The Phora  

Go Back   The Phora > Private Forums > Dixieland
User Name
Password
Blog Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Dixieland A place for discussion of Southern Nationalism and Self-Determination of the Southern people. All may post here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-17-2017, 03:47 PM
Avvakum's Avatar
Avvakum Avvakum is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,847
Country: Byzantine Empire
Default

Macrobius, seems that you knew exactly what I was going on about, perhaps more than I did, lol;

Quote:
Trump and Putin are both foreign leaders. Both need our suport, and vice versa. We'll have to ask Okie what he's so worked up about when he gets back.


I think he'll probably be back, that is if he doesn't have other accounts, but no matter, your point is well taken, that a Nation under occupation must use the options it has to keep itself alive during a conquest aimed at absorbing and obliterating one's culture and identity.

Quote:
Not my president.

And that is being more than just flippant. President Trump was elected to ''make America great again'', and perhaps that's exactly what he wishes to do, but he is the analogue to Gorbachev in the collapse scenario, along with Barack Obama although for very different reasons and motivations between the two.


Quote:
Of course, it was the Pen-dragon's household. There will be a Last Emperor.

The shadow of the Lost Emperor is very long indeed, but the man will return, to give Christians a breathing space to revive somewhat before the personal Antichrist and the Second Coming.

Logres and Britain are indeed at war, and that war carried on into the New World.
__________________
"Go tell all in foreign lands that Russia lives! Those who come to us in peace will be welcome as a guest. But those who come to us sword in hand will die by the sword! On that Russia stands and forever will we stand!"

St. Prince Alexander Nevsky
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-17-2017, 04:44 PM
Macrobius Macrobius is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,753
Country: United States
Default

For those who don't know where Logres is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_Ogledd

Quote:
Yr Hen Ogledd (Welsh pronunciation: [ər ˌheːn ˈɔɡlɛ]), in English the Old North, is the region of Northern England and the southern Scottish Lowlands inhabited by the Celtic Britons of sub-Roman Britain and the Early Middle Ages. Its denizens spoke a variety of the Brittonic language known as Cumbric. The Hen Ogledd was distinct from the parts of northern Britain inhabited by the Picts, Anglo-Saxons, and Scoti as well as from Wales, although the people of the Hen Ogledd were the same Brittonic stock as the Picts, Welsh and Cornish, and the region loomed large in Welsh literature and tradition for centuries after its kingdoms had disappeared.

And of course Britanny (the old Roman province of Armorica), whither many 'Welsh', Roman Britons, migrated in the 5th century.

Lloegyr proper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloegyr
__________________
gab.ai #weremight Quot Euclidis discipulos retrojecit Elefuga quasi scopulos eminens et abruptus, qui nullo scalarum suffragio scandi posset! Durus, inquiunt, est hie sermo; quis potest eum audire?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-17-2017, 09:37 PM
Macrobius Macrobius is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,753
Country: United States
Default

From an organisational/planning perspective, here is a list of 10 top level functions any government must accomplish[1]

1 governance - state and confederate states and racial levels
2 military
3 law enforcement and justice
4 economics
5 environmental security - science and technology
6 mass care
7 medical and health
8 recreation, culture, religion
9 education - Dept L
10 demographic security

[1]: The list is not random but is the COFOG list of the UN, which has a second level to the taxonomy you can look up if the functions are not clear. I have lightly modified some of the terminology. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=4

This is the 'what' of governance, and I call each of these categories a Directorate.

Some tasks up front for the first two directorates:

Directorate 1 - Government proper

- policy planning (the policy cycle)
- strategic analysis - determine strategic objectives at confederate ('national') and sovereign state levels [2] <- we are here
- intelligence analysis (the intelligence cycle)

[2]: any reference to 'The Confederacy' necessarily introduces a theory of Statehood that makes them the primary focus of organisation. Reconstituting the States properly is the primary task, not Regional Government. Governance is bottom up, not top down, in this model.

As far as the 'how' is concerned, we might look at the top level organisation of the military Directorate (which might be replicated at several levels)

organisational functions of Directorate-2, reconstitution of the Military -- everyone's favourite example

2.1 recruiting and onboarding
2.2 intelligence
2.3 operations
2.4 sustainment - logistics, transportation, communications
2.5 planning (at confederate strategic, state strategic, operational, and tactical levels)
2.6 mission command, signals, and communications security
2.7 training
2.8 finance
2.9 public affairs - civil/military relations

This 'work breakdown' is lightly edited from a typical 'European Staff' sort of organisation -- but should be familiar enough. Note that the problem of coordinating states is now the primary problem, not 'multinational action' or 'joint force' sorts of rivalries. It will probably be a while before the Confederacy has either a Navy or an Air Force.


Notes on integration of Race, Empire, Confederacy, and the State-Local-Tribal
(SLT) levels -

This is seldom spelled out, but should be. A 'race' is in Latin a gens (roughly, an extended Clan or Nation -- persons related by birth). Both Romans and Barbarians are presumed to have a natural family/clan structure, which allows for example Romans to recognise the marriage customs among Indians or Chinese, and all nations to have some sort of analogue to the 10 commandments, at least the second tablet. The jus gentium 'Law of Nations' is the external national law relating the Roman Imperium to non-Roman nations (who have their own internal 'Municipal' or 'Civil' law, if they are Nation-States). It is possible for a gens outside the Imperium to be Christian, which creates a special case for the Respublica Christiana (the politeuma of Constantine, in Greek). Namely Armenia, the first Christian State, and the Anglo-Saxons' kingdoms in Britannia who did not live under Roman Civil law, but as Orthodox Christians but non-Romans, were allowed their *Common* law by custom.[3] As an aside, this Law of the Exception cannot apply to a non-Anglo-Celtic people. (The Celts in Britannia, were thoroughly Romanised and also Christian at least in part form the time of St Albanus, 1st century).

[3]: This observation allows us to conclude that the Federal courts are wrongly applying the Common Law to a 'propositional nation' (a supra-national organisation, or Federation, created by treaty between the States). It is impossible for non-Anglo-Saxons or Anglo-Celts to inherit an *exception* made by Rome, on the basis of a specific Christian people, when they both reject Rome and Christianity. It is as absurd as Idi Amin deciding he's a Sioux chief and wearing a headdress he's taken a fancy to. A less humourous and moar barbed comparison would be to compare Common Law to Sharia in Britain -- a religion-based exception to local law, permitted under international law to an enclave. It is as if the Federal Courts have decided to enforce and use Sharia case law, when hardly anyone in their jurisdiction is Muslim, and they are prohibited in theory from dragging Theology into the Courts. In practice, of course, they are using the colour of Common Law and bad Statutes to undermine both the exceptionalism of Anglo-Saxons and the moral order, and are indeed introducing a sort of Liberal Unitarianism that is moar similar to Sharia than anything Roman, Christian, or Saxon.

Thus, both the Respublica Christiana and the Jus Publicum Europaeum -- the Municipal law of Roman Christians, and the Law of Nations for Christians and non-Christians outside the Imperium -- which are terms familiar from Schmitt (and thus implicitly Strauss) -- define how individual Western nations, such as the US or the CS or Britain, relate to one another and the Western Empire.

Likewise, 'the White Race' is nothing other than a large family of gentes subject to the jus gentium -- true International Law rather than its perversion. Many Whites, of course, are also Christians and also subject to the Imperium. Christendom is truely, in our day and age, a 'Republic of Republic' -- though it could just as well be an Empire of Kingdoms. This is the development of the reform of Diocletan, who made two Augusti for the eastern and western Imperium, and two Caesars to be as it were regional kings. The Imperium is concerned with the Salus of the Christian people -- the Chosen people (since Christians now have the peculium the Jews rejected), as opposed to the Gentile Barbarians (non-Christians living outside the Imperium for now).

It is clear the Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry had a firmer grasp on Romanity in the politics of Virginia, than Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicanism, which however prevailed in the ante bellum period. Jefferson himself of course knew that the system was flawed to the point of crisis, 25 or 35 years before the crisis actually came. I doubt we have so much time -- we are at 1850 or 1859, not 1825 and the 'fire bell in the night'.

We thus see how perverse the superstructure of the EU in Europe, and the US in America is, too the required rule of Law in the West.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-17-2017, 09:58 PM
Avvakum's Avatar
Avvakum Avvakum is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,847
Country: Byzantine Empire
Default

Magnificent work! I just had a few questions and comments on your notes at the end for you though;




Quote:
This is seldom spelled out, but should be. A 'race' is in Latin a gens (roughly, an extended Clan or Nation -- persons related by birth). Both Romans and Barbarians are presumed to have a natural family/clan structure, which allows for example Romans to recognise the marriage customs among Indians or Chinese, and all nations to have some sort of analogue to the 10 commandments, at least the second tablet. The jus gentium 'Law of Nations' is the external national law. It is possible for a gens outside the Imperium to be Christian, which creates a special case for the Respublica Christiana (the politeuma of Constantine, in Greek. Namely Armenia, the first Christian State, and the Anglo-Saxons kingdoms in Britannia who did not live under Roman Civil law, but as Christians were allowed their *Common* law by custom. As an aside, this Law of the Exception cannot apply to a non-Anglo-Celtic people. (The Celts in Britannia, were thoroughly Romanised and also Christian at least in part form the time of St Albanus, 1st century).

So far, so good, in that an understanding of these items means we won't be reinventing the wheel, lol. You mentioned Armenia, and the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms as exceptions to Roman Civil Law to this day, would also the Ethiopians, being allies and trade partners and a Christian people, also be considered an exception?

Quote:
Thus, both the Respublica Christiana and the Jus Publicum Europaeum -- the Municipal law of Roman Christians, and the Law of Nations for Christians and non-Christians outside the Imperium -- which are terms familiar from Schmitt (and thus implicitly Strauss) -- define how individual Western nations, such as the US or the CS or Britain, relate to one another and the Western Empire.

Provinces, then, if i'm understanding you correctly?

Quote:
Likewise, 'the White Race' is nothing other than a large family of gentes subject to the jus gentium -- true International Law rather than its perversion. Many Whites, of course, are also Christians and also subject to the Imperium. Christendom is truely, in our day and age, a 'Republic of Republic' -- though it could just as well be an Empire of Kingdoms. This is the development of the reform of Diocletan, who made two Augusti for the eastern and western Imperium, and two Caesars to be as it were regional kings. The Imperium is concerned with the Salus of the Christian people -- the Chosen people (since Christians now have the peculium the Jews rejected), as opposed to the Gentile Barbarians (non-Christians living outside the Imperium for now).

So then we have in true fact;

1. White Christian Romans

2. Jews

3. Gentile Barbarians

This is in itself a source of fruitful future discussion.

Quote:
It is clear the Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry had a firmer grasp on Romanity in the politics of Virginia, than Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicanism, which however prevailed in the ante bellum period. Jefferson himself of course knew that the system was flawed to the point of crisis, 25 or 35 years before the crisis actually came. I doubt we have so much time -- we are at 1850 or 1859, not 1825 and the 'fire bell in the night'.

Yes, there isn't much time; we've already had several ''Harper's Ferry'' moments that went more or less unpunished by the Federal Government in it's weakness and chaos.

Quote:
We thus see how perverse the superstructure of the EU in Europe, and the US in America is, too the required rule of Law in the West.

Largely built on bluff by these rebel usurper Elites.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-17-2017, 10:10 PM
Macrobius Macrobius is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,753
Country: United States
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avvakum
So far, so good, in that an understanding of these items means we won't be reinventing the wheel, lol. You mentioned Armenia, and the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms as exceptions to Roman Civil Law to this day, would also the Ethiopians, being allies and trade partners and a Christian people, also be considered an exception?

The 'exception' approach was developed by lawyers in the Angevin Empire, who first had to deal with a similar Germanic province in Burgundia. They reapplied the same solution when the Anglo-Normans and Anglo-Saxons both rebelled at Runnymeade [and several earlier rebellions emanating from the Monastery of St Edmund in East Anglia -- always a hotbed of Orthodox Resistance, and a defence of the Liberties of the Church against Frankish Feudalism ]. The Angevin Empire needed a uniting mythos, and the Arthurian mythos united both Britannia and Britanny, and was already in use under William or his near successors I believe [see Wace for dates]. In any event, 'Britain' dates from a heretical French occupation -- Logres, Roman Britons and their Christian converts, was Orthodox Christian, until the deposition and imprisonment of Archbishop Stigund (who was not in communion with Rome in 1054, as you may know). Of course, Orthodoxy didn't vanish overnight, being bred in the people for 100s of years, and the monasteries still being literate in Anglo-Saxon, and sometimes only nominally ruled by Norman abbots.

I don't know what they would say about Ethiopia but the principle is clear, some sort of accommodation must be made for Christian nations -- though not necessarily heretical ones. The Arian barbarians in Spain and Italy had a different trajectory. Justinian invaded to protect the Roman Orthodox minority in Italy, pre-Lombards. Visigothic Spain, on the other hand, became Orthodox Catholic. The Normans/Northmen as always provided a difficult case. Sometimes it worked out, as with the Varangian guard or Norway. The Norman invasion of England was a loss for Orthodoxy, though that was not clear at first and the Normans 'went native' as also in Ireland. Arians were, of course, and order of magnitude moar problematic than Monophysites, our dispute coming down to a handful of misunderstandings, politics, and pure cussedness.

Quote:
Provinces, then, if i'm understanding you correctly?

Yes. Back when legal documents were in Latin, the Kings even of Britain used the title Caesar. Czar is a similar usage. The Western Empire after Charlemagne is of course problematic, but we have Otto III, the reforms of Gerbert of Aurillac [1] as a point of reference. We should also remember that the 'Diocese' was a civil administrative district, and that the City -- one per diocese -- was the seat of the bishop. The idea of bishop as ethnarch is linked to the Roman structure.

[1]: Interestingly, the preaching over the relics of St Remigius is the opening scene of RW Southern's Making of the Middle Ages. Talk about riveting drama... Lewis and Southern together essentially 'invented' the 'History of the Middle Ages' as a modern, respectible academic discipline. Don't know if Southern's book is true, but it's a rollicking good tale.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-17-2017, 10:32 PM
Avvakum's Avatar
Avvakum Avvakum is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,847
Country: Byzantine Empire
Default

Macrobius, thank you for answering my questions satisfactorily, and I think I can comprehend and agree with your statements. As an aside, it was a mental block of sorts caused by my being something of a disciple of Orestes Brownson in political law and philosophy that held me back, given his rather ''Yankee'' understanding of things that rejected the Roman Law. However, i've come around. You went back and added a paragraph I think, that i did wish to comment on also;


Quote:
[3]: This observation allows us to conclude that the Federal courts are wrongly applying the Common Law to a 'propositional nation' (a supra-national organisation, or Federation, created by treaty between the States). It is impossible for non-Anglo-Saxons or Anglo-Celts to inherit an *exception* made by Rome, on the basis of a specific Christian people, when they both reject Rome and Christianity. It is as absurd as Idi Amin deciding he's a Sioux chief and wearing a headdress he's taken a fancy to. A less humourous and moar barbed comparison would be to compare Common Law to Sharia in Britain -- a religion-based exception to local law, permitted under international law to an enclave. It is as if the Federal Courts have decided to enforce and use Sharia case law, when hardly anyone in their jurisdiction is Muslim, and they are prohibited in theory from dragging Theology into the Courts. In practice, of course, they are using the colour of Common Law and bad Statutes to undermine both the exceptionalism of Anglo-Saxons and the moral order, and are indeed introducing a sort of Liberal Unitarianism that is moar similar to Sharia than anything Roman, Christian, or Saxon.

Indeed, this is the case, and when I look at the Preamble of the Confederate States of America Constitution;

Quote:
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."

I see that the South explicitly returned the Sacred to the Roman Civitas in America, as befitted Romans, and at least implicitly so gave Honor to the Christian God as well. This was not a feature of our Occupational U.S. Constitution, which is Atheistic in content. Am I correct?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-17-2017, 11:16 PM
Macrobius Macrobius is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,753
Country: United States
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avvakum
I see that the South explicitly returned the Sacred to the Roman Civitas in America, as befitted Romans, and at least implicitly so gave Honor to the Christian God as well. This was not a feature of our Occupational U.S. Constitution, which is Atheistic in content. Am I correct?

I would say the relation of the US at any stage to Romanity and Christianity is going to be, of course, problematic, and perhaps there is a measure of Divine Economy not foreseen by the actors themselves.

Some thoughts in no particular order --

- The Federalists were explicitly anti Roman Civil Law, since they formed the anti-Tribonian league. However, the Classical architecture and and the Cincinnati clearly indentified the 'common Roman heritage' -- but perhaps with a flawed understanding of the Respublica Christiana as a continuation of Rome. Rather, a sort of idealised Paganism [1]

- Slave law was always dependent on Visigothic precedents used by Spain -- there had to be a sort of 'common law' for slavery in the Caribbean (and don't forget about that Golden Crescent...). The very term 'common law' is a synonym for jus gentium. English Common Law is not the jus gentium itself, but folk law applied as an exception under the Common Law (which governed the handling of slaves and serfs between kingdoms, among other topics). 'Common Law' is rather like noticing the Virginia Company had indentured servants (colonists) and a corporate charter. This raises another side issue, never really adequately addressed even in Calhoun, which is do we really have, in the Confederacy, 11 or 13 *separate* sovereign nations? How do original colonies go from royal charters to their business ventures, and servitude, to freedom. The First War of Independence was *primarily* a White Slave revolt, and known to its participants to be such. [2]

- Europe in the Westphalian system did follow a sterile trajectory I think, towards making each Nation a sort of Rome-unto-themselves and the relation between (European) states as degraded as with Barbarians, rather than fellow Imperials in another province. This is a sign of a dysfunctional Imperium. The obvious solution would have been to reconstitute the Western Empire (Holy Roman Empire) and incorporate all of Western Europe in it. That could have turned out badly of course, and Europe and America have spent two or three centuries working through, and wrangling with it -- you know the Russian participation in this of course.

- This is the essence of the 'Europe as a Confederation' problem -- the EU is too sick to resolve the interregnum crisis in the West I think, except along the lines of a crypto-Muslim, Liberal Unitarian and Totalitarian state, which is what the Elites were trying to bring about in the US too. A Clinton Presidency would have been the capstone for this.

- This does raise, however, a theoretical discussion of whether even the Confederacy of 1861, as a continuation in America, is capable of solving the 'Nomos of the Earth' problem -- that is, reforming the broken Westphalian system, either for White, European culture, or as a world system.

- Jefferson was I think a Romantic Gothicist, though not to the extent of a Calhoun (who was a Presbyterian and whose Organic Nationalism follows an arc we see in German, ending with Hitler -- and in moar recent times as I have commented before, the Libya of Gaddafi). Jefferson had a specific background in Coke vs Bacon and their struggle against the Stuarts (anti-Jacobitism, eventually). His 'special super power' is that he mastered Coke's book on Land Tenure. The core of his Revolution is, I think, in the term 'allodial' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title - the word is not Latin but Latinised Anglo-Saxon all + od (Estate). od as Estate is cognate with owed ('mine by right'). All Owed, in straightforward English. Well, Saxon. The Danelaw would have a similar notion, with a moar Norse spin I would imagine. (Remember, St Alfred claimed to be the king of all Angle-Land because he conquered it, not because he was English. )

- It is useful to compare this discussion of colonial sectional politics to what you know of Rosicrucianism:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/co...-of-experience

- To answer your question about the Constitution directly, I think the 'separation of Church and State' was initially aimed at keeping clerics out of politics. Their was a lot of prejudice against bishops (the Quebec Act), and paying tithes in dioceses. Even Patrick Henry, Roman though he was, prosecuted the Parson's Cause (against the teacher, as it happened, of Jefferson, Madison, *and* Monroe).

So, I don't think I would say the Federalist Constitution was the sort of atheist document that a Christian would be obliged to protest as anti-Christ. After all, the Confederacy took it over wholesale, and even the State Supreme courts cited the US Supreme Court and Marshall in their opinions.

- 'Christianity' is obviously problematic when it isn't Orthodox. But for all that, there *is* a sense in which the Southern culture is deeply Christian, and for the good. For example, I remember as a child in a Carolina trailer court being sent in summer for a few hours some week or maybe on Saturdays, to a Vacation Bible School run by the Baptists. My mother in particular was Episcopalian and we went to that church, but as you know, Christians in the South are pretty cooperative -- ordinary people doing ordinary things have far less to argue about than heresy hunters with pitchforks and torches! They gave us little slips of paper with Bible verses on them, so I went home and asked for a Bible to look them up, and thus because acquainted with Bible. Later, I asked to go to Church and to be Catechised. Clearly, the simple expectation that children need to have 'Bible school' or whatever, and the large commonality all Christians share as to morals and social life when we aren't fighting each other, is an Economic factor is the Oikoumene, Imperial Household and Stewardship sense of Economics. Heresy has consequences, but having no Christian morals, society, and access to prayer and the Bible is *far* worse. It must have been the same in the high middle ages, with an Orthodox peasantry (in some traditional sense), and eventually heretical Elites.

Damage can be done to the People -- but it takes centuries. We are only now, after 150 years, seeing *real* damage to Christianity in the South, at a level comparable to the spread of Unitarianism in New England in the 18th century, and its aftermath of nihilism (the Adams family in successive generations being a good study in this -- see my discussion with Okie on The Conservative Mind).

[1]: one theory which was mooted by Sailor is that the widespread use of text led to the esoteric atheist/pagan underground getting 'flushed out in the open' with the Enlightenment. He's taking this from a book on Esoteric Writing technque that made the rounds a while back

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showth...91#post1398691

I think you and I know the French Revolution was not *entirely* about this sort of narrative, though it is one strand.

[2]: James Wilson, Lectures on Law - fuit servitudo -- 'Once, Serfdom was'. The servile system[3] was overthrown for (eventually under Jackson) all White male-headed families, along with extension of the franchise to the entire male citizenry [it being only a subset of citizens under Roman Law]. However, if the Revolution did anything, it ended Serfdom in America -- a comparison might be made to the Russian Revolution. The 'Roman Serf' factor mentioned by Romanides for the French Revolution, against Bloodline Feudal Elites, is quite salient here.

[3]: colonus, Colonist, was a legal term of art for the highest grade of non-freeman. servus, whence serf, was the lowest. Over the course of the middle ages, under the steady impact of Christianity, the status of serfs rose from the servus of Gentile times to the Colonist -- which Colonists revolted, with rather better results in America than Haiti for some reason.

https://books.google.com/books?id=MS...atin&f= false (Constantine and Theodosius on 'Colonists' )

We really are decended from Roman Serfs. *We are all Washington.*
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:33 AM
Avvakum's Avatar
Avvakum Avvakum is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,847
Country: Byzantine Empire
Default

Quote:
I would say the relation of the US at any stage to Romanity and Christianity is going to be, of course, problematic, and perhaps there is a measure of Divine Economy not foreseen by the actors themselves.

I could probably stop right there and be satisfied, but my mind is curious, so...

Quote:
Some thoughts in no particular order --

- The Federalists were explicitly anti Roman Civil Law, since they formed the anti-Tribonian league. However, the Classical architecture and and the Cincinnati clearly indentified the 'common Roman heritage' -- but perhaps with a flawed understanding of the Respublica Christiana as a continuation of Rome. Rather, a sort of idealised Paganism [1]

Way too much Titus Livy and Vergil, although as a lad the stories there in those glorious writers left a deep impression on me! Here I am, a kid 9 years old in backwoods Oklahoma, pretending to be Horatius at the Bridge fighting the Etruscans and their allies marching on Rome, lol....

Quote:
- Slave law was always dependent on Visigothic precedents used by Spain -- there had to be a sort of 'common law' for slavery in the Caribbean (and don't forget about that Golden Crescent...). The very term 'common law' is a synonym for jus gentium. English Common Law is not the jus gentium itself, but folk law applied as an exception under the Common Law (which governed the handling of slaves and serfs between kingdoms, among other topics). 'Common Law' is rather like noticing the Virginia Company had indentured servants (colonists) and a corporate charter. This raises another side issue, never really adequately addressed even in Calhoun, which is do we really have, in the Confederacy, 11 or 13 *separate* sovereign nations? How do original colonies go from royal charters to their business ventures, and servitude, to freedom. The First War of Independence was *primarily* a White Slave revolt, and known to its participants to be such. [2]

I see it as a Slave revolt, sure, by servants loyal instinct against an Elite in Europe that itself was in rebellion. Fruit of a poisoned tree.

Quote:
- Europe in the Westphalian system did follow a sterile trajectory I think, towards making each Nation a sort of Rome-unto-themselves and the relation between (European) states as degraded as with Barbarians, rather than fellow Imperials in another province. This is a sign of a dysfunctional Imperium. The obvious solution would have been to reconstitute the Western Empire (Holy Roman Empire) and incorporate all of Western Europe in it. That could have turned out badly of course, and Europe and America have spent two or three centuries working through, and wrangling with it -- you know the Russian participation in this of course.

I do, which makes what happened to Russia during this same time frame all the more interesting to me, considering some of the materials which I've previously shared with you. Justinian is an example of a Roman Emperor desirous of subduing rebellious provinces in the West.

Quote:
- This is the essence of the 'Europe as a Confederation' problem -- the EU is too sick to resolve the interregnum crisis in the West I think, except along the lines of a crypto-Muslim, Liberal Unitarian and Totalitarian state, which is what the Elites were trying to bring about in the US too. A Clinton Presidency would have been the capstone for this.

There is another alternative which predictive programming suggested to me, that Western Europe may attempt, reluctant as they may be to do it.... But of that I've covered in other threads.

Quote:
- This does raise, however, a theoretical discussion of whether even the Confederacy of 1861, as a continuation in America, is capable of solving the 'Nomos of the Earth' problem -- that is, reforming the broken Westphalian system, either for White, European culture, or as a world system.

It may resolve it here in the New World, which then deprives Rebel Europe of an American sword in her hand, which may well be replaced by China though.

Quote:
- Jefferson was I think a Romantic Gothicist, though not to the extent of a Calhoun (who was a Presbyterian and whose Organic Nationalism follows an arc we see in German, ending with Hitler -- and in moar recent times as I have commented before, the Libya of Gaddafi). Jefferson had a specific background in Coke vs Bacon and their struggle against the Stuarts (anti-Jacobitism, eventually). His 'special super power' is that he mastered Coke's book on Land Tenure. The core of his Revolution is, I think, in the term 'allodial' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title - the word is not Latin but Latinised Anglo-Saxon all + od (Estate). od as Estate is cognate with owed ('mine by right'). All Owed, in straightforward English. Well, Saxon. The Danelaw would have a similar notion, with a moar Norse spin I would imagine. (Remember, St Alfred claimed to be the king of all Angle-Land because he conquered it, not because he was English. )

Which also might go towards explaining the genesis of Amerindian policy in America, btw. As an aside, ''Indian'' doesn't come about as a name for American Aboriginals because 'the Europeans ignorantly thought they were in India', but because the old Latin word 'Inde' which denoted a 'far land'...

Quote:
- It is useful to compare this discussion of colonial sectional politics to what you know of Rosicrucianism:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/co...-of-experience

Try it in Europe, try it here, hopefully with better results. That strand is not dead yet, either, thank God.

Quote:
- To answer your question about the Constitution directly, I think the 'separation of Church and State' was initially aimed at keeping clerics out of politics. Their was a lot of prejudice against bishops (the Quebec Act), and paying tithes in dioceses. Even Patrick Henry, Roman though he was, prosecuted the Parson's Cause (against the teacher, as it happened, of Jefferson, Madison, *and* Monroe).

So, I don't think I would say the Federalist Constitution was the sort of atheist document that a Christian would be obliged to protest as anti-Christ. After all, the Confederacy took it over wholesale, and even the State Supreme courts cited the US Supreme Court and Marshall in their opinions.

I agree, to the extent that a proper Harmonia or Symphonia cannot be achieved with heretical clergy and/or populace, but that the CSA did repair the fault of banning the Creator entirely from the document.

Quote:
- 'Christianity' is obviously problematic when it isn't Orthodox. But for all that, there *is* a sense in which the Southern culture is deeply Christian, and for the good. For example, I remember as a child in a Carolina trailer court being sent in summer for a few hours some week or maybe on Saturdays, to a Vacation Bible School run by the Baptists. My mother in particular was Episcopalian and we went to that church, but as you know, Christians in the South are pretty cooperative -- ordinary people doing ordinary things have far less to argue about than heresy hunters with pitchforks and torches! They gave us little slips of paper with Bible verses on them, so I went home and asked for a Bible to look them up, and thus because acquainted with Bible. Later, I asked to go to Church and to be Catechised. Clearly, the simple expectation that children need to have 'Bible school' or whatever, and the large commonality all Christians share as to morals and social life when we aren't fighting each other, is an Economic factor is the Oikoumene, Imperial Household and Stewardship sense of Economics. Heresy has consequences, but having no Christian morals, society, and access to prayer and the Bible is *far* worse. It must have been the same in the high middle ages, with an Orthodox peasantry (in some traditional sense), and eventually heretical Elites.

This reflects the Orthodox understanding that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is very true; but God is merciful and truly loves Mankind. We don't beat people over the head too much who aren't where we are yet. The Holy Spirit moves where He wills, like the wind, invisibly but perceptibly.

Quote:
Damage can be done to the People -- but it takes centuries. We are only now, after 150 years, seeing *real* damage to Christianity in the South, at a level comparable to the spread of Unitarianism in New England in the 18th century, and its aftermath of nihilism (the Adams family in successive generations being a good study in this -- see my discussion with Okie on The Conservative Mind).

We are reaping the fruits of Heresy now, for sure.

Quote:
[1]: one theory which was mooted by Sailor is that the widespread use of text led to the esoteric atheist/pagan underground getting 'flushed out in the open' with the Enlightenment. He's taking this from a book on Esoteric Writing technque that made the rounds a while back

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showth...91#post1398691

I think you and I know the French Revolution was not *entirely* about this sort of narrative, though it is one strand.


Like a controlled burn of a wildfire?

Quote:
[2]: James Wilson, Lectures on Law - fuit servitudo -- 'Once, Serfdom was'. The servile system[3] was overthrown for (eventually under Jackson) all White male-headed families, along with extension of the franchise to the entire male citizenry [it being only a subset of citizens under Roman Law]. However, if the Revolution did anything, it ended Serfdom in America -- a comparison might be made to the Russian Revolution. The 'Roman Serf' factor mentioned by Romanides for the French Revolution, against Bloodline Feudal Elites, is quite salient here.


That's the Genie out of the bottle in my opinion. There is a 'natural Christianity' amid the popular masses that is missing in their Elites of course, but it's there and I trust it more than they. In fact, it lies at the Elites fear of the masses in the Roman Empire.

Quote:
[3]: colonus, Colonist, was a legal term of art for the highest grade of non-freeman. servus, whence serf, was the lowest. Over the course of the middle ages, under the steady impact of Christianity, the status of serfs rose from the servus of Gentile times to the Colonist -- which Colonists revolted, with rather better results in America than Haiti for some reason.

One group of Servants came from Roman stock in the sense you and I understand it, that had what I just mentioned in the previous paragraph, while the latter had come from Gentile Barbarian stock, as we understand that to be.

Quote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=MS...atin&f= false (Constantine and Theodosius on 'Colonists' )

We really are decended from Roman Serfs. *We are all Washington.*

Very interesting, thank you! ''Coloni, slaves of the land to which they were born within''
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.04823 seconds with 11 queries