As our society progresses further into the Kali Yuga, Western governments reach out to grab more and more power over their nations. Governmental centralization has become predominant in the Modern era. The current regimes hold an unprecedented amount of dominion over the West. Yet, libertarians and conservatives seem incapable of finding a solution beyond tax reform and begging everyone to stick to the Constitution. Without power, all they’re doing is pointlessly bemoaning their losses. Political suppression, the loss of “muh freedoms and liberties!,” is no accident. Spanish statesman and philosopher Juan Donoso Cortes offers an appropriate observation:
There are only two possible forms of repression: one internal and the other external; religious repression and political repression. They are of such a nature that when the religious thermometer is high, the thermometer of political repression is low; and, when the religious thermometer low, the political thermometer—political repression—tyranny is high. That is a law of humanity, a law of history. ~ “Discourse on Dictatorship”
This principle, though basic and perhaps obvious to some, is worth evaluation. The more a nation is internally repressed through religion (specifically Christianity), the less necessary it is for the government to use violent or non-violent political power to suppress and control its people.
A look at Western history shows Cortes’ statement to be a general rule. The profligacy of the late Roman Empire resulted in the “despotic” Dominate where the emperor held a large amount of power. The collapse of the Empire and widespread acceptance of Christianity led to the fabled Age of Faith. Since the inhabitants of the European kingdoms felt bound by their religion to act and conduct themselves in a compliant way, state involvement in daily life was unnecessary. They would follow religious and secular law with little issue. In turn, the lords had little reason to physically repress their subjects. Feudalism decentralized power and spread it throughout an intricate hierarchy (not that it was always perfect, but you get the idea).
From the slow degradation of the Church and the growing call for religious reform came the Protestant “Reformation” (a proper Revolution). Absolutism became the norm as sovereigns felt it necessary to wield immense force to control their increasingly disobedient subjects. Then came the Enlightenment, the breaking of the “shackles of religion,” coupled with democratic federalization. Later, totalitarianism and the reduction of hierarchy into two classes: the rulers and the ruled. And here we are. It only took several centuries to go from feudalism to standing armies, police forces, bureaucracy, public television, welfare, etc.
Curious, isn’t it? It’s almost as if bad things start to happen when rulers stop seeing themselves as servants of the people and the people start viewing the sovereign as an oppressor to be fought rather than a legitimate ruler to be respected and obeyed. Who would’ve thought? Once you remove social cohesion, the whole system will fall apart.
As it stands, the West is on track for even greater centralization. The importation of third world populations, on top of the push for more socialistic policies, contributes to the ever-expanding power of the government. As social unity declines from incompatible groups being thrown together and the chaos caused by secularization, the state can step in in the name of order and stability. The more disorder that’s created, the greater excuse the government has for expansion. They’re able to ensure the nation’s dependence upon the state by driving religious repression to an all-time low. And if you control the people, you control the capital.
Progressivism is the next step. The elite, whether or not they know it, are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. Progressivism is essentially the new religion; the goal is to have a people who are both religiously and politically repressed. It will desensitize Westerners through inculcation of its Satanic doctrine; big business and big government will take care of you, just sit back, enjoy the ride, and don’t ask questions. Let’s turn every nation into a human farm. How disgusting.
Some might claim that racial and/or ideological homogeneity would fix the problem. If they’re even achievable, they have never prevented exploitation, rebellion, and tyranny in the past, at least not as well as religion. Eventually, someone somewhere will question the legitimacy of the sovereign or the sovereign will want to overreach for personal gain. Homogeneous religious repression, although it is no guarantee, has proven itself as the option most conducive for a peaceful and free society; it’s how Europe has seen properly multicultural empires without massive dissent or dysgenic tendencies.
Well then, it’s either one of these two: either a religious reaction will come, or it will not. If there is a religious reaction, you will soon see that as the religious thermometer rises, the political thermometer will begin to fall, naturally, spontaneously, without the slightest effort on the part of peoples, governments, or men, until the tranquil day comes when the peoples of the world are free. But if, on the contrary, and this is a serious matter; I say again, Gentlemen, that if the religious thermometer continues to fall, I know not whither we are going. I do not know, Gentlemen, and I shiver when I think of it.
The complaint that a religious restoration would be a threat to freedom is ridiculous. True freedom is having the ability to do what you ought, not whatever you want; it is not synonymous with licentiousness. If the pathetic libertarians, anarchists, et al. were actually intelligent, they’d become missionaries. There’s a reason that all the early no-government American utopias were based on some religious sect.
Some have said how any significant development must come through a change in the elite. While this is mostly true, one should not be too reductionist. A case to consider for this is the Soviet Union. There were peoples within the Union who were still under Christianity. It takes time, often generations, for the ruling regime to fully push its ideology or religion onto its subjects. When the USSR collapsed, the new regimes, who are relatively pro-Christian, were able to establish themselves alongside the faithful without much fuss, and now their future is much brighter than Western Europe. The elite may be the determining factor, but it’s much easier for the elite to rule when the people are already aligned with their ideals. If we truly believe that a Liberal collapse is imminent, then a religious restoration will not be fruitless. The new elite, friendly to religion, could take over with less effort and win the praise of their people at the same time. On top of that, it’s impossible to have a religiously oriented elite if there are no religious people to be found in the West.
Europe could really use another St. Paul.
There is only one thing that can avert the catastrophe—one and only one: we shall not avert it by granting more liberty, more guarantees and new constitutions; we shall avert it if all of us, according to our strength, do our utmost to stimulate a healthy reaction—a religious reaction. Now is this possible, Gentlemen? Yes, it is. But is it likely? I answer in deepest sorrow: I do not think it is likely. I have seen and known many men who returned to their faith after having separated themselves from it; unfortunately, I have never known any nation which returned to the Faith after having lost it. ~ Cortes