Saturday, July 19, 2008


Pionochet’s achievement in throwing off Allende’s Marxist government in Chile has been compared to Franco’s achievement in Spain’s civil war. Both men certainly belong in the counterrevolutionary hall of fame, but because of one very important reason Pinochet’s achievement seems even greater than Franco’s. Pinochet accomplished his counterrevolution without the support of the Catholic Church. I can’t think of any other successful counterrevolution in this century since the Church has joined the forces of democracy, progress, and enlightenment. (Which of course translates to the forces of bloodshed and darkness. What was it that Metternich said? “Every time I hear the word ‘democracy,’ I know a bloodbath is coming.”)

The liberals’ extraordinarily intense hatred of Pinochet was because of his success. They would certainly hate me as much if I had any chance of mounting a charge like Pinochet, but since I don’t they leave me alone.

One could point out, as regards Franco and Pinochet, that they were not very successful counterrevolutionaries because their counterrevolutions did not survive them. Well, that is true, but at least they sallied forth and achieved a modicum of counterrevolutionary glory.

The problem that counterrevolutionaries like Pinochet and Franco have when they try to pass on their counterrevolutionary gains to posterity is that there is no institutional support for their counterrevolutionary ideals. The situation is analogous to a teacher who manages, against the ideals of the educational institution in which he is working, to make a genuine impression on a student. The teacher sees that a student is interested and inspired, but he must watch the inspired student go out of the classroom into a world that is hostile to the ideals he was teaching. The student, after continually butting his head up against the brick walls of individuals and institutions hostile to the ideals of his former teacher, soon concludes that his teacher was crazy and/or impractical.

Both Franco and Pinochet pointed out to their countrymen the dangers of egalitarian democracy. It made their countries vulnerable to communist usurpation. Both men tried to move their countries to a more hierarchical and a more Christian form of government, but where was the reinforcement for their values? In the absence of a church that would support Christianity, both counterrevolutions failed to survive their authors.

The late Jesse Helms was cast from the same mold as Pinochet and Franco. He was intensely loyal to an older, more European vision of his nation, and he didn’t mind being unpopular for trying to stem the modernist tide. But he was one senator against a horde of modernist ones. Quite predictably his noble efforts of resistance came to naught.

In his magnificent history of England, the French author André Mauris points out that the English, unlike the people of France and Spain, never knew an absolute ruler. They always had some kind of multi-tiered system of powers. I would suggest that now, some 70 years since André Mauris published A History of England, the English nation as well as its offshoot, the United States, does have an absolute ruler. It is Satan. Once Satan conquered the Christian churches, he was able to penetrate every single tier of the multi-tiered system of the English-speaking people’s nation. At every turn we see Satan supporting Satan. School, church, press, and government all form one steel curtain around Satandom. And the most convincing proof of the satanic nature of Western civilization consists of the respect and adulation that European man gives to the black man. When Europe was Christian, the black savage was held in check, just as Satan was held in check. In point of fact, Satan and the black man are coordinate; when Satan is loosed, the black savage is loosed. They are the boogie men who strive when Christ’s day becomes Satan’s night.

Labels: ,