Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Yesterday's Post
I've been thinking about the situation with illegal aliens in this nation and my post yesterday. Perhaps I've been approaching this from the wrong perspective. Do I think that the presence of illegal aliens who refuse to assimilate to the American way of life fragment and divide our culture and society? Yes, I do. Most of the illegal aliens here are Hispanics, which I have said before means that most are Catholic. Perhaps the presence and refusal of Catholic illegal aliens here in this nation will change our nation for the better. Will the Hispanic illegal aliens convert our nation to the true faith? Perhaps so. So instead of saying as I did before "Deport them all" I should be saying "Welcome to America."

Monday, May 01, 2006

"A Day Without Immigrants"...If Only



Today was the “big day” of illegal alien protests, with the intention of shutting down the American economy. Did it work? No, it did not. To be sure, some areas of the country and some specific industries were affected (i.e. southern California and the produce industry), but by and large it looks as if most Americans experienced life as usual today. What does a monarchist (or specifically this monarchist) think of the illegal alien problem this country now faces?

First of all, it would be my wish for the majority of the world (at least the West) to adopt an immigration and economic policy similar to that which existed in Europe before the First World War. During this time, people and goods could travel from one end of the European continent to the other (ending at the start of the Ottoman Empire) without much governmental restrictions. As long as a man had the money and language skills necessary, he could travel from, say England to Germany, without as much as a passport. This would be great for Americans who are tired of living in this country and would make it possible for them to emigrate to better nations (let’s just pretend for the sake of argument that Europe wasn’t full of welfare-states just like ours and the move to Europe would increase the standard of living rather than be the same or worse). As good as the immigration policies of the 19th century were, there are certain societal and political realities existent now that were not then (i.e. terrorism, welfare-statism, etc.). So now that we are in the 21st century, how should we deal with the immigration problem in America?

First and foremost, a government must have borders, and thus it must have immigration policies. The current immigration laws in America are such that a man can enter and stay in the U.S. only with the permission of the government. If such a man overstays his welcome (visa) or comes here without permission, he is here illegally. We could argue about the morality of such laws, but to do so would be to ignore the present problem. We have millions of illegal (I stress once more, ILLEGAL) aliens in this nation. They are a drain on the American taxpayer (immigrants, legal or otherwise, are more likely to receive government support in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc.), and are likely not to learn the English language or adopt the American culture. This creates a second culture within the nation, further fragmenting our already fragmented and divided culture. The presence of these millions of illegal aliens drives down our wages (illegal aliens are more willing to work for less than citizens are). It seems to me that illegal aliens create more problems than they benefit this nation.

Now let me return to the morality of America’s immigration laws (even though I appeared to disregard it above). The U.S. bishops with Roger Cardinal Mahoney at the forefront (as Cardinal-Archbishop of Los Angeles) fully support the illegal immigrants (perhaps even amnesty). This would tend to make one think that America’s immigration laws are immoral and unjust, requiring Catholics (and all men of conscience) to oppose these unjust and immoral laws. But let us take a step backwards and look at the motives of the bishops. The leadership (political as well as spiritual) of America’s Catholic bishops is abysmal. Rarely do these supposed shepherds shepherd their flocks along the paths to Heaven. Most are unwilling to stand up for the truth against powerful interest groups and lobbies (i.e. homosexuals, feminists, the Democratic Party), and thus most bishops have little if not no credibility (but I must add that we Catholics are still bound to obey them to a certain extent in spiritual and moral matters, as long as they teach the Truth as revealed by the Magisterium). It is my belief that the U.S. bishops are behind the illegal immigrants because they are thinking of one thing and one thing only—money. The vast majority of illegal aliens present in this nation are Hispanic. Hispanic = Catholic = more people in the pews = more money. Therefore illegal aliens = money. As sad as this is, I believe that this is the underlying motive behind the U.S. bishops’ support and solidarity with the illegal aliens.

So exactly what do I propose in this situation? My gut tells me to deport all of the illegal aliens present (or at least as many as possible) and then positively and certainly secure our borders. My head tells me that our nation is shot politically, culturally, socially, and morally as it is and our present immigration problem has little relevance. America is doomed to fail, so perhaps the illegal aliens will only help speed up the process. Maybe I should be grateful to them.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Elizabeth II
Elizabeth II, Queen of England, recently (April 21) celebrated her 80th birthday. I thought it might be appropriate to write about her today.

I must admit that I have mixed feelings about the English royal family. As a monarchist, I have natural feelings of respect and admiration for Elizabeth. As an American, I think that we should never have rebelled against Britain, and would rather have Elizabeth as our queen than George (W. Bush that is) as our president. On the other hand, I am a Catholic, and the English royal line has had a very bad history since Henry VIII created heresy and schism by divorcing his wife (Catherine of Aragon), breaking from the Holy Catholic Church, ignoring the supremacy of the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, and declaring himself the supreme head of the Church of England. Even today it is illegal for the monarch to convert to Catholicism (I commend the Prince of Wales for his support of a bill that would have repealed this antiquated and unjust law in Britain, and I condemn the House of Lords for voting it down).

I also have ill feelings towards the English royal line and English society as a whole for historical reasons (even though I have English blood, among others, running through my veins). English society itself has a certain latent anti-Catholicism, most apparent in its view of history. The English have traditionally revered Elizabeth I and abhorred Mary I. They portray Mary as vicious, bloody, and murderous for her treatment of Protestants during her reign while she attempted to restore Catholicism to her nation, but say little if nothing of the terrible acts of both Mary’s father and half-sister (Henry VIII and Elizabeth I). Thousands of Catholics were persecuted and murdered during their reigns (many being innocent priests, monks, and nuns who had the “audacity” to remain Catholic after the king made it illegal), Church property was confiscated and used for purposes of the state, and those Catholics who weren’t killed had to worship in hiding and secret. But the British don’t like to talk about the crimes of Henry and Elizabeth, just about the crimes of Mary.

There is also the fact that Britain waged war against Germany, my fatherland by adoption. I have written earlier about Kaiser Wilhelm II not being the monster many make him out to be (a common attitude even today in Britain), yet it was the British kings Edward VII and George V who worked against the efforts of the Kaiser at maintaining peace. Germany may have started the war, but this was at a time when the Kaiser had lost control of his ministers and generals, but I digress.

I have often tried to imagine myself living in Britain (I must admit, I have a rather schizophrenic relationship with the British, sometimes loathing them, sometimes loving them). It would be glorious to have Elizabeth II as my queen, a woman I could look up to who embodied everything that is British society and culture. It would grieve me so, however, to know the fact that she is my queen yet degraded to the office of official puppet, for that is what she is, a puppet of parliament. It would also hurt to know that she is hated by many of her subjects. She should be the one who makes and executes the laws in Britain, not a bunch of bureaucrats in the House of Commons. Let her take her rightful place in British society and government. Let her be adored by her subjects.
As I said, I have mixed feelings about the English royal line, and British society as a whole. But I find myself coming to no other conclusion than this: better to be ruled by a Protestant queen than by some bureaucrat from Texas. God Save the Queen!!

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Easter Sunday


"Surrexit: non est hic..." (St. Mark, 16:6).

Friday, April 14, 2006

Good Friday

"Greater love than this no man hath..." (John 15:13).

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Patriotism

The subject of patriotism has been on my mind lately. America seems to be the land of patriots and patriotism. Popular slogans such as “God bless America,” “united we stand,” “support our troops,” and “in God we trust” can be seen on bumper stickers all across the nation. What should be made of all this?

Firstly, let me say that I am not against patriotism in principle, provided that patriotism is well deserved. It can be a very good thing to be proud of one’s nation. I myself used to be a very patriotic man. It was only when I became a monarchist that my patriotism began to wane. But should American monarchists be patriotic? Should Catholics (indeed all Christians) be patriotic about America?

America was founded by men who rejected the notion of monarchy, who were practicing Freemasons and Deists. They spoke much about an ambiguous “Creator” in words which could be applied to almost any supernatural creator, real or otherwise. Some were fairly hostile towards organized religion (e.g. Jefferson, Franklin). It seems to me that an invention of men of this caliber is not one that should be esteemed and honored to a quasi-religious level. I often hear so-called “conservatives” such as Sean Hannity make statements like “America is the greatest nation God has given to man.” An odd statement when one considers the fact that Hannity is a Catholic. Can an institution founded by men (Freemasons and un-churched men at that) be divinely ordained? I think not.

Much is made of the fact that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, to borrow a line from our national anthem. Are Americans truly free? It seems to me that we are a nation of slaves, slaves to sin. Pornography is everywhere, divorce is more commonplace than permanent marriages, homosexual lifestyles are accepted and celebrated to the point that heterosexual lifestyles are considered abnormal, sex has become an act of pure pleasure and completely removed from the bonds of marriage and its procreative purpose is nearly entirely forgotten. An of course we must not forget the tragedy of abortion, the willful and malicious murder of an innocent human person. Are the thousands of murdered unborn children free? If they could answer, they would do so with a resounding “NO!!!”

Abortion is the worst crime ever known to man, an even greater crime than the holocaust. The victims of the holocaust had to ability to fight back. Unborn children cannot; unborn children cannot even cry out in pain as they are being murdered. Crying is a form of fighting, a form of defiance. The Jews in the holocaust could do this, but unborn children cannot.

Any nation that allows the murder of the most innocent of its victims is unworthy of patriotism, of respect, of honor. The American flag used to be beautiful to me. Now it means little to me, save as a reminder of what this nation has become. The red stripes represent not the blood of the men who died defending this nation, but of our children who we have murdered. God bless American indeed. I cannot see any reason why God should bless America. I do however see many reasons why God should curse America. Monarchist or not, every God fearing man should not waste his time honoring a nation so drenched in the blood of its own children.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

The State of Democracy


I have felt leery at voicing some of my opinions publicly in the past, but recent events have allowed me greater freedom. I have recently been honorably discharged from military service. Although never told to keep my opinions to myself, and without any knowledge of any formal rule against expressing such views, I feel more at ease now at expressing my views about the U.S. government.

The War in Iraq—
When the U.S. invaded Iraq, I wholeheartedly (and perhaps even enthusiastically) supported the invasion. This was before I in enlisted in the military, but I did have the intention of enlisting. I thought that the words of caution—to put it mildly—of the late John Paul II were misguided, perhaps caused by his old age and Parkinson’s disease. To put it bluntly, I summarily disregarded the Holy Father’s opposition to the war.

As time passed, and no weapons of mass destruction turned up and the reasons President Bush gave for the war and continued military presence changed, I began to have doubts about the war. At first I thought that Bush simply acted on faulty intelligence, but considered the world a better place at having one less tyrant. Now I’m not sure why we invaded Iraq. Was it faulty intelligence, was it for oil, or even perhaps a personal vendetta against the man who tried to kill the President’s father when he was president? I have no idea. Do you?

What scares me is the current justification for the war by the Bush administration and Republican supporters of the war: spreading freedom and democracy around the world. First of all, were the 40 million babies murdered through abortion since Roe v. Wade free? What about their freedom? Is democracy the cure for all of mankind’s ills? Rather, I believe that democracy is the cause of many of mankind’s ills. It scares me to think that, as the strongest and most powerful nation on earth, America sees its divine destiny to spread the lies and evils of American “freedom” and democracy around the world. What is the answer to the “red white and blue tide”?

The Answer—
I believe that the answer to the evils that have been brought as the results of “freedom” and democracy is a powerful and strong monarchy to rival the power and influence of the democratic governments of the world. How can such a monarchy be born in the 21st century? One possibility is to take an existing monarchy and greatly increase its power, strength, and influence. The problem with that is there aren’t any currently reigning monarchies where this is feasible. The world’s current monarchs either don’t have enough power and popular support, or they simply don’t rule over large enough nations. Another possibility is to bring back an exiled monarchy. The problem with this option is that there aren’t any exiled monarchies with enough popular support to warrant a return. Another option is revolution. The problem with this option is that revolutions are almost always bloody, and nowhere does there exist enough popular support to found a new monarchy. Do you see a pattern here? (Hint: popular support). The problem is that nowhere in the world is there enough popular support to warrant a powerful and strong monarchy to exist (by powerful I mean on the international level, not powerful in the case of monarchical powers wielded by the monarch, as is the case in kingdom of Tonga).

The only solution I can think of is for monarchists around the world to join their efforts to either change the hearts and minds of others (how long have pro-lifers been trying to change the hearts and minds of pro-abortionists?), or to join together and found a new nation with a strong monarch. The former does not seem likely to work well, and the latter seems too idealistic. Where does this leave us monarchists? Feeling rather depressed. Do you have any ideas? If you do, please e-mail me and let me know (click on “View my complete profile” at the right and then on “e-mail” under “Contact”).

Wednesday, January 25, 2006


Kaiser Wilhelm II


January 27, 1859—the birthday of His Imperial and Royal Majesty Wilhelm II, King of Prussia and German Emperor. The Kaiser is perhaps one of my most revered historical figures. A Protestant monarch responsible for the First World War? How can a staunch Catholic revere this monster? Allow me to explain.

Yes, the Kaiser was a Protestant—a Lutheran to be exact—but I look past that. To me, he embodies everything that is proud and noble about the German culture—at least the way German culture used to be. He may have been a Protestant, but was a much greater friend to Catholics than Otto von Bismarck (who often receives a much more generous interpretation in historical circles). Wilhelm scaled back the anti-Catholic measures enacted by Bismarck, met with the pope several times, and even had a secret respect and admiration for the Church (due to its pomp and regal ceremonies). But what about the war, the Great War?

Contrary to popular belief, the Kaiser was not the war-monger he has been portrayed. There is a saying—where it originated I have no idea—that history is written by the victors. This is largely true. Germany lost the war and Britain and America won (for the English speaking world). So it is only natural that the British and Americans would portray the defeated Germans in a poor light. What happened may only be natural, but is unfaithful to historical fact. Germany may have started the war—but all of Europe knew for decades before that the continent was on the brink of war, and considered war inevitable. The only question was where and when the war would take place. The Kaiser may have been a blow-hard, speaking without thinking, but when it came down to it he always chose peace in the end. Members of his General Staff knew this, and saw him as a stumbling block to German strength in a situation where the Empire was being choked to death by her enemies. When the Kaiser tried to keep the balance of power in Europe and work with his royal cousins, it was often King George in England and Czar Nicholas in Russia that defeated his efforts at keeping the peace.

Had Germany won the war, history would look more kindly upon him. I challenge you the visitor to my blog to do some research on Wilhelm (see especially The Last Kaiser by Giles MacDonogh and Europe’s Last Summer by David Fromkin). You may just learn something. R.I.P Wilhelm II, König von Preußen und Deutscher Kaiser.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

John Paul II

Recently I watched the second part of CBS’ miniseries Pope John Paul II. I had watched the first installment in December when it first aired, but it wasn’t until just last week that I watched the second installment, which I had taped. I was not prepared for the effect it had upon me. I am not an emotional man, and seldom display sorrow, even more seldom cry. But watching this reverent and respectful rendition of our late Pontiff made me weep (thankfully I watched it alone, so no one had to see me).

I wasn’t so much moved by the tv show, but more moved by the show to realize how deep the hurt of his death still was to me. At 24, he was the only pope I had ever known. He had his faults, I disagreed with his administration in his latter days, but he was a good man and a good pope. I miss him deeply. Requiescat in Pace, Ioannes Paulus II.