America is looking for someone, anyone, who is not a politician to lead the nation forward; ironically Donald Trump is a masterful politician par excellence by disguising himself as a common man. Ted Cruz is, in fact, the man you’ve been looking for.
America is about to make its biggest mistake since Barack Obama by voting Donald Trump as its President. I submit without comment Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (forward by Russell Kirk).
We have seen in the immediate past men who had great I experience in selling champagne, driving buses or imbibing the knowledge for their tasks from reading H.G. Wells and then became the heads of governments. And the decline from 1815 to the level of 1919 is probably as great as the dégringolade from 1919 to 1945. What we now see in Europe is the end of a geopolitical order imposed by the senseless dictates following World War I and II.
We have insisted before, in a note, that the system of bricklayers lording it over architects will not work because it is opposed to reason and that knowledge is even necessary to choose experts or to coordinate their divergent views. A chimney-sweep sitting in council with three medical experts will hardly derive a profit from the exchange of their opinions, nor will a theologian listening to three atomic physicists debating an aspect of nuclear fission. Knowledge cannot be disregarded. It must be prevented from becoming a weapon for enslavement (which it might), but it must be respected in its place.
In Ecclesiasticus 38: 26-36 [a non canonical book not to be confused with Ecclesiastes], we find an enumeration of all the trades and a description of the fine and crucially important work they are doing, but (37-38) they are not qualified as law givers and administrators. This was known more than 2000 years ago, but it has been conveniently forgotten.
Let us even load the dice and compare the brilliant amateur with the miserable professional. Let us imagine we have suffered an attack of appendicitis and have been duly warned by a qualified physician that in case of a repetition of the pains an operation should be immediately performed. Yet one day on a trip through the South Seas, thousands of miles from the coast, another severe attack sets in. On board the ship there is the nastiest, dirtiest doctor we have ever seen in our life, an alcoholic with trembling hands and ill-fitting glasses. On the other hand, on the self-same boat there is a young man of excellent qualities, a poet and thinker, a painter and philosopher, who receives our whole-hearted admiration. Hearing about our predicament, he offers his help; he can borrow a scalpel from the doctor or a knife from the kitchen; there is an encyclopedia in the parlor with diagrams of the human body and he sincerely promises to do his best. Yet what stands to reason? Will we turn in our emergency to the horrible surgeon or to the brilliant young man? It is needless to comment any further on the obvious answer. And herein lies the advantage of mediocre monarchs trained for their jobs over dashing popular amateurs.
Thus the problem of our time remains—to have good government with personal liberty; to have a maximum of security with a maximum of liberty. For such a problem, democracy offers no solution, because the masses, choosing between freedom and the illusion of economic security, will usually lead straight for the will-o’-the-wisp. After having fallen prey to the fausse idíée claire of democracy they will succumb to the even falser idíe claire of national or international socialism. When we mention the masses, all the optimistic demagogy about the superb qualities of the Common Man comes to our mind. Indeed, the old monarchies were far from being models of perfection. The ancien régime, if we look merely at its seamy side, was made up of murder, inefficiency, corruption, narrowness, immorality, procrastination, intrigue, egoism, deceit and pettiness and it had long been in need of radical reform when it disappeared. Yet it never promised a New Dawn or a Paradise on Earth and it must be conceded that it relinquished the stage of history with little opposition, almost in the expectation that the bombastically heralded New Experiments were bound to fail. And fail they did! The ancien régime had lasted a thousand years, and for over a hundred years the Continentals had tried to make a synthesis with the new forces. Then the stage was entirely left to the “Dawnists,” to our noble friend, the Common Man, and bankruptcy arrived not within a thousand years, but within half a generation. It came in a swift and deadly way. It murdered liberty by entirely new methods and it repeated the errors of the Old Government on a colossal scale: all the persecutions of Hebrews through the ages were dwarfed to microscopic size by Hitler’s delirious mass murders, and all the victims of the Inquisition burnt at the stake through centuries did not amount to a tiny fraction of the number of those cremated alive one afternoon in Dresden, when among 204,000 killed at least two-thirds perished fully conscious in the fiery flames… and this without an inquest, without the slightest effort to establish a real or even a subjectively imputed guilt, at the very end of a war. To the horrors of the concentration camps almost girdling the globe we are at a loss to find any parallel. Thus, the crown to many a European, especially to a Central European, is indeed a symbol of freedom—not only when he thinks of the terrors of the East, but also when he reflects upon the sly process of enslavement in the West. There popular representations, resting on the comfortable fiction that the parliaments are “us,” “ourselves,” control the private lives of the “citizens” to a far greater extent than the monarchs of the past would ever have dared to regulate the doings of their “subjects.” Even a Louis XIV, autocrat, centralist and breaker of many of the best traditions, would hardly have ventured to exercise three prerogatives which “progressive democracies” have claimed and do claim without batting an eye: prohibition of alcoholic beverages, conscription, and an income tax involving annual economic “confession” to the State… not to mention “nationalization” which is a specious form of theft. Like the two forms of socialism (national and international), democracy started out with Utopian promises. I hate to quote Charles Maurras, but his assessment of monarchy shows the right measure. He called it le moindre mal; la possibilité du bien—the least evil, the possibility of something good.
History, unfortunately, is not rational or strictly logical, but a process which takes place in a Vale of Tears. Democracy rose in our civilization when the condition of the world least warranted it. It put tremendous weapons of technical progress into the hands of those least qualified to use them, and, allied with nationalism, it now becomes a powerful obstacle to the necessary unification of large regions. The unification of Western Europe into a European Community has taken a painfully long time. A council of monarchs would have achieved it far more quickly. (Remember the German League of 1815 or the German Reich of 1871.) Let us see how long we shall have to wait for the incorporation of the heart of Europe and its eastern rim west of Russia. On both sides there are parliaments with politicians who have only their reelection (and the egoisms of their constituents) in mind and are backed by party-affiliated bureaucrats prone to endless procrastinations.