The Political Landscape from a Christian Perspective
Pride and Egalitarianism
The proud person, subject to another’s authority, hates first of all the particular yoke that weighs upon him.
In a second stage, the proud man hates all authority in general and all yokes, and, even more, the very principle of authority considered in the abstract.
Because he hates all authority, he also hates superiority of any kind. And in all this is a true hatred for God.
This hatred for any inequality has gone so far as to drive high-ranking persons to risk and even lose their positions just to avoid accepting the superiority of somebody else.
There is more. In a height of virulence, pride could lead a person to fight for anarchy and to refuse the supreme power were it offered to him. This is because the simple existence of that power implicitly attests to the principle of authority, to which every man as such — the proud included — can be subject.
Pride, then, can lead to the most radical and complete egalitarianism.
This radical and metaphysical egalitarianism has various aspects.
- Equality between men and God. Pantheism, immanentism, and all esoteric forms of religion aim to place God and men on an equal footing and to invest the latter with divine properties. An atheist is an egalitarian who, to avoid the absurdity of affirming that man is God, commits the absurdity of declaring that God does not exist. Secularism is a form of atheism and, therefore, of, egalitarianism. It affirms that it is impossible to be certain of the existence of God and, consequently, that man should act in the temporal realm as if God did not exist; in other words, he should act like a person who has dethroned.
- Equality in the ecclesiastical realm: the suppression of a priesthood endowed with the power of Orders, magisterium, and government, or at least of a priesthood with hierarchical degrees.
- Equality among the different religions. All religions discrimination is to be disdained because it violes the fundamental equality of men. Therefore, the different religions must receive a rigorously equal treatment. To claim that only one religion is true to the exclusion of the other amounts to affirming superiority, contradicting evangelical meekness, and acting impolitically, since it closes the hearts of men against it.
- Equality in the political realm: the elimination or at least the lessening of the inequality between the rulers and the ruled. Power comes not from God but from the masses; they command and the government must obey. Monarchy and aristocracy are to be proscribed as intrinsically evil regimes because they are antiegalitarian. Only democracy is legitimate, just, and evangelical.
- Equality in the structure of society: the suppression of classes, especially those perpetuated by heredity, and the extirpation of all aristocratic influence upon the direction of society and upon the general tone of culture and customs. The natural hierarchy constituted by the superiority of intellectual over manual work will disappear through the overcoming of the distinction between them.
- The abolition of the intermediate bodies between the individual and the State, as well as of the privileges inherent in every social body. No matter how much the Revolution hates the absolutism of kings, it hates intermediate bodies and the medieval organic monarchies even more. This is because monarchic absolutism tends to put all subjects, even those of the highest standing, at a level of reciprocal equality in a lower station that foreshadows the annihilation of the individual and the anonymity that have reached their apex in the great urban concentrations of socialist societies. Among the intermediate groups to be abolished, the family ranks first. Until it manages to wipe it out, the Revolution tries to lower it, mutilate it, and vilify it in every way.
- Economic equality. No one owns anything; everything belongs to the collectivity. Private property is abolished along with each person’s right to the full fruits of his toil and to the choice of his profession.
- Equality in the exterior aspects of existence. Variety easily leads to inequality of status. Therefore, variety in dress, housing, furniture, habits, and so on, is reduced as much as possible.
- Equality of souls. Propaganda standardizes, so to speak, all souls, taking away their peculiarities and almost their own life. Even the psychological and attitudinal differences between the sexes tend to diminish as much as possible. Because of this, the people, essentially a great family of different but harmonious souls united by what is common to them, disappears. And the masses, with their great empty, collective, and enslaved soul, arise.
- Equality in all social relations: between grown-ups and youngsters, employers and employees, teachers and students, husband and wife, parents and children, etc.
- Equality in the international order. The State is Constituted by an independent people exercising full dominion over a territory. Sovereignty is, therefore, a public law, the image of property. Once we admit the idea of a people, whose characteristics distinguish it from other peoples, and the idea of sovereignty, we are perforce in the presence of inequalities: of capacity, virtue, number, and others. Once the idea of territory is admitted, we have quantitative and qualitative inequality among the various territorial spaces. This is why the Revolution, which is fundamentally egalitarian, dreams of merging all races, all peoples, and all states into a single race, people, and state.
- Equality among the different parts of the country. For the same reasons, and by analogous means, the Revolution tends to do away with any wholesome regionalism — whether political, cultural, or other — within countries today.
- Egalitarianism and hatred for God. Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that the diversity of creatures and their hierarchical gradation are good in themselves, for thus the perfections of the Creator shine more resplendently throughout creation. He says further that Providence instituted inequality among the angels as well as among men, both in the terrestrial Paradise and into this land of exile. For this reason, a universe of equal creatures would be a world in which the resemblance between creatures and the Creator would have been eliminated as much as possible. To hate in principle all inequality is, then, to place oneself metaphysically against the best elements of resemblance between the Creator and creation. It is to hate God.
- The limits of inequality. Of course, one cannot conclude from this doctrinal explanation that inequality is always and necessarily a good.
- All men are equal by nature and different only in their accidents. The rights they derive from the mere fact of being human are equal for all: the right to life, honor, sufficient living conditions (and therefore the right to work), property, the setting up of a family, and, above all, the knowledge and practice of the true religion. The inequalities that threaten these rights are contrary to the order of Providence. However, within these limits, the inequalities that arise from accidents such as virtue, talent, beauty, strength, family, tradition, and so forth, are just and according to the order of the universe.
c. Egalitarianism and liberalism.
This inversion — the right to think, feel, and do everything the unrestrained passions demand — is the essence of liberalism. This is clearly shown in the more exacerbated forms of the liberal doctrine. On analyzing them, one perceives that liberalism is not interested in freedom for what is good. It is solely interested in freedom for evil. In this it shows itself to be opposed to Catholic civilization, which gives its full support and total freedom to what is good and restrains evil as much as possible….
What leads an authentic liberal to accept socialism is to precisely that under it a thousand good or at least innocent things are tyrannically forbidden, while the methodical satisfaction (sometimes with a show of austerity) of the worse and most violent passions, such as envy, laziness, and lust, is favored. On the other hand, the liberal perceives that the broadening of authority in the socialist regime is no more than a means within the logic of the system for attaining the so intensely desired goal of final anarchy.
C. False Traditionalism
The traditionalist spirit of the Counter-Revolution has nothing in common with a false and narrow traditionalism, which conserves certain rites, styles or customs merely out of love for old forms and without any appreciation for doctrine that gave rise to them. This would be archaeologism, not a sound and living traditionalism.
The Counter-Revolution Is Conservative
Is the Counter-Revolution conservative? In one sense, it is, and profoundly so. And in another sense, it is not, and also profoundly so.
If it is a question of conserving something of the present that is good and deserves to live, the Counter-Revolution is conservative.
But if it’s a question of perpetuating the hybrid situation in which we find ourselves, of keeping the revolutionary process at it’s present stage, while remaining immobile like a statue of sale, on the sidelines of history and time, embracing alike what is good and evil in our century, thus seeking a perpetual and harmonius coexistence of good and evil, the Counter-Revolution is neither nor can be conservative.
Does the counter-revolution favor progress? Yes, if the progress is authentic. No, if it’s a march towards the revolutionary utopia.
First, to clearly differentiate between the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary concepts of progress, it is necessary to note that the counter-revolutionary takes into account that the world will always be a valley of tears and a passageway to heaven, while the revolutionary considers that progress should make the earth a paradise in which man lives happily with no thought of eternity.
From the very notion of rightful progres, one can see that the revolutionary process is it’s contrary.
Thus, the Counter-Revolutionary is an essential condition for the preservation of the normal development of authentic progress and the defeat of the revolutionary utopia, which has only a facade of progress.
St. Joan of Arc was no theologian but astounded her judges by the theological profundity of her thoughts. So also, animated by an admirable understanding of the Revolution’s spirit and aims, simple peasants, for instance, or of Vendee or Tyrol, have often been the best soldiers of the Counter-Revolution.
- Individual Action
The action must be carried out first of all at the individual level. Nothing is more effective than the frank and proud counter-revolutionary stand taken by a young college student, an officer, a teacher, a priest especially, an aristocrat, or a blue-collar worker who is influential within his circle. The first reaction will be sometimes be one of indignation. But if he perseveres, after a period that will vary depending on circumstances, gradually others will join him.
A preference for Great Means of Action
Of course, in principle, counter-revolutionary action deserves to have at it’s disposal the best means: television, radio, major press, and a rational, efficient, and brilliant publicity. The true counter-revolutionary should always tend to use these means, overcoming the defeatist attitude of some of his companions who immediately surrender all hope of using them because they constantly see them in the hands of the children of darkness. However, we must recognize that, in point of fact, counter-revolutionary action will often have to be undertaken without these resources.
- “The Counter-Revolution Is Out of Date”
The most prevalent and harmful of these slogans claims that the Counter-Revolution cannot flourish in our day because it is contrary to the spirit of the times. History, it is said, does not turn back.
If this peculiar principle were true the Catholic religion would not exist, for it cannot be denied that the Gospel was radically contrary to the milieu in which Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles preached. Also, Germano-Romanic Catholic Spain would not have existed, for nothing is more like a resurrection, and hence in a certain way like a return to the past, than the full reconstitution of the Christian grandeur of Spain after the eight centuries from Covadonga to the fall of Granada. The Renaissance, so dear to revolutionaries, was itself, from various points of view at least, a return to a cultural and artistic naturalism that had been petrified for over a millenium.
History, then, contains comings and goings along the paths of good and the paths of evil.
Incidentally, whenever the Revolution considers some thing to be consistent with the spirit of the times, caution has to be exercised, for all too often it is rubbish from some pagan time that it wishes to restore. What is new, for example, about divorce, nudism, tyranny, or demagoguery, all of which were so widespread in the ancient world? And why is the advocate of divorce regarded as modern while the defender of indissoluble marriage is considered out-dated? The Revolution’s concept of modern amounts to everything that gives free reign to pride and egalitarianism as well as to pleasure-seeking and liberalism.
“The Counter-Revolution is Negativistic”
According to another slogan of the Revolution, the Counter-Revolution, by it’s very name, defines itself as something negative and therefore sterile. This is a mere play on words, for, based on the fact that the negation of a negation corresponds to an affirmation, the human spirit expresses many of its most positive concepts in a negative form: infallability, innocence, and others, would it be negativism to fight for any of these values just because of their negative formulation? Did the first vatican council perform a negativistc work when it defined papal infallability? Is the Immaculate Conception a negativistic preogative of Mother oGod?
B. Eliminating the Polemical Aspects of Counter-Revolutionary Action
Sadly, the idea of presenting the Counter-Revolution in a more “sympathetic” and “positive” light by preventing it from attacking the Revolution is the most efficient way to impoverish it’s content and dynamism.
Anyone who employs this lamentable tactics displays the same lack of sense as a chief of state, who in the face of enemy troops crossing his border, were to half all armed resistance in hope of neutralizing the invader by gaining his sympathy. In reality, he would destroy the impetus of the reaction without stopping the enemy. In other words, he would surrender his homeland.
Consequently the same principle between the anticommunist struggle should lead the employer in keeping with his own needs and those of his family. It is worth recalling this is in order to emphasize that the counter-revolution is not only the guardian of the property of the employer but that of the worker too. It’s struggle is not on behalf of groups or classes, but for principles.
The Church and the Counter-Revolution
The revolution as born from an explosion of disorderly passions that is leading to the total destruction of temporal society, the complete subversion of the moral order, and the denial of God. The great target of the Revolution is, then, the Church, the Mystical Body of CHrist, the infallible teacher of the Truth, the guardian of Natural Law, and, therefore, the ultimate foundation of temporal order itself.
In this regard, it should be made clear that the Counter-Revolution is not destined to save the Spouse of Christ. Supported as she is on the promise of her Founder, does not need men to survive. On the contrary, it is the Church that gives life to the Counter-Revolution, who without her, is neither feasible nor even conceivable.
The Counter-Revolution wants to contribute to the salvation of many souls threatened by the Revolution and to the prevention of the catastrophes that menance temporal society. To do this, it must rely on the Church and humbly serve her, instead of vainly imagining that it is saving her.
- The Church is much higher and far broader than the revolution and the counter-revolution
- The Church Has The Greatest Interest in Crushing the Revolution
- The Church is fundamentally counter-revolutionary force
- The Church is the greatest counter-revolutionary force
- The Church is the Soul of the Counter-Revolution
- The Ideal of the Counter-REvolution is the Exalt the Church
- In A Way, the Purview of the Counter-Revolution Is Broader than the Ecclesiastical Ambit
- Whether every Catholic should be counter-revolutionary
C. The Explicit Counter-Revolutionary
No one may deny that it is licit for certain persons to take upon themselves the task of developing specifically counter-revolutionary apostolate in Catholic and non-Catholic circles. This they will do by proclaiming the existence of the Revolution, describing it’s spirit, method and doctrines, and urging everyone to counter-revolutionary action.
We speak of infiltration of communism into the various churches. It is indispensable to register that this infiltration is a supreme danger to the world, specifically in so far as it is carried on in the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Apostolic Church. The reason for this is that she is not merely a species of the genus churches. She is the only living and true Church of the living and true God, the only Mystical Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In relation to the other churches, she is not a greater and more brilliant diamond among smaller and lesser brilliant ones: She is the only true diamond among “similars” made of glass.
Excerpts from Revolution and Counter-Revolution by Plinio Correa de Oliveira