When it comes to the race issue in America, many questions arise that never get answered. So, perhaps the racial divide in America could be solved under a Catholic monarchy. That’s the direction Beren was headed with his questions to me last month:
I’ve been shooting some ideas around lately with my Catholic Alt-Right buddy and I have a couple questions I’d be curious of your opinion on.
1. Races aren’t equal. In the prior Catholic monarchies, it was ethnicities with similar genetic profiles living under one king. The distance between Europeans and blacks is massive. Between Europeans and Aztecas is closer but still very large. Iberian colonies managed this with a rigid caste system. Would you support a similar arrangement?
2. Most people aren’t saints in any age. Under a Catholic monarch we could do much better to promote sanctity, but the majority would probably not be saints. Tribalism however, needs something to give identity to the in-group. Identity as a particular people is what allows those who may not be as religious to still feel apart of the nation. Poland is a good example. My question to you then is, can two radically different races as blacks and whites think of themselves long-term as one people?
These are excellent questions. I have been pondering these questions for several months, long before Beren asked them.
The issue of race is a tremendous dilemma for the West at this point in time. I do not believe that we shall solve our multicultural problems in the manner that 20th Century hippies propose. We will not solve the race issue if we give in to every demand of the Jewish-created NAACP. We will not heal the different races in America by making whites feel perpetually guilty and paying blacks reparations. Even if we purify ourselves to the same standards of the America of our Founders, we will still not overcome this problem.
It is my opinion that Catholic Monarchy, however, can solve this issue.
My answer to Beren and this dilemma will come in at least a 2-part series. This first post actually stems from some arguments I had on another blog. I submitted the question to Tumblar House, and I was pleased to hear a response from Charles Coulombe on the matter. So, for your evening’s amusement and consideration, I present you with Off The Menu: Episode 13.5 – Monarchy and Multiculturalism. I have also included a transcript below the video.
Laramie Hirsch: In your book, Star-Spangled Crown, you said that sovereigns have often presided over radically different and even hostile ethnicities, religions, and cultures. Could you list some examples of this, and how do you propose an American monarch would best handle the racial dilemma in the United States?
Charles Coulombe: Well, of course the easy answer would be to read the book, but I won’t give an easy answer!
Where do I begin? Alexander, the Persian Empire, Alexander’s Empire, the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire–every empire that has ever existed, with the few exceptions like the American Empire and some smaller countries like Rwanda, Ethiopia (Ethiopia was an empire, too), anyway…the reason being that they were monarchical, and the monarch had to be above ethnicity, above race, and to a degree above religion.
Now this is what’s interesting, because every monarchy is legitimized by a particular faith. Not by several at once. And yet, nevertheless, they do have to maintain a connection if there are people of other religions of their own. They do have to retain some sort of connection.
In Thailand, the king of Thailand is the head of the Buddhist community (in Thailand, which is the largest [religion] of the people). But he also maintains a set of Hindu priests at the court in Bangkok who perform certain particular Brahmin rituals for the monarchy. And he’s the protector of the Christians. That’s his particular title.
Now, obviously, if (as was the case with Christianity in the Roman Empire) if the monarch feels there is a irreconcilable difference between himself and a member of a faith, the members of that faith are going to feel it. The way we did!
But, at any rate, generally speaking, there are so many examples of monarchs who have presided over this kind of diversity, the real question is: who are the ones who didn’t? Which is a harder one to answer.
You’ll find very very few–or even, today, Belgium for instance…I mean, the Flems and the Walloons really dislike one another, even though they’ve got the same faith. But the monarchy and the Church were the two great bonds of union in Belgium. And it’s interesting that the country’s begun to fragment as the Faith has become far less prevalent among them, and as the monarchy has lost its influence over the workings of power. So there’s that element of the question.
How an American monarchy would deal with it: presumably, if such a person existed, the way any other monarch stuck with that kind of setup would. He would somehow be father of all the different races and peoples within the country. But on a very particular level.
So in other words, where he might be–say I’m a citizen of California, and he’s my king because he’s the king of California…to the Indian Reservation down the road, well he is the supreme chief to all the tribes. And for the blacks, he might play some other role.
That’s one of the interesting things about monarchies–is the number of titles that monarchs generally have. They very often go on and on and on because they’re not just the king or the Emperor. They are different other things that have a relationship with different subjects according to those other offices.
So the king would have to be, as it were, above the race issue.
Vincent Frankini: How can he not play favorites? I mean, if you have people on two sides of an issue…you have to pick one side, don’t you?
Charles Coulombe: Not necessarily. I mean, you’re presuming that somebody has to win. Somebody doesn’t have to win.
Vincent Frankini: Okay, how about pro-life vs pro-choice?
Charles Coulombe: That’s a different thing. It’s a good question. It’s a good thing to explore. The difference is this: Let’s say you got a father of a family. Pretend for a second that you’ve got a father and his family. And pretend the siblings have very different personalities, very different interests, and very often have a lot of friction with each other. (I know it’s hard to believe.) Pretend there’s a family like that. There really is never any “victory” in this.
The father always has to maintain his place, and the kids will always be doing the same stuff with their little “boo-boo woos” to the big Thanksgiving dinner where they’re bringing all their children from all over the country to settle down with Dad. They do the same stuff, they fall into the same bloody roles, and the father is stuck having to try to figure it out. Does he play play favorites? Uh, maybe. Especially when one’s stupider than another. Or nastier. Yeah, he may play favorites in that sense, but it is not something that can be “won.” The family is just “the family as it is,” until all of the members are dead–in which case, it changes. With that dynamic it gets very different.
But with a basic ideological question, that’s totally different. That becomes whether or not there’s gonna be a family at all. You couldn’t have a family where, as I described, you got the difficult, problematic family. But they all accept that dad is dad. And at the end of the day, he’s going to lay down the law. They may wheedle, they may try to get their way this way or that way, they may want this or that–all kinds of things may go on. They may lie to him, they may try to conceal things from him, they may rat each other out–all kinds of things can happen.
But at the end of the day, there’s certain basic rules. They’re all stuck playing with one another whether they like it or not. Dad’s dad. And Dad has his own personality issues. Yeah, he might be drunk, he might be quick to punish and slow to question, or vice versa. He might be too indulgent. You know, anything might happen. That’s a particular structure.
But if one of the kids says: “I don’t wanna recognize my sister is a member of this family. She’s not real.” That’s a different problem. And what the abortion issue is really about is who is human and who isn’t. Who is a member of the family, and who isn’t. The pro-abortion people are saying that the pre-born are not members of the family. “They’re not real. They’re not people.” “This sister of mine, she’s not my sister. She has no right to be here, and you, Dad, are wrong for calling her your daughter because she doesn’t even exist.”
That’s a whole other story. That’s a whole other framework. And that’s the difference between the two.
A proper monarch would have the obligation to try to defend the unborn because they’re his subjects, too. Same as the elderly. Same for the productive. Same for the unproductive.
Another blog post on this matter shall follow.