Pope Francis and Socialism

On Friday, May 9, 2014 in Vatican City, during a meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other UN leaders Pope Francis called for a worldwide effort by government to redistribute wealth to help the poor in a new spirit of “generosity”. This should not be too difficult for governments to do as it is always easy to be generous with the wealth of others and that is all governments have to work with. They generate no wealth on their own and so can only sustain themselves by confiscating the wealth created by others, which is what we call taxation. It is rather perplexing in that regard since very few people feel “generous” on tax day. Generosity, in my obviously out-dated mode of thinking, is the voluntary giving out of a spirit of charity which is rather the exact opposite of governments using the coercion of force to take wealth from one group to give it to another group which is deemed more worthy. This, of course, has led to the word “socialism” being tossed around and it is not the first time Pope Francis has been accused of promoting Marxist/socialistic values in the name, as always, of helping the poor. It immediately called to my mind something else a famous figure once said.

This man spoke of those who “proclaim the absolute equality of all men in rights and duties” and that these are also invariably enemies of the family, of the bond of husband and wife and who are themselves full of greed. He said, “they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life”. They spread these ideas vigorously in various ways this man said and he even added, “Wherefore, the revered majesty and power of kings has won such fierce hatred from their seditious people that disloyal traitors, impatient of all restraint, have more than once within a short period raised their arms in impious attempt against the lives of their own sovereigns.” This came from a man Pope Francis will no doubt be aware of. These words were from none other than Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical “Quod Apostolici Muneris” of December 28, 1878.

I would recommend any to read this encyclical, not excluding Pope Francis himself, as it may prove enlightening. It is known as the encyclical against socialism and rightly points out that these advocates of egalitarianism (which Pope Leo at least did not consider a beneficial thing) cloak their maliciousness behind the guise of a charitable impulse to help the poor and he could also see, even in 1878, that these were the enemies of the traditional family unit as well as the obvious truth, then as now, that they were also the enemy of the legitimate monarchs of the world. Pope Leo XIII also listed the past Roman Pontiffs who had condemned these same miscreants, or their ideological forefathers, and their reprehensible ideology which is so ruinous to mankind. Nor would he be the last. Faced with appalling examples of socialism in action in places from Mexico to Spain to Russia, Pope Pius XI similarly condemned it on numerous occasions such as in his 1937 encyclical “Divini Redemptoris” “On Atheistic Communism” in which he denounced the entire collectivist mentality that would make of the individual no more than a cog in the wheel of the great, collectivist machine devoted solely to materialism. He also stated famously in “Quadragesimo Anno” that, “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist”.

However, in a sincere desire to assist Pope Francis, I would recommend sticking close to the example of the aforementioned Pope Leo XIII. Today, Pope Leo XIII is most famous as being the ‘Pope of the worker’ for his encyclical “Rerum Novarum” in which he sanctioned the formation of Catholic trade unions. Even then, however, he warned against the collectivism of the socialists and said, “The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” He went on to lay out guidelines for a way of bringing ownership and labor together in something along the lines of the corporatism of medieval Italy. Pope Leo XIII has gone down in history as a pontiff who was a champion of the working man, the poor and the marginalized. And yet, his personal style could not be more dissimilar to Pope Francis. Pope Leo XIII was an Italian aristocrat and was quite famous for his strict adherence to traditional court protocol and papal ceremony. He showed that it was not necessary to sacrifice the smallest detail of the majesty of the papal position in order to be a defender of the poor and an advocate for the marginalized. Pope Leo XIII championed the cause of the downtrodden in imperial Roman splendor. I might also add that he openly identified himself as a monarchist. Alas, many today would not consider that a good thing but, on the other hand, he certainly never gave anyone cause to speculate that he might be a Marxist. No one would have ever made that mistake.

Part of the trouble with the enforced redistribution of wealth to help the poor, is that it destroys positive feelings on the part of both parties involved. This is totally different from charity which gives the party making the donation a sense of happiness for being benevolent and makes the receiver grateful that someone would freely choose to help them. It is a gift and is appreciated as such. Wealth redistribution by the state, on the other hand, generates no feeling of happiness because it is done by force. Being forced to do something, even to do good, is not charitable and one can take no satisfaction in it. In fact, it builds resentment among the providers that what they earned was forced from them to be given to someone who did not earn it. Likewise, the one receiving is also poisoned by it. Rather than feeling gratitude at receiving a gift, they expect it as something they are entitled to and when it is ever lessened or stopped altogether they feel themselves “robbed” of something which they never earned in the first place because they were taught to feel themselves entitled to the fruits of another’s labor. The only ones who benefit are the state bureaucrats who handle the transaction, always keeping a tidy sum for themselves in the process, a sort of ‘handling fee’ for the government.

This is something past pontiffs seemed to understand, that socialism was not wrong simply because socialists tend to be anti-clerical and thus ‘bad for business’ but because they are wrong in principle, their motivations are false and their methods do more harm than good. Of course, in the past, pontiffs also openly attested that monarchy was ‘the best of all governments’ (Pius VI) and considered that they themselves held a rather monarchial position all of which was according to the divine commands. As a result, they viewed the socialist championing of egalitarianism as something dangerous and immoral. Today, unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. I would also recommend paying particular attention to Pope Leo XIII, so many years ago, pointing out the link between the socialists and attacks on the family. Today we see the same thing. It is the socialists of the left who are at the forefront of destroying the traditional family and they use the arguments of ‘helping the poor’ and promoting equality to do it, whether it is by encouraging single-parent homes, divorce or redefining marriage altogether. If Pope Leo XIII could see the world, and the Church, now, I wonder what he would say?

*Additional note: Some authors, devout Catholics among them, have warned that this new attitude by Pope Francis could open the Catholic Church up to accusations of hypocrisy since they do not pay taxes, at least in the United States where there is probably the most to be gained if the Church did start having to pay taxes. I would have to say, asking the Pope to practice what he preaches would not be an unreasonable position and would add, just for some context, that when Pope Leo XIII made his remarks, he was the first Pontiff in a very long time who did not have subjects to tax in order to sustain himself. He was living entirely off of charity and still never found the need to give up any of the pomp and ceremony of the papal office (of course, he wasn’t constantly traveling all over the world either, somehow the Church survived quite a few decades without the Pope ever leaving Vatican City). I would not be surprised to hear someone suggest that, because of his support for wealth redistribution by the state, Pope Francis might want to stop accepting the subsidy he receives from Italian taxpayers (which is rather ridiculous considering that the Church in Italy is now taxed, ever since the financial crisis) and let that portion designated for the Church to go to the Italian Republic instead to redistribute to the poor. Of course, I would try to be more helpful and suggest that the Church go back to the much smaller bureaucracy it had before the massive expansion of Vatican II or perhaps stop using the ridiculously named “Pope-mobile” and return to the sedan chair that used no fossil fuels and produced no harmful emissions (since we’re all so environmentally conscience these days). That should help save some money for the poor.

Oh, and another piece of advice: go back to the Apostolic Palace. Not many seem to understand that by taking over the Domus Sanctae Marthae “guesthouse” nothing is actually being saved. The Pope has more space than he had on one floor of the Apostolic Palace and he still uses the Palace, it still has to be heated and cleaned and maintained and all the rest so, despite being portrayed as some sort of humble act of frugality, it just means the Pope is taking up two buildings instead of one. Going back to the old way would save something, even if just a little. But then again, this is rather illustrative in and of itself when it comes to government wealth redistribution programs. The appearance is often quite different from the facts of the matter. It looks like governments are being terribly generous and “charitable” when it fact the poor are worse off as a result and, in the same way, the Pope may have been a much more grand and majestic looking figure in the days of Leo XIII but he actually received less money and spent far less money than the so much more outwardly humble Pope Francis does. It is worth thinking about. -MM

Mad Rant: Why I Hate Socialists

Hate. I say, “hate” and I’m comfortable with it. I try not to toss that word around lightly but over the span of my life I have arrived at that firm conviction. This is not something I came to without thought. True, I was around during the Cold War when the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” were the big bad guys of the world. I remember emergency news bulletins about Soviet cruise missiles being moved into Eastern Europe. I remember a teacher telling us about what would happen if the Soviets hit San Antonio, Texas with a nuclear missile and I remember when the Berlin Wall came down. But, during that time, I never questioned or understood the ideological differences between NATO and the USSR, I never thought about socialism or capitalism. The Soviets were just the “bad guys” and that’s as far as it went. When I ventured into the world of higher education I had professors who sang the praises of socialism, Marxism and even communism. One admitted to being a communist and I’m sure he was not the only one; just the only one honest enough to say so. My natural inclination to go against the grain made me skeptical of their rosy picture of a socialist utopia.

After all, I could see as well as anyone how poor and miserable and oppressed people are in socialist countries like North Korea, Soviet Russia or Cuba. I was told that was because these people just didn’t understand socialism or do it correctly. That didn’t wash with me though. Surely, amongst all of the people of all the socialist movements from East Germany to Red China and the Soviet Union to Vietnam could not ALL have been mistaken or inept. I oppose socialism because socialism doesn’t work. But being opposed to something is not the same as hating something and I HATE socialists -even more than socialism itself in many cases. I have seen, as anyone can see, what effect socialism has had on countries all over the world. Their effort to make everyone “equal” is much older than Karl Marx and it has been misleading people, ruining lives and destroying countries for hundreds of years. Time after time history shows that the most murderous, totalitarian regimes in the world have had the word “socialist” in their name and promise equality, wealth redistribution and a classless society where everyone is blissfully the same.

Because of their drive for the (unobtainable) goal of “equality” socialists have historically been the avowed enemies of monarchy as well as traditional, organized religion. In just about every monarchy that has fallen in the Twentieth Century socialists of one variety or another have been at the forefront of bringing them down. Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia were all instances wherein socialists brought down existing, traditional monarchies and not one of those countries improved as a result of it. Of course, some people will point to modern monarchies which are, in Europe and Japan at least, often extremely socialist and yet the monarchy survives. I say, give them time. Even in these countries where monarchy survives it is the socialists that are invariably the ones who wish it were not so and are just waiting for their chance to bring the monarchy down. If there are those who are devoted monarchists, I am certainly glad, but given the history and principles of the socialist movement I don’t think I could ever trust them. It is hard to imagine how one could reconcile being a socialist and a monarchist but if they can, while I would be pleased, it still would not make me accepting of their other policies. Too much ruination has already flowed from those ideals.

This in itself tends to work against monarchies as history and even current events have shown. The state takes from those who have to give to those who have not. Soon those who have no longer have much or have left the country and so money must be borrowed to continue giving to those who have not. Eventually the well of credit runs dry, the bills come due and there is great pain and consternation as those who have come to depend on the state being generous with the property of others fear they may be forced to do without or (God forbid) become responsible for their own welfare. This invariably leads to attacks on the monarchy with all the usual slogans and tired lines of attack. ‘Who are they to get to live in a palace and go to fancy parties while the state only pays me enough to survive without having a job?’ It happened in Russia and it happened in France. Neither the Tsar nor King Louis were causing anyone to go hungry but the royals are always easy targets for those who stir up envy and class hatred. They do not see the lifetime of service, the numerous charities or anything like that; they only see someone living better than themselves and so raise the howl of “social(ist) justice” and “wealth redistribution” and the end of the “class system”. The fact that this has never ended up working out well for the least of those in society seems to make no difference.

I also have the case of the Native Americans and there are few things that infuriate me more than what has been done to the American Indians. I have mentioned this before as long-time readers will recall but the disgusting nature of it brings me to tears. Of course, many will say that socialism was not responsible for stealing land from the Indians, moving them against their will or massacring them if they resisted. If anything, that was the fault of the opposite of socialism; capitalism, right? To a degree, probably so. However, that was not the worst thing that was done to the Indians. Those Indians were faced by a far more advanced civilization with superior weaponry and so on, that fought them for their land and they lost. That is sad, but those Indians at least had their pride. They fought like lions and there is no shame in being beaten by a superior enemy. They lost their land but they didn’t lose their dignity, they fought to the last, went down in a blaze of glory and when treaties were broken it was their enemies who were dishonored and not them. But, then socialists came along who wanted to make up for all of that and they have killed the Native Americans with “kindness”. Their socialistic policies have robbed the Indians of their dignity and their pride and turned them into perpetual dependents, waiting for the government to drop some coins into their tin cup to survive. It is heartbreaking what such proud people have been reduced to. It is a simple fact that cannot be said often enough. There is no group in the modern United States that receives more government assistance than Native Americans and there is no group of people in this entire country that is worse off than they are. It is criminally despicable what has been done to them.

Finally though, what really infuriates me the most, what gets under my skin and bugs me half to death is the flagrant hypocrisy of the rich socialists. I’m talking about people like Michael Moore, a multi-millionaire who sides with the union but doesn’t hire union workers on his films, who condemns capitalism but goes to court to keep as much of his own money as possible. I’m talking about Oprah who so supported President Obama (peace be upon him) and his “spread the wealth” campaign while moving around the country from mansion to mansion, staying just long enough to avoid paying the full tax rate on each. I might also point to multi-billionaires like Warren Buffett, who supports raising income taxes on other people which will not effect him in the least because he pays himself no salary and so has no “income” in tax but … I think you get the picture.

I’m not trying to pick on these people personally. Oprah seems like a nice lady, I thought the one actual movie Michael Moore made (“Canadian Bacon”) was funny and Warren Buffett, well, I don’t really know enough about him to like or dislike him aside from the fact that he supports higher taxes while he’s locked in a legal battle with the IRS over back taxes he refuses to pay so … he’s got nerve I’ll give him that. But this goes to something I noticed way back at university when I was being lectured by a socialist, openly Marxist professor who I know, at that time, had a whole lot more money than I did. And I am sick and tired of being preached to about the need for me to pay more to the government by people with more money than I’ll ever earn in my lifetime. If charity begins at home, why doesn’t socialism? I’m ready to be autocratic about this. I will go on record as saying that if I had the power, yes, I would take away the freedom of speech of these people. I would take away the right of anyone to argue in favor of socialism so long as they had even one penny more than anyone else.

Think about it like this: If the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope or Franklin Graham went around stealing, murdering and fornicating but still said these things were wrong and the government should make them illegal; would anyone take them seriously or listen to them for a second? Of course they wouldn’t. They would be dismissed as utter, rank hypocrites and rightly so. Why then doesn’t the same principle apply to the socialists? If they believe all the crap they spew about income inequality, why don’t they start writing out checks to everyone in their neighborhoods who have less than they do? They could spread their own wealth around right now. They could start sharing their wealth and lowering the “income gap” this very day! Of course, whenever someone makes this point they always say, ‘well, just me and my friends doing it wouldn’t make a difference’ so they have to have the government force everyone else to do it too (while they stash money overseas and play musical chairs with their mansions). Frankly, that’s a pretty lame excuse. If they really believed what they claim to they would do it just on principle and it would certainly help some people -right? Just take, for example, the greater Los Angeles area where there are many very poor people, many poor “undocumented immigrants” and also many multi-millionaire celebrities (not as many as there used to be for some reason). Why don’t they prove to all what socialism can do and just redistribute the wealth in that area equally?

We all know they would never do it even though if they did and the greater LA area suddenly became a bastion of blissful prosperity it would sure prove all the greedy capitalists wrong. But, they won’t and we all know they won’t. And, I think, deep down, we all know why too. Because George Clooney, with his California mansion and villa in Tuscany or Brad Pitt with his chateaux in France never turned down a multi-million dollar contract because it was more than what they needed to get by on. There is no “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” when it comes to their own paychecks. That is why, more than anything else, that I cannot stand these people and that is why I don’t feel I should have to endure hearing them call for something and campaign for something that they would never in a hundred years actually do themselves. Until they put their millions where their mouth is I’d like them to all shut up and leave me and my bank account alone. What economic model is the best? I don’t know. I do know that socialism has been tried and it has never worked and I do know that those who are in charge never live equally with the common citizenry. They are hypocrites, they are phonies, they are monumentally ignorant or willfully deceitful and they never practice what they preach. That is who they are and who I am is … The Mad Monarchist.

Mad Rant: Son of God/Political Football

It is a political football game with the left invoking the name of Christ. The socialist, left-wing, George Soros funded group “American Values Network” is taking aim at the enemies of the big-government welfare state by highlighting the opposition of objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand to religion. They have called their campaign, “Ayn Rand vs. Jesus Christ” and it is deplorable. Unfortunately, conservatives opposed to the recent campaign by the left to ramp up the drive to total socialism might be a bit frustrated at the reaction of the objectivist camp. Of course, they object to the AVN mixing religion and politics but they cannot get away from the ardent atheism that has been drummed into them by their foundress and more or less agree that Jesus was a socialist and, though they do not come right out and say it, all but admit that, yes, one does have to choose between Ayn Rand or Christ and they are hoping you will choose Ayn Rand.

I am so mad at both sides of this thing I could spit. In the first place, yes, the left is being totally disingenuous and are using the Son of God as a tool to gain political points by driving a wedge between traditional conservatives (who tend to be religious) and libertarians (who tend to be non-religious) because they fear that they are gaining ground on the one big area they have in common: taking down the socialist nanny state. These so-called religious people at the AVN who endlessly repeat the verses about helping the poor and warning off the rich also embrace a plethora of positions totally opposed to traditional Christian values such as abortion and the homosexual agenda. The objectivists are at least being honest in what they believe, the AVN and George Soros certainly are not. They are no friends to organized religion and certainly no friend of real Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.

Let me also say, even though I know it annoys a lot of people when I say anything nice about the objectivists, that even at their worst the objectivists and libertarians are better for religion than the radical revolutionaries. The revolutionaries want to destroy religion, suppress it and promote what is contrary to it. Libertarians, as with most things, simply take a “hands-off” attitude toward religion, neither favoring nor opposing it. Undoubtedly, Ayn Rand was an adamant atheist who was not bashful in her opinions toward any religion including Christianity. In fact, she openly stated that she considered the very concept of “faith” to be immoral. However, though neither her friends nor foes talk about it much, she was also adamant that she was not a “militant atheist”. She stated clearly that she was not trying to fight against religion, she was fighting for pure laissez-faire capitalism. Remember that one of her fundamental principles of objectivism was a total rejection of force or coercion. She adamantly opposed denying anyone the right to be religious just as much as she adamantly opposed denying anyone the right not to be religious at all.

However, the objectivists are not saying that. If you look at what they say closely, they are, again, actually agreeing with the socialists that one must choose between Ayn Rand or Christ. The socialists are saying this because they are portraying Christ as a socialist and what Christians to reject anything Ayn Rand or her modern disciples say. The objectivists are saying it because, well, they think Christianity is basically socialist as well and are hoping you choose Ayn Rand and her philosophy instead. They are not that blatant about it but, keep them talking on the subject long enough and they will admit eventually that, yes, they think ultimately one would have to choose between the two and of course they think objectivism is the superior philosophy to Christianity. They are both, essentially, accepting the same lie: that Christ was a socialist.

Objectivists, who again I will say I agree with on a number of issues (to the great annoyance of many of my readers), often simply have a bigoted attitude toward religion because of the godlike pedestal they have placed Ayn Rand on -who was an outspoken atheist. The socialists are being dishonest and they know it, that is their intent, however, the objectivists seem to be simply sloppy or ignorant. Yes, we know about the verses in the New Testament that always come up; the one about the apostles ‘sharing things in common’ or how it was ‘easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle that for a rich man to enter heaven’ (wow, 2 verses!) but there is a huge (gargantuan) amount of context that is being ignored. In the first place, there were rich people who were favored by God, in fact there were people who became rich because God blessed them. But, sticking with the New Testament here, the important point (that I would think objectivists of all people would recognize if they were not so blinded by their idolatry toward Ayn Rand) is the total LACK of coercion regarding all of the verses that deal with the rich or helping the poor.

That is what is at the heart of socialism; using force to take what one person has to give it to someone else. That never happened in the New Testament, Christ never did it, nor did He ever advocate or command anyone to do it. Jesus did give to the poor and afflicted, and a good Christian is supposed to be “Christ-like” but we do have one serious roadblock to doing exactly “what Jesus would have done” which is that we are not God. Christ could work miracles, He healed the sick, fed the hungry and so on by performing miracles. I suppose I should not speak for everyone but I certainly cannot do that. If I could work miracles there would be crowned heads ruling over the world, I would have perfect health, be living in a villa in Costa Rica and married to Alessandra Ambrosio. In short -not going to happen. Look, instead, to the example of Christ and the rich, young nobleman who asked what he had to do to obtain salvation. Christ told him to give away all of his wealth and follow Him. ‘Aha!’ the socialists exclaim, ‘see, he was one of us!’ Uh, no, because there was no coercion. Now, if Christ had seized the young man, robbed him of all his riches and then, after pocketing a bit for Himself, gave the rest to the poor, THEN Christ would have been a socialist. He didn’t do that. He advised people to be compassionate and charitable, He never advocated using force to take from one and give to another.

As the great William Shakespeare so famously wrote, “The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:” Compassion and charity cannot be forced. When it flows naturally, as Shakespeare said, it rewards both parties in the transaction. Socialism is, at best, coerced charity which simply replaces one possible injustice with another definite one. Besides which, at the end of the day, we all know Jesus was a monarchist. To see objectivists and socialists, two essentially atheist groups, arguing over what economic system the son of God would have preferred, neither adhering to the facts, makes me an extremely … Mad Monarchist.

Mad Rant: Americans & Socialists

Alright, the gloves are coming off. I am SICK of the ignorant spouting done by two groups of people I am, myself, often associated with. First, whether it is prompted by the upcoming royal wedding or the critical success of “The King’s Speech”, I am FED UP with the American “conservatives” who think it is cute to insult the British Royal Family. Recently, on the ‘comedy/news/commentary show “Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld” on the Fox News Channel, “ombudsman” Andy Levy smugly denounced King George VI as a royal who “had never worked a day in his life”. Yes, this guy who is paid to nitpick and make snide remarks about the show he is on (and in the past was known for making insulting fake “news” announcements about the King of the Belgians) insulted King George VI who was cited for his bravery as a naval officer at the battle of the Jutland in World War I and later served with the Royal Air Force was accused of ‘never working’ for a living buy a guy who is paid to bitch about his own show on TV. This, by the way, is the same show that once had to apologize for insulting the service of the Canadian military in Afghanistan.

Do these morons realize this is why practically everyone in Europe hates America? The majority of the leftie, atheistic socialists in the Old World hate America because the States are too conservative and too religious. Yet, how can the sane, conservative minority in Europe have any sympathy for America when idiots on TV calling themselves conservatives constantly make false, pointless and insulting remarks about the traditions and institutions traditional Europeans hold most dear? These so-called conservatives go on and on about the radical leftists, the socialists, the revolutionaries in Europe and then, when anything related to royalty comes up, they immediately adopt the same talking points as the pinko crowd they claim to despise. All of a sudden they start spouting the same crap that the leftists in their own country are spouting while calling for higher inheritance taxes, maybe banning inheritance altogether, sticking it to the rich and heaping scorn on anyone who is more ambitious, industrious or successful than themselves. Get a clue morons! There is no need for these talking dummies to be talking about European royalty in the first place and in doing so they are giving aid and comfort to the very same pinko revolutionaries who want to bring down all of western civilization and for that matter all civilization everywhere.

The second group that needs to be addressed is the so-called socialist “monarchists” in Europe. Oh, but wait you say, aren’t these people on your side on the most fundamental issue of monarchism? No! Deep down, I say no. Whether intentionally or out of sheer ignorance they are the enemies of monarchy the same as the republican bomb-throwers. These examples of the most blinding ignorance imaginable refuse to see the truth that is staring them right in the face! I am SICK of those who pretend as though modern Europe is a testament to socialism and monarchy being able to exist side by side! Socialism is destroying Europe, it has already destroyed most of the monarchies in Europe and those that remain exist in socialist cages, cowed, muzzled and in constant fear of their demise. They have destroyed their ability to do almost any practical good for their countries and then condemn them for doing nothing. I know this is unpopular and in fact I know that most royals themselves would probably be horrified by what I am saying and would surely denounce me. I don’t blame them, they have been raised and educated in this environment by people bent on their destruction and in a society that has become self-hating to the point of societal suicide.

Socialist Sweden is often mentioned, and that is a perfectly good example as the King of Sweden is probably the most powerless reigning monarch in the world. There is also the fact that it is simply a bad system. Taking money from the industrious and successful and giving it to the listless and unproductive simply does not lead to prosperity (and I don’t know why anyone would think that it would). What does this have to do with monarchy (someone will invariably ask)? Rampant socialism drives out business, which means no jobs, which means more people on the take and less people producing. As there are more and more people with nothing there is ever more resentment for those who have more (including royals) and the ever shrinking minority of those who are producing and paying the ever higher taxes become more and more angry over how their money is spent and it is not long before they resent their money going to royals who “never worked a day in their lives” as the tired mantra goes. Policies that ruin the economy, that encourage idleness and leave people with less and with few if any opportunities for advancement (because success is punished by higher taxes) do not help any country. A population of poor and hungry people, fed on a constant diet of class warfare slogans is not a recipe for monarchial success. Ask King Louis XVI -it doesn’t turn out well, for the royals or for the ordinary people.

All of the economic policies that involve the “share the wealth” mentality are harmful for monarchies, partly because they always involve class warfare attitudes that encourage everyone to be jealous of anyone who is better off than they are. Higher property taxes, estate taxes, exorbitant income taxes and inheritance taxes destroy aristocracy. Look at Great Britain and how many old noble families have been forced to sell their ancestral estates and manor houses because they could not afford the taxes. And you see the progression, aristocrats are scorned, mocked, ridiculed and, thanks to Tony Blair, have been evicted from any role in the British government where they have been an important part of the very successful British model of mixed government for centuries upon centuries. Is there any monarchy anyone can point to where the rise of socialist policies has not led to a reduction in the powers, popular support and respect for the monarchy itself? The root of these socialistic ideologies is inherently anti-royalist and, knowingly or not, any who embrace them are making a deal with the devil and will, sooner or later I am convinced, come to regret it.

HH Pope Pius XI said that socialism, “is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist”. As Europe is a traditionally Christian place that statement should, I think, be accepted by all just as it stands. However, I think it would apply just as much to monarchists. I maintain that no one can be at the same time a good monarchist and a true socialist. Most socialists, I assure you, would agree with me on that point if nothing else. Not only monarchists but royals themselves would do well to remember this and jump off of the socialist mentality bandwagon as soon as possible. To continue forward is to dig your own grave and the fact that so many seem blind to that reality greatly disturbs me, and makes me a very, very Mad Monarchist.

The Roman Pontiffs on Socialism

A very interesting collection (via Tea at Trianon) of quotations from all the popes from His Holiness Benedict XVI back to Blessed Pius IX on the subject of socialism and how it cannot be reconciled with traditional Christianity. It has become so widespread today, and rather taken for granted, especially in Europe and Latin America, that we can easily forget that not just one pope here or there but every single pope since the time of Karl Marx has consistently condemned socialism and communism as contrary to everything that the Christian religion is about.

Mad Rant: Uncommon Sense

Yesterday the President of the United States and the President of the People’s Republic of China held a joint press conference at the White House. Much has been made of the leader of Beijing bandit-government claiming that he ‘could not hear’ the question put to him about the human rights abuses in China. Well, not to worry “comrade”, I am sure President Obama did not hear anything about the need to cut spending and lower the national debt either. This of course concerns the Red Chinese since they hold the biggest chunk of U.S. debt and are probably getting a little worried that they might not be getting their money back. Oh, isn’t the dog and pony show of republican politics fun? Obama talks about human rights and Hu Jintao acts like he cares while Hu talks about Red China being such a good friend of the U.S. and Obama acts like he believes him. What is more frightening is the possibility that Obama actually does. This is, after all, the first time America has ever rolled out the red carpet and given full state honors to communist dictator of the Chinese mainland. Take that all you people who think Obama is a communist! Wait…

I speak in jest of course because, as most know, China has been moving toward a more free economy in recent years while the U.S. (particularly recently) has been moving ever more rapidly in the socialist direction. When it comes to capitalism, I am under no illusions that it is a less than perfect system. I support it only as far as I am an ardent and absolute supporter of private property rights. However, it does not take the greatest powers of observation to see that efforts to impose economic egalitarianism do not work. Communism has been tried and in every case it has failed. Socialism has been tried and we need only look at the world around us, particularly in Europe, to see that it does not work. As things stand now, my biggest problem with capitalism is that it seems to be the only system which can make a nation wealthy enough to think they can afford socialism.

It simply goes against the laws of nature for anyone or anything to thrive in bondage. There should be no great surprise (and yet there is) that when you punish affluence and reward penury the result is a society with fewer wealthy people and more poor people. Why should a person work harder for a little extra money if they can get by just as comfortably doing nothing? Why should a person try to improve their financial situation if the only result is that they are put in a higher tax bracket and have their earnings taken from them? If you can keep more of your money in country or state A than you can in state B, who would not up and move to country or state A and leave B to reap the rewards of their own stupidity? Even those who harp the loudest about the need to punish the rich and help the poor see their actions part company with their words when it comes to themselves or their industry. That is why no one makes movies in Hollywood anymore but instead go to Canada or New Zealand -because making anything in California is far too expensive. Yet, even with such a punishing tax code California is still deep in debt and the North American equivalent of Greece at this point.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Socialism does not work! Even for those more moderate types who advocate it, they can only grasp at straws that have no real impact on the actual overall situation. We have seen this at least since the French Revolution when the agitators of treason stirred up hatred against the monarchy for claiming that Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were living lives of idle luxury in the lavish surroundings of Versailles, indifferent to the suffering of the people. This, of course, was not true but given the predilection of humanity toward greed and envy it worked. Yet, cutting off the heads of the King and Queen and starving the poor little Dauphin to death did not fill the stomach of one peasant. It did not make so much as one penniless French worker a wealthy man. The forces of revolution have never, despite their claims, NEVER lifted up anyone. All they have ever done was to bring a greater share of misery to the entire population.

You can tax the rich into poverty (or tax them into relocating to Singapore) but that will not make the poor rich. Putting royals on bicycles will not enable anyone to afford a Mercedes and taxes and regulations that force aristocratic families to sell their ancestral estates will not give everyone their own manor house. It is as simple as this: trying to impose and enforce absolute equality is a losing game and always will be. The government, no government on earth, no constitution that has or will ever be written can make life “fair” or give anyone so much as one free lunch. The sooner everyone realizes this the better off everyone will be. We need practical solutions that recognize the truth of natural law and the human condition. We do not need political ideologues who think they can create a Utopia anywhere this side of the Kingdom of Heaven. We need to accept that the politician-class does not have all the answers, that independence and freedom are not the same things and that we are entitled absolutely to everything that is our own and nothing that is not. When that happens, the world will be better. Not perfect, but better. However, at current rates, by the time that change comes, I shall most likely be the late…Mad Monarchist.

Mad Rant: Socialism; Killing with Kindness

Recently "the One" Barack Obama decorated Joe Medicine Crow, a Native American historian and author, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Unfortunately it coincided with the mass murder at Fort Hood so my outrage on that occasion was side-tracked to the more immediate and serious issue. However, outraged -dare I say mad- I certainly was! To be clear, I am not upset that Joe Medicine Crow got the Medal of Freedom; he probably deserved it more than many others who have been given it for blatantly political reasons. What outraged me was simply the image presented: the most adamantly socialist president in U.S. history decorating an American Indian. Friends, Romans and countrymen, there is no better group to look to than the Native Americans to see how socialism "kills with kindness". To sum it up, there is no group in the United States that is given more benefits and social welfare than the Native Americans and it is no coincidence that there is also no group in this country more worse off than they are.

Of course, many years ago, the U.S. government openly fought the Indians, conquered them, killed them and displaced them. That would be shameful enough but the crimes of the old U.S. Cavalry pale in comparison to the crimes visited on the Native Americans by the bleeding heart liberal socialists who claim to be so concerned about them. They have showered them with social welfare to the point that a great many of them are now totally dependent on the U.S. government. The army killed them but the socialists have enslaved them to the very system that brought about their downfall. Today unemployment is commonly rampant on the Indian reservations (they live off their pensions from the government) as is alcoholism. Many waste their whole lives in such a fashion while others move away, intermarry with non-Indians and over time who they are is completely lost. It is a tragedy greater than any they have ever suffered from outright violence.

I see it this way. Place the blame wherever you like but the fact is there was a succession of Indian Wars in North America, the Army and the Indians fought and the Indians were defeated. However, at least then, despite all of their suffering, they fought well, they kept their dignity and they died in honorable battle for their traditional way of life. They lost their land but they kept their pride knowing that there is no shame in falling before a superior enemy. Then, however, the socialists came along and tried to sympathize with them and make everything better with government hand-outs. Already robbed of their nomadic way of life they soon were robbed of much of the rest of their culture as well through the "gift" of modern education. The tribes became democracies with the once proud role of chief being reduced to the level of a sleazy politician with a ceremonial headdress. Government payments robbed them of their independence and over time made them dependent on the government and so all of the other social problems mentioned have been the result. Nor are they the only such example.

In a recent post I touched on the history of the Mongols, another proud people of nomadic warriors who once very nearly conquered the world. That, of course, was before socialism and their takeover by a communist government. Since that time they have been robbed of their culture in much the same way, only more quickly and blatantly so. The communists destroyed their religion, destroyed their nomadic way of life turning the bulk of the population into urban dwellers. Socialism robbed them of their pride and independence to the point that most of the big businesses in Mongolia import Chinese workers because too many Mongols will quit after getting their first pay check to feed their alcoholism. What is all the more sad and outrageous is that in the case of both the American Indians and the Mongols they have been the victims of a totally foreign ideology imposed on them by outside forces.

I have the greatest respect for these cultures and it absolutely kills me to see the state they have been reduced to by "caring", "compassionate" liberals preaching "social justice". Others might not have the interest or concern for these people as I have, but everyone should pay attention because no one is inferior or superior to anyone else and if socialism and communism prevail everyone will end up in exactly the same condition; hopeless, struggling people totally dependent on big-government and the small ruling elite to see that we continue, not to live, but simply exist from the crumbs they distribute from the table they are feasting at. Obama can give an Indian elder a medal but he cannot and will not give them back their pride, their independence and their traditional way of life and that makes me a very, very ...... Mad Monarchist.

*Additional Note: This is not rocket science folks. Even Angelina Jolie (who, let's be honest, did not get where she is because of her brains) has recently criticized Obama for being all smoke & mirrors, more about welfare handouts than actually helping people better their lot in life. If she can figure it out - anyone can (not to worry libs, Brad's still an Obama man).