Ink & Paper

There’s a certain tendency on the Right to plan out how our societies should (or will) be structured after collapse of the current order and the end of Liberalism. It’s very easy to LARP about how such-and-such a regime will take over and rule and how this or that law will be revised, retracted, or added; these people will have these rights, those people will have those rights, and anyone else can can get lost. We have this idea that we must design the countries of the future beforehand to avoid our current problems and weaknesses. “It’s simple, just write ‘No darkies, no Muzzies, and no Jews’ into the constitution.” But isn’t this exactly how founders formed many of our current Liberal countries?

The premeditated and artificial construction of systems and nations does not work. One only needs to look at the recent history of the West to understand this. The American and French Revolutionaries, for example, tried to formulate and institute their own documents that determined how the nation would be ruled. They tried to give freedoms and rights to classes that had never before held such standards as a way to liberate the people. France descended into a period of chaos before Liberalism clawed its way to the top of a pile of corpses, and America united what was roughly thirteen budding nations into one abomination with all subjugated to the liberals and progressives in New England, leading to where it is today. Both Liberal Republics are still standing but their futures look dark. Why did they fail? Surely such enlightened minds should have drafted the best constitutions that would result in eternal peace and prosperity, right? Yet, they won’t last for nearly as long as the monarchies of old. Joseph de Maistre offers the answer:

No constitution is the result of deliberation. The rights of the people are never written, or at any rate, constitutive acts or fundamental written laws are never more than declaratory statements of anterior rights about which nothing can be said except that they exist because they exist… The rights of the people, properly so called, often enough proceed from the concessions of sovereigns and in this case can be verified historically… ~ Considerations on France

Legislators sitting in their own little bubble writing up the perfect laws are silly idealists with no understanding of history. You cannot create governments, constitutions, rights, and so on ex nihilo. The source of such things is not to be found in human minds brainstorming the ideal society where everyone can be happy and live together in harmony. Nothing happens in a vacuum. History, blood, and faith build nations, not philosophizing “legislators.” Different tribes will (obviously) have different forms of governing. It is no accident that England has historically been a decentralized kingdom whereas China has had authoritarian despots for much of its long history. Liberalism, with its grand universalism, foolishly replaces the ethnos with “Man,” disregarding one of the largest sources of identity. Maistre wisely said “If [Man] exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.”

What Maistre calls “anterior rights” are the true governing principles of nations. Extra freedoms of commoners only arise from their legitimate sovereign granting them said freedoms as a sacrifice for whatever reason. Even England, which has always had a habit of writing down so many laws, is no exception to Maistre’s observation. The Magna Carta, for instance, would not have been codified if the aristocracy had not felt that some unwritten law, to which everyone was already subject to, was violated by King John.

Any fundamental law, right, or belief that’s written down is already accepted before being explicitly expressed (for the purposes of elucidation). They come from past ages, handed down from one generation to the next. This is true for every institution, not just monarchies — the Church is the most obvious example. The Evangelists wrote the Gospels because false stories about Christ were spreading. St. Paul sent his epistles to churches in need of instruction about finer points of Christian belief. The Councils were held to clarify what the Church teaches by defining heresies. In each case, nothing new was created. All served to put what was always believed into writing, and even then they did not go beyond what was necessary (Maistre claims that the more that’s written, the weaker the institution becomes). Belief founded on writing is present in backward systems, like Mohammedanism and Protestantism. Christ, who did not write His laws, told his Apostles to go out and preach, not to write books.

The Faith would be a thousand times more angelic if a sophistical opposition had not forced her to write. She weeps over these decisions which rebellion extorted from her and which always were evils, since they all suppose disbelief or attack and could only arise in the midst of the most dangerous disturbances. A state of war raised these venerable ramparts around the truth. No doubt they protect her, but they conceal her, too. They have made her unassailable, but by that very act, less accessible. Ah! That is not her desire. She wants only to hold all humanity in her embrace. ~ Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions

Of course, all of this was true before the advent of Liberalism. Like other heresies before it, Liberalism uses written law as a way to enforce belief, an inversion of its true purpose. Liberal governments fight their own populace in order to impose their rule, despite the façade of democracy. The French legislators didn’t care if the people believed in egalitarianism, they put it in all the same. Nowadays, it doesn’t matter if the average Texan doesn’t believe that gay “marriage” is valid, the progressives in Massachusetts will make sure that D.C. bashes them over their heads with “laws” until they do. Cuckservatives are absolutely pathetic in how they say that we just need to follow “muh piece of paper!” Strict adherence to the Constitution is just as ridiculous as the Talmudic opposition saying “there’s no law against it so it must be okay.” Not all beliefs and truths are or can be written, nor should they be, and written laws will always have exceptions. The Founding Fathers did not say “all of this only applies to those of European descent” even though that’s basically what they believed; it was unnecessary at the time to add such a crass remark.

From all this, we see why America was doomed from the start. Nations and their laws develop organically. They are not “founded,” and if they are it is certainly not through declarations and constructed constitutions. Large and sudden paradigm shifts are not initiated by scheming legislators, but by world actors who storm the stage unexpectedly and topple the standing order. We have seen this repeatedly in history through men like Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, etc. The best we can do is facilitate this process by spreading healthy ideas that the next order can use as foundational beliefs, in other words, to uncover the true rights of each nation which have been obscured by our legislators. Voting for change will not work.

Lastly, I’d like to briefly go back to these “anterior rights.” Maistre continues:

[T]he rights of the monarch and the aristocracy, at least their essential rights, those which we may call constitutive and basic, have neither date nor author. ~ Considerations

Where do legitimate rulers receive their authority from? Who gives them their special privileges? The answer is God. God rules the universe through Natural and Divine Law. Why would it be any different in this case? It is God who grants each nation its unwritten constitution. Providence separates and guides them so that they follow their intended path. Occasionally a Moses or a Lycurgus is sent to put the people back on track. But, as long as the people obey the innate laws of their nation, they obey God. We mustn’t raise our fists to the sky and shout “Why have you cursed us with these rulers?” Modernity is the result of disobedience. A restoration will come; only God can draw good from evil. Remember: Modernism will not be punished, it is the punishment.

Testis Gratus

Catholic, reactionary, traditionalist — "Ego vox clamantis in deserto: dirigite viam Domini"

9 thoughts on “Ink & Paper

  1. A excellent argument against the “American system” but I was curious about one point. What is it about Protestantism, specifically, that you take issue with as you called it a, “-backwards system-“. Just curious.

    1. Haha, I’m Catholic so (of course) I disdain Protestantism. What I mean in the case of this article is sola scriptura and other similar notions. Many Protestants hold the Bible above everything else, which is ridiculous. I do not doubt the inerrancy and importance of Scripture, but it is ultimately a product of the Church (inspired by God) and not vice versa. This is a historical fact as it took the Church quite a while to formalize the current collection of books. Scripture and Tradition are intimately tied; if you reject Apostolic Tradition, then how is the Bible, which is a result of said Tradition, authoritative at all? Their belief is based on writing, yet Christ did not hand His Apostles a list of teachings, He taught them orally and commanded them to go and preach. Unwritten Law precedes its written form, and not everything is or needs to be written down.

      1. Great points in this article. On your comment, it seems to me (as an American millenial raised as a protestant) that protestantism has an inherently rebellious anger in its spirit, dare I say a luciferian quality, which should seem obvious (it’s in the name!) yet most protestants certainly wouldn’t view themselves this way. I believe Catholicism was already in decay which gave birth to this movement in the first place, but growing up in a church dedicated to reifying the decay I have a special frustration with protestants. The emotional motivation behind sola scriptura seems a fear of real God-given authority (lack of faith). I think this stems from a resentful unwillingness to kneel before one’s betters, which then gave birth to the enlightenment and all-consuming egalitarianism, whose privileging of mediocrity rapidly led to a privileging of evil. The most charitable view I can conceive is that they attempt to peg the faith to a single widely-read book to avoid the possibility of corruption, control, and degeneration, yet of course they wound up accelerating these forces in the process and continue to do so. That quote about written law obscuring Faith struck me, as sola scriptura necessitates a far shallower connection to the faith and access to only a tiny slice of the truth which has in turn resulted in distortion, fragmentation, and distintegration. It’s inevitable that all human institutions will face corruption including the Catholic church but this only necessitates a deeper personal and collective resistance to sin. It is a childish and dishonest position to reject hierarchy and authority outright and then claim sin is no real barrier to the divine, which is what protestants attempt to do within all of their doctrines and practices. Of course reality asserts itself anyway and protestants wind up placing their trust in far more base, worldly, simple minded and evil leaders to show them how to be Christians.

        1. Spot on.

          I believe that it was ultimately a result of the rise of nominalism (which is not a new theory or observation, but it appears to be true). The Church was already in decay due to the allowance of nominalist scholastics (on top of general corruption) who presented a great challenge to Church doctrine, the Great Chain of Being, and hierarchy in general since they rejected the existence of universals. They claim only individuals exist, which leads to either barbarism or egalitarianism; we got the latter. Nominalism was, after all, called the via moderna (modern way) as opposed to Realism, the via antiqua (ancient way).

          It’s interesting to compare Protestantism and Mohammedanism as both are based almost entirely on just a holy book. Mohammedanism, after an initial period of intense savagery, settled down somewhat and allowed for developments in philosophy, theology, and the other sciences. Yet, it soon degenerated back into violence and destruction. Protestantism was initially about defiance and “reclamation,” and then its nations led the world through trade before the Revolutions, from which it spawned Leftism. Their attempt at the simplification of faith failed because they removed all except what they deemed essential. If you cut off all the branches of a tree to better see the trunk, all you’ve really done is ensured its death. There’s something about rigid adherence to written law, or perhaps simply “low church” mentality, that brings out the worst in people. For Arabs it’s Wahhabism, for us it’s Liberalism and Progressivism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s