NEWS:  November 23, 2015
donate Books CDs HOME updates search contact

Bird’s Eye View of the News

Atila Sinke Guimarães
WHAT COMES AFTER DEMOCRACY?  -  Our present-day political regime was born under the aegis of liberty – liberty of thought, expression, religion and the correlated liberty of publicly gathering to defend one’s ideas and to publicly worship the god he believes in. It was established in opposition to the prior old regime, which was monarchical in form and Catholic in faith and customs. I am talking principally of France and the French Revolution, but almost all the Western nations can be included mutatis mutandis in this evaluation.

I consider that modern revolutionary Democracy is a fruit of the French Revolution. At that time France was the natural leader of Europe and what it did was imitated by the Western nations. (1)

liberty tree

The ‘liberty tree,’ basis of revolutionary Democracy, is diseased and rapidly dying

I would say that in the first 100 years of the French Republic (I simplify the topic by grouping together France’s five chaotic republics, which tripped over two empires, one monarchical restoration and two German occupations), it spent most of its time destroying what was left of the organic society of the past and throwing stones at the Catholic Church.

In the next 100 years, the Republic and its revolutionary Democracy showed their “constructive” side: Having established the “conquests” of the French Revolution in the State everywhere and having compromised with the Church taking the State’s part in Leo XIII’s ralliement, it assumed a grave air of bourgeois self-sufficiency and sat back to enjoy the progress of the technological discoveries of the late 19th and 20th centuries.

The 200th anniversary of Democracy in France and in Europe is a landmark of its growing infirmity. I am speaking not only of the disappearance of great men from the political scene – De Gaulle, Churchill and Adenauer – and their replacement by bureaucratic pygmies – Hollande, Cameron and Merkel. I am referring to something deeper: Democracy has generated its own death.

First symptom of death: the Muslim immigration

Indeed, the democratic system presupposes tolerance for anything in which its members profess to believe. Now then, for more than five decades France has been taking in Muslin immigrants from its old African colonies and, recently, from other places. Hollande’s current policy is to assimilate as many Muslin immigrants as possible under the pretext of helping “Syria refugees.” So, not only the inhabitants of France’s ex-colonies have acquired the right to become French citizens, but also the children of immigrants from any other country born in France have this right.

refugees

Muslim refugees largely reject democracy and want to destroy it

Hence these newcomers of foreign origins have the equal rights to decide the future of France as the members of the old families that helped to write France’s history for the last 1,000 years. Muslims have also the right to profess their faith, even when it commands them to kill whoever does not believe in their religion.

So, I list three obvious political consequences of this fatal error of tolerance toward the Muslim immigration:
  • With close to five million Muslims in France, at any moment they can raise up riots – as they did in 2006 – paralyzing the country;

  • They can easily make spectacular terrorist attacks with the correspondent carnage and psychological trauma for non-Muslim inhabitants – as they did twice this year, in January and just recently on November 13;

  • They have the confessed policy to generate as many children as possible with the aim of surpassing the French European population in some generations – we are already in the second generation...
Muslims are unable to understand the separation of religion and state, which is another pillar of revolutionary Democracy. For them every state must be sacral and Islamic. Hence, their presence in France is not only a clear threat to Democracy, but marks its death.

Second symptom: moral corruption

Moral corruption, unfortunately, is not a characteristic of just France. You may apply my criticism to any Western nation of your choice.

First mistresses of France

Sarkozy greets Hollande as he leaves the Elysée Palace; their two mistresses are present

But in France there is more: It has seen Presidents with concubines for the last eight years (2007-2015). Nicolas Sarkozy and presently François Hollande – representing respectively the right and the left – publicly flaunted their concubines, Sarkozy appearing with two different women during his term and Holland with two, so far. So, the “First Mistresses” have replaced the “First Ladies.”

I know of no public condemnation of these scandalous situations coming from France or anywhere else. On the contrary, when Sarkozy went to England with his “First Mistress,” she was received by the Queen, while the press was laughing, publishing pictures of her posing naked for magazines in her former profession as a model. Even Benedict XVI greeted the concubine without any moral reservation.

In parallel, homosexuality enjoys the protection of the law in France, as in the United States. Emperor Justinian, who knew about the history of nations, wrote that when homosexuality is approved by the law, the State is on the verge of being punished by God.

Pornographic blasphemies – Charlie Hebdo – free-love, contraception, abortion, you name it; all these monstrosities are protected by law. These are moral factors of corruption that make our time similar to the last days of Pompeii.

This moral virus has completely putrefied today’s Democracy. It would perish on its own if other causes were not to destroy it sooner.

Third symptom: socialization

Socialist laws giving “rights” to the workers are so despotic and make labor so expensive that they obliged employers to look for a parallel labor force – either illegal immigrants inside the country or cheaper labor abroad. Consequently, workers lose their jobs.

This is another political malady inherent to Democracy. In the long term these laws asphyxiate and paralyze the system.

Fourth symptom: feminism

Although I am a defender of the incomparable role of the woman in the home, when it comes to public affairs she fails. She fails because her nature destined her for the particular good, not for the common good; for intuition, not for logic; to pardon, not to apply justice; to be receptive and not to take the initiative, in brief, to obey and not to command.

The Revolution forced woman into public life. This produced multiple disasters: Children were orphaned of maternal affection and became psychologically unbalanced; women became masculine and men feminine, and the public sphere was inundated with inordinate sentimentality.

sufragettes"

Strident sufragettes march in a 1910 New York demonstration demanding the right to vote

With the woman’s right to vote, the criteria for electing a candidate for a public office changed: What counts now is not whether a man is capable to govern, but whether he is handsome and seductive, kisses children and protects animals. This sentimentality encourages the ascension of demagogues. It destroys the base of any real concern for the res publica – the public good. As a consequence, elections – when they are not fraudulent – became greatly flawed.

The main contribution of the feminine mentality to Democracy was an exponential multiplication of tolerance. Never before had History seen such an avalanche of tyrannical and ineffective laws “protecting” the poor, old people, children and animals. This is not to say that one should not support them – all just governments always took due care of them. The problem is the frenzied sentimentality that has been added to the picture.

Instead of being ruled by reason, Democracy became governed by feelings. In the short term this distorts the regime; in the long run it kills it.

These are just a few symptoms of death of Democracy.

Methodic destruction of Christendom

muslim invasion

Muslims by the thousands – mostly young men – are unleashed on Europe

Seeing the death of Democracy approaching, the agents of the Revolution – Freemasons and the like – do not want the West to return to Feudalism or to Monarchy, the two normal options people would choose if they were left to themselves.

To prevent any such returns from taking place, the Revolution wants to be sure that nothing from the old Christendom will remain. This is why it is delivering Europe to a Muslim invasion. The United States is being prepared for an economic and socio-political implosion. Latin America is kept ineffective by Liberation Theology’s “democratic” Communism, seasoned with fraudulent elections and political corruption.

From God’s eyes

As the Devil prepares to annihilate what is left of Christendom and the Church, we can ascertain that his deadline is near.

Doesn’t the Muslim invasion of Europe induce us to think about the words of Our Lady in Fatima: “Many nations will be annihilated”? Yes, it does. We are witnessing it.

It is symbolic that modern Democracy, which was born from the massacres of the French Revolution, is now dying, itself being massacred by a new type of terror.

The cancer of the Revolution corroding Christendom for centuries approaches its end. The victory of cancer is death, like the victory of fire is to reduce everything to ashes.

We know that a remnant of Catholics will remain and rebuild the Reign of Mary. This is the task of the counter-revolutionaries… after the Deluge.

  1. Someone could object that the American Revolution was prior to the French Revolution and, therefore, both the French Revolution and modern democracy should be attributed to it – post hoc, ergo proper hoc (after it, therefore, because of it).

    I answer: At that time the United States was still in its cradle stage and did not have the central importance it acquired during the 20th century. I believe that the American Revolution was in many ways the crucible where the French Revolution was tested. Lafayette playing an important role in the Revolution here and Franklin playing a remarkable role in the Revolution there, show the unity of the two movements prearranged in the brotherhood of the Masonic Lodges.