases, a few people have vastly disproportionate power. The American Revolution and early republic were managed by the gentry and the middle classes, and the same can be said of the Tuscan and early Greek city-states. On the other hand, no enduring monarchy has ever been a simple despotism, and it can hardly be argued that Medieval kings had anything like the power over their subjects that the American government had in 1945, to say nothing of today. The abuses of England's King John that led to the Magna Charta are taken for granted in the government of George Bush. All this is a roundabout way of restating Mosca's thesis that in practice there is only one form of government and that is oligarchy. The terrible problem with all quasi-democracies of modern times is the assumption that since power ultimately rests with the people or at least a majority, any safe-guards agains the tyranny of the majority (or in our case of that roughly 25% who vote for the winning candidate) are viewed as authoritarian obstacles to the popular will. At the King John's barons knew who their enemy was. We, alas, are trapped by our democratic rhetoric into thinking that we the people really run the government and thus must be obeyed. Is this the real meaning of Walt Kelly's Pogo's famous declaration that we have met the enemy and they is us?

By: Nicholas G.P. MOSES

Nicholas G.P. MOSES — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:15:05 +0000

A belated thanks to Dr. Fleming for starting this thread, and thereby a meaningful and sober discussion on the delicate issues of secession and legitimacy.

Ultimately, from a Southerner's point of view, my heritage is European; my family arrived here in the twentieth century and I have no roots in antebellum America, north or south. And the truest defenders of civilization in Europe have almost uniformly been monarchists and not republicans. I suppose this colors my point of view, and will ever continue to do so.

As for the Stuarts, Cromwell was a regicide and his spiritual descendant King Billy was a gruesome murderer.

By: robert reavis

robert reavis — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:09:35 +0000

"But as Lewis put it, ordinary folks are less likely to get up to mischief than one man with power." This seems true Dr. Wilson and I admire you for asserting it. Once upon a time catholics mistook the notion of infallibility in Christian matters of faith and morals for the Montanist notion of impeccability. But all that is in the past. As Federick Wilhelmson noticed four decades ago, "nowadays the Popes might as well throw their encyclicals in the Tiber river as to think Americans will pay any attention." Once filitered through the minds of our current catholic commentators -- Wiegel, Neuhaus , Buckley,Hitchcock, and co., they look more like republican party briefs than Christian critiques and hope for fallen man. Thank God for backward folks who don't read these learned men or believe everything they hear. rr

By: Clyde Wilson

Clyde Wilson — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:15:18 +0000

Neither the voice of the prince nor the voice of the people is the voice of God. Either can become the voice of the Devil. But as Lewis put it, ordinary folks are less likely to get up to mischief than one man with power. That was the whole point and teaching of republicanism---Roman and American

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:42:08 +0000

This has indeed been an interesting discussion. For what little it may be worth I have to agree with Dr. Wilson that the Founders - and particularly in the South - admired republican Rome, and not the principate. They alluded to that paragon of republican virtue, Cincinnatus, in the naming of the Society of the Cincinnati, to which two of my Virginian ancestors, captains in the Continental Line, belonged. Patrick Henry, in his famous "treason" speech, observed that "Cæsar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George III" (at this point being interrupted by cries of "treason!") went on, "...may profit by their example." Brutus was not understood here as Dante and Shakespeare portrayed him, as regicide and traitor, but rather as a defender of republican institutions. I recall, but cannot put my finger on, some passage of oratory from this period which compared George III to Tarquinius Superbus, which would of course cast the American revolutionaries in the role of those who, under the leadership of an earlier Brutus, overthrew the Roman monarchy and instituted the republic. In referring to economic growth, I did not mean to suggest it was "much of a criterion for a civilization," but rather that Rome's foreign conquests owed at least in part to its thirst for wealth, and that conquest was the principal means they had to get it. Yes, many of her early territorial acquisitions came about because of the need to defend her borders. But how about the Roman invasions of Spain or Britain, which were not contiguous with the Roman homeland in the Italian peninsula and which posed no direct threat? The desire for wealth - whether as land, as slaves taken from the conquered populations, or as treasure - was insatiable in the home territories. "Panem" paid for with foreign gold, silver, or precious objects, and "circenses" featuring elephants, apes, lions, and peacocks brought from exotic places were needed to placate the vulgar mob, after the conquerors took their cuts. Wealth through conquest, and subsequently through agricultural development, were Rome's engines of economic growth. Her manufactures never surpassed the artisanal, although some were conducted on a large scale. Two reasons may be identified. First, Roman science was not well-enough developed to support technical industry; it consisted of philosophical speculation along Greek lines, as in Lucretius's De rerum natura, coupled with a jumbled empiricism, as exemplified by Pliny the Elder. Second, while the Romans were good architects and engineers, they held the mechanical arts in low esteem. Even if the science had been present to support technical industry, it is hard to envision the type of inventor-entrepreneur so characteristic of the 'industrial revolution' (e.g. James Watt, Sir Joseph Whitworth, Lammot du Pont, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, or Thomas Edison) arising in ancient Rome, much less achieving great wealth, high social status, or popular acclaim. Romanitas is an important part of western civilisation and we would be the poorer without it. Still, it is worth remembering that had it not been for Christianity, there would be no question of public policy about abortion - we would still be abandoning unwanted infants on hillsides, to die of exposure or as the prey of the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Our popular entertainments would not be vulgar movies and television simulating acts of violence and sexual perversity. They would be real killings in the arena, with every disgusting refinement of sadism. Some things were changed for the better by the fall of Rome.

By: robert m. peters

robert m. peters — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:39:05 +0000

I too am probably best suited for fighting on the western marches. The frontier of the western march has become right here where I live. It is estimated, if current trends continue, that thirty-five percent of Louisiana west of the Red River will be speaking Spanish by 2010. My farm is right on the eastern side of the river. My father said that the armadillos did not come into Louisiana until Huey Long built a bridge across the Sabine River. He often recalled in a story the first one he saw. Thus, the bridges seem to be the key as a new and less benign horde of aliens amass on the Red. We have pretty much written Texas off.

P.S. Dr. Fleming. I would love a bibliography of late antiquity and promise to set about reading as much as I can once I get it. I have acquired basic knowledge from Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus to Flavius Romulus Augustus over the years. Your input into my yawning Bildungslücke is looked forward to with appreciation. I also agree, needing some scapegoat for my ignorance, that the Internet has perhaps caused us to miss a nexus or two in our thinking.

By: robert reavis

robert reavis — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:09:19 +0000

Colonel Wilson, Sir , received your message:" I must go and take my place in the last stand here on the western marches." God's speed, Sir. Our left flank is weakened, our right flank can not hold, our center is broken and in full retreat. A remnant will join you in the marches at first light tomorrow, or in the enduring light of God's eternal glory ---whichever comes first. Yours etc., Captain Pain in The Rear