As the leading conservative authority on interracial intercourse, I therefore feel compelled to set the record straight on the so-called racial origin and dimensions of this insult.
Here’s my verdict: all the writers above are wrong. As someone who’s been covering web culture and online memes for years and who has a great deal of respect for how well many right-wingers have taken to internet culture, I’m slightly embarrassed by my fellow conservatives’ inability to understand a term that returned to popular use not on white power websites, but on 4chan.
Before it became a 4chan meme, “cuckold” was a common term of abuse in mediaeval times and through the Renaissance. Shakespeare plays are replete with the word — that’s where I learned it, anyway, where it’s used as a byword for an emasculated male….
On 4chan, “cuck” is used as a general term of abuse, to describe someone who caves in, surrenders, or sells out his core supporters. (His base, in political parlance.) 4chan’s founder Christopher Poole, for example, is called a “cuck,” not for any racially-charged reason, but because he capitulated to outside pressure to ban controversial discussion topics on the website. And because he was allegedly cuckolded in real life – but not by a black man.
It’s easy to see why “cuck” makes such a good insult. It’s a byword for needlessly relinquished manliness, for selling out and caving in. The original metaphor of watching your partner getting slammed by another dude now simply means abandoned principles and a lack of backbone. It’s a byword for beta male or coward….
Indeed, the suspicion of many is that this is another case of virtue signalling from mainstream conservatives, rather proving the point of the hashtag and demonstrating it better than any gloss yet published. A sort of meta-definition in action, since it demonstrates supposed conservatives using precisely the “slander and move on” tactic so beloved of liberals.
And I think it should be very clear that any cuckservative who would disagree with the leading conservative authority on interracial relations can only be doing so because he is a racist homophobe.
Since, you know, they don’t appear to be hypersensitive to being called names or anything like that.
A decade ago, while reflecting back on his seminal “Radical Chic” article in New York magazine in 1970, Tom Wolfe said, “I just thought it was a scream, because it was so illogical by all ordinary thinking. To think that [Leonard Bernstein,] living in an absolutely stunning duplex on Park Avenue could be having in all these guys who were saying, ‘We will take everything away from you if we get the chance,’ which is what their program spelled out, was the funniest thing I had ever witnessed.”
But then 45 years later, the self-styled “Progressives” at PBS still don’t get that the joke is on them — not the least of which because their worldview has been updated in nearly half a century.
It’s a bit ironic that a conservative would laugh at Leonard Bernstein for failing to understand that the Black Panthers would take everything away from him if given the chance, considering how often conservatives tend to wax emotional about the myriad ways in which the mass movement of peoples is enriching America.
Then again, we often see the absurdity in others much more clearly than we do in ourselves. But unlike the progressives, I expect that 45 years from now, any cuckservatives still surviving will understand that the joke, such as it was, was on them.
I expect them to plead “we didn’t know it would turn out like that!” And that, I think, one can accept. People are wrong. But what will not be forgiven is the way they viciously attacked those who have been warning them about the house burning down since it was little more an obvious electrical fault. Now the fire is not only burning, but engulfing entire rooms, and the cuckservatives are still sitting on the coach in the living room, watching television, insisting that nothing is wrong.
They must think conservatives are mind-bogglingly stupid. Hot Air defends cuckservatives by claiming that trying to appeal to black voters is an effective long term strategy for Republicans:
This is horrifically shortsighted. It was amazing, yet unsurprising, how much agreement there was between FreedomWorks and Center for American Progress representatives during their joint summit on justice reform in DC. This wasn’t talking government spending, it was talking freedom, liberty, and getting the government out of things they shouldn’t be involved in. Rand Paul speaks at Bowie State and Howard universities and gets people nodding their heads in agreement. He’s discussing the importance of government getting out of the lives of others, not placating them or speaking about reparations. Paul is thinking long term and hopes to eventually get more conservative and libertarian African-Americans, instead of the current crop of leftists. It may take 30 to 50 years, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth the effort.
Well, if people are nodding their heads, clearly that must trump 50 years of electoral voting patterns! What are demographics in comparison with a single politician’s hopes?
1960 presidential election White percentage of population: 85.4 Black vote: 68 percent Democrat.
1984 presidential election White percentage of population: 75.6 Black: 10 percent of voters. 91 percent Democrat. Hispanic: 3 percent of voters. 66 percent Democrat
2012 presidential election White percentage of population: 63.7 Black: 13 percent of voters. 93 percent Democrat Hispanic: 10 percent of voters. 71 percent Democrat
At this rate of progression, in 30 years the white percentage of the population will be 53.7, blacks will be voting 95 percent Democrat and Hispanics will be voting 76 percent Democrat. All of the Republican outreach efforts over the last 30 years have only made matters worse, and in the meantime, over 20 million new Democrats entered the country via post-1986 immigration. Another 30 to 50 years means another 30 to 50 million immigrants, less than 25 percent of whom will be inclined to vote for smaller government. It is obviously and observably the cuckservatives whose strategy is horrifically shortsighted.
The demographic implications are perfectly clear. Either the Republican Party moves considerably to the Left or it becomes the White Party. Those are its only two viable options. It is obvious which of those two options are preferred by cuckservatives, the only question will be whether they can retain their control of the Republican Party or not.
That being said, I happen to think the question is largely irrelevant. The current American political system doesn’t have 30 years. It doesn’t even have 20 left to it. As I have long predicted, I think the decline element of decline-and-fall will be complete by 2033.
Hateful Heretic’s response to the Hot Air piece is straightforward and powerful:
Most of us really like capitalism, meritocracy, property rights, and the rule of law. Unlike you we recognize that the left’s program of demographic replacement will destroy those things forever, and that those values, as “universally good” as they may be, are largely only attractive to persons of Anglo-European heritage….
You know what’s short-sighted? Displacement-level immigration. Hispanics are not going to vote for freedom and capitalism. They don’t vote for it in Mexico, they don’t vote for it in Venezuela, they don’t vote for it in Colombia, they don’t vote for it in Bolivia, they don’t vote for it in Argentina, they don’t vote for it in Brazil, they don’t vote for it in Chile, they don’t vote for it in Guatemala, and they’re not going to vote for it here.
He’s right. Each successive wave of immigration, dating back to those coming from Europe, have pushed the USA further from its concept of liberty, limited government, and “the Rights of Englishmen”. And on a related note, Mike Cernovich explains why he, and others on the alt-Right, have no qualms about dismissing and disregarding these theoretical “conservative” allies:
Cuckservatives control the right-wing airwaves. Have any of them reached out to me – someone who objectively speaking has a far greater reach and sells more books than the usual talking heads – to discuss men’s issues? No. The right has ignored me and other men – even more palatable men like the A Voice for Men Camp – for years. They choose to ignore out concerns and refused to give us a platform.
When Gawker and MSNBC attacked me, where were these so-called “allies” on the right?
When the only time they bother to notice you is to join the Left in attacking you, then they aren’t an ally. Regardless of what they claim to believe. Also, and more importantly, the cuckservatives are on the wrong side of all three of the only three issues that really matter: national sovereignty, immigration, and the Federal Reserve. They might not be Leftists, but for all practical intents and purposes, they may as well be.
Considering how many of them have come out recently and endorsed gay “marriage”, it appears that they’re little more interested in conserving anything about traditional America than the neocons are. But conservatives don’t agree with their cuckservative would-be leaders.
Big majority of GOP voters favors mass deportation, poll finds
The recent hashtag fireworks between the pro-immigration and anti-immigration right appears to be the second step of a long-awaited political battle that I have expected for more than a decade now. For years, conservatives afraid of being called racist have stupidly attempted to finesse the immigration issue, claiming that “it’s not the immigration, it’s the illegality” while loudly declaring their support for LEGAL immigration to balance their opposition to ILLEGAL immigration. But the distinction was always meaningless; the behavior of the individual immigrant and the cumulative effects of mass immigration have historically had nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the act of immigration. The intra-Right conflict we’re seeing now is in part the result of the Obama Administration punching right through that ridiculous position by simply legalizing larger-scale immigration than before. This is the second step of the battle; the first step was the publication of Ann Coulter’s Adios America, which marked the first time a major American conservative media figure besides Pat Buchanan had the courage to finally come out and admit that the real problem with immigration is a) the quality of the immigrants, and b) the quantity of the immigrants.
I am an immigrant myself; my children are second-generation immigrants. Keep in mind that to the extent you consider us to be more-or-less normal Americans, that is precisely how all of the first- and second-generation Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians living in America are still more-or-less normal Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians. The only difference is that we’ve been here longer, we’re more integrated, and we speak the language. Potete domandare Giuseppe cosi. Geographical translocation is not magic. Move enough Mexicans into California, you don’t make them Californians, you turn California into Mexico. I’ve seen the same thing over here on a smaller scale in British expat colonies where people who have lived in Italy for 15 years don’t speak more than 10 words of Italian, still drink tea instead of espresso and can’t cook worth a damn. Being there doesn’t feel like Italy, it feels like being in England, and more properly English than Londonistan is these days.
I should probably mention that if you’re going to try to disqualify me as an anti-Mexican racist simply because I observe the indisputable truth, my response is simple: va fanculo, my great-grandfather rode with Villa, fought with Villa, and barely escaped Villa’s assassins. The truth is the truth regardless of the genetic heritage of the individual observing it.
The Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has a brilliant essay on the martial implications of immigration that will be published in Volume 2 of Riding the Red Horse, which I am now beginning to assemble.And the remarkable thing is that he reaches a disturbingly similar conclusion to Heartiste’s well-known aphorism, Diversity + Proximity = War, only one that is even stronger. One reason the world is in the process of descending into war all over the globe is due to the unprecedented mass movement of peoples – as Umberto Eco pointed out more than a decade ago, to call it “immigration” is fundamentally a misnomer – and the sheer scale of these mass movements makes war inevitable.
Remember, the entry of the Nazis into Austria was arguably more legal than the actions of the Obama administration with regards to immigration. The Nazis even let the immigrated invaded Austrians vote on it in a national referendum, which is something neither the Democrats and the Republican #cuckservatives would permit the American people. But the end result of the Anschluss was no different than the Nazi’s subsequent illegal immigration into invasion of Czechoslovakia, Nazi rule.
I think Mike Cernovich’s definition of #cuckservative is probably the most useful one. If you are in any way an advocate for those who intend to rape and pillage you and yours, you are a #cuckservative. I also think that what we’re seeing is a generational divide. People my age and older tend to view things from a perspective of a permanent white majority. So, they tend to view everything from a view of racial noblesse oblige. They believe America’s success can be shared with the New Americans without that success being destroyed.
The younger generation of white Americans know better. They know they are just another racial group among many, larger, more divided, advantaged in some ways, disadvantaged in others, and with a target tattooed on their chests due to their historical “privilege”. Those inclined to buy into the rainbow mythology become SJWs or submissive moderates, those who are not don’t buy into any of it, including the various aspects of “melting pot” theology in which their conservative elders still foolishly believe. They know that what their elders still think to be theoretically achievable is impossible, because unlike their elders, they didn’t grow up with diversity being a theoretical objective to be celebrated, but a terrible reality to be suffered.
The most ridiculous thing about #cuckservatism is that it’s an inherently losing strategy. If your primary political objective is to avoid being called racist, you will lose. And then you will be called racist anyhow.
Someone asked me at the Brainstorm session last night how abortion foes could utilize #GamerGate tactics to take down Planned Parenthood. I said I didn’t know, but that it would be tough if they were reliant upon government funding, because choking off government funding is difficult.
“Here are the 41 companies that have directly funded Planned Parenthood.”
Adobe American Cancer Society American Express AT&T Avon Bank of America Bath & Body Works Ben & Jerry’s Clorox Coca-Cola Converse Deutsche Bank Dockers
The rest of the 41 corporations are listed at the link. Start sending emails, complete with quotes from the Planned Parenthood people about selling organs from aborted infants, to the PR/Marketing departments of these corporations and asking them if they support those practices. Put all the relevant names and emails on a central site, complete with various draft emails, and then start sending emails. Recruit others to do so. Talk about your activities under the #PPGate hashtag.
Don’t threaten, don’t talk about boycotts, don’t quote Bible verses, just try to get a statement from them concerning whether they support Planned Parenthood’s sale of harvested human organs. Don’t whine, suck it up and recall that thousands of gamers did this for weeks before getting any results. Another important thing is to regularly push encouraging graphic memes on Twitter; this is only one of hundreds of examples of the images posted by #GamerGaters to keep the emails flowing.
1. If you photograph security personnel and then share these images on social media: up to €30.000 fine (particularly if photo exposes violence used against a member of the public). This fine could increase depending on the number of Instagram or social media followers you have. 2. Tweet or retweet information or the “location of an organized protest” can now be interpreted as an act of terrorism as it incites others to “commit a crime” (now that “demonstrating” in many ways has become a crime). Sound “1984”-ish? Read about Orwell and his time in Spain. 3. Snowden-like whistle blowing is now defined as an act of terrorism. If you write for a local publication, be careful what you print, whom you speak to, and whether the government is listening. 4. Visiting or consulting terrorist websites – even for investigative purposes – can be interpreted as an act of terrorism. Make sure you use “Tor” browser, reject cookies, and don’t allow pop-ups. Not to mention, don’t post it on your Facebook timeline! 5. Be careful with the royal jokes! Any satirical comment against the royal family is a new crime “against the Crown”. For example, “What did Leticia and the Bishop have to say after they ––“ (SORRY CENSORED). 6. No more hassling elected members of the government or local authorities – even if they say one thing in order to be elected, but then go and do the exact opposite. Confronting them about this hypocritical behavior. Even if you see them in the street chatting to a street cleaner, dining at their favorite expensive restaurant, or having their shoes shined by that physics graduate who cannot find a decent job in the country, hassling them about their behavior is now a criminal offence. 7. Has your local river been so polluted by that plastic factory along the edge that all life has extinguished? Well, tough! Greenpeace or similar protests are now finable from €601–€30.000. 8. Protests in a spontaneous way outside Parliament are now illegal. For example if Parliament passes a hugely unpopular bill, or are debating something extremely important to you or your community, it is now finable from €601 – €30.000. Tip: Use Google Maps to protest just around the corner – but don’t tweet the location! 9. Obstructing an officer in the course of their business, “resisting arrest”, refusing to leave a demonstration when told, or getting in the way of a swinging baton are all now finable offences from €601 – €30.000. 10. Showing lack of respect to officers of the law is an immediate fine of €100 – €600. Answering back, asking a disrespectful question, making a funny face, showing your bottom to an officer of the law, or telling him/her that their breath reminds you of your dog’s underparts is now, sadly, not advisable. 11. Occupying, squatting, or refusing to leave an office, business, bank or other place until your complaint has been heard as a protest is now a €100 – €600 fine (no more flash mobs). 12. Digital protests: Writing something that could technically “disturb the peace” is a now a crime. Bloggers beware, for no one has yet defined whose peace you could be disturbing.
Looks like the USA doesn’t have the only government that is actively preparing to face widespread civil unrest. I wonder why that might be?
As a libertarian-leaning Constitutionalist, I enthusiastically supported Ron Paul in the last two elections. So nobody who knows me was surprised when I declared my early excitement and support of his son, Rand, as a possible presidential prospect even before he won his Senate seat. Both father and son extol so many of the liberty-centered virtues that once made this country great and which are so rarely articulated today.
However, unlike his more ideologically-pure father, whose “take-me-or-leave-me” approach wasn’t one to sacrifice even a sliver of his beliefs for electoral victory, Rand is a bit more pragmatic. As someone who was at times frustrated by Ron Paul’s intransigence on even seemingly unimportant issues to the detriment of his public perception (come on, does anybody in the country actually think killing Bin Laden was a bad thing?), I can appreciate Rand’s desire to at least keep his finger on the pulse of what collective America is feeling….
No matter how you slice it, the fact remains that this Stalinesque push to remove any vestiges of those “evil” Confederates is bound to alienate a significant percentage of the very voters Rand Paul should be able to count on as his base. So, when Rand adds his voice to the commissars, those of us in Southern flyover country to whom that flag represents the honor of thousands of Americans who fought and died for their homeland, not slavery, bristle just a little. We care about a lot of things, including getting along with folks of all races, but we don’t give two hoots about what the “beltway” says is politically-correct.
I think Rand Paul sank his campaign when he endorsed the Confederate flag purge. He’s not as bad as Jeb Bush, of course, even Hillary Clinton may not be. But I think most of his father’s supporters, who have always viewed him with a certain degree of skepticism and concern, will look elsewhere as a result of his opposition to the symbol of the South.
Apparently Greek Prime Minister Tsipras planned to sell Greece out all along, but he failed to anticipate either the rapaciousness of the Euro-creditors or the national pride of the Greek people:
Like a tragedy from Euripides, the long struggle between Greece and Europe’s creditor powers is reaching a cataclysmic end that nobody planned, nobody seems able to escape, and that threatens to shatter the greater European order in the process.
Greek premier Alexis Tsipras never expected to win Sunday’s referendum on EMU bail-out terms, let alone to preside over a blazing national revolt against foreign control. He called the snap vote with the expectation – and intention – of losing it. The plan was to put up a good fight, accept honourable defeat, and hand over the keys of the Maximos Mansion, leaving it to others to implement the June 25 “ultimatum” and suffer the opprobrium.
This ultimatum came as a shock to the Greek cabinet. They thought they were on the cusp of a deal, bad though it was. Mr Tsipras had already made the decision to acquiesce to austerity demands, recognizing that Syriza had failed to bring about a debtors’ cartel of southern EMU states and had seriously misjudged the mood across the eurozone.
Instead they were confronted with a text from the creditors that upped the ante, demanding a rise in VAT on tourist hotels from 7pc (de facto) to 23pc at a single stroke. Creditors insisted on further pension cuts of 1pc of GDP by next year and a phase out of welfare assistance (EKAS) for poorer pensioners, even though pensions have already been cut by 44pc. They insisted on fiscal tightening equal to 2pc of GDP in an economy reeling from six years of depression and devastating hysteresis. They offered no debt relief. The Europeans intervened behind the scenes to suppress a report by the International Monetary Fund validating Greece’s claim that its debt is “unsustainable”. The IMF concluded that the country not only needs a 30pc haircut to restore viability, but also €52bn of fresh money to claw its way out of crisis.
They rejected Greek plans to work with the OECD on market reforms, and with the International Labour Organisation on collective bargaining laws. They stuck rigidly to their script, refusing to recognise in any way that their own Dickensian prescriptions have been discredited by economists from across the world.
“They just didn’t want us to sign. They had already decided to push us out,” said the now-departed finance minister Yanis Varoufakis.
So Syriza called the referendum. To their consternation, they won, igniting the great Greek revolt of 2015, the moment when the people finally issued a primal scream, daubed their war paint, and formed the hoplite phalanx.
Mr Tsipras is now trapped by his success. “The referendum has its own dynamic. People will revolt if he comes back from Brussels with a shoddy compromise,” said Costas Lapavitsas, a Syriza MP. “Tsipras doesn’t want to take the path of Grexit, but I think he realizes that this is now what lies straight ahead of him,” he said.
I was wondering why the Greek government seemed to be so paralyzed; they should already have the drachma ready to go. Instead, they’re just doing nothing, as far as anyone can tell.
This is why representative democracy is a complete failure. The elected representatives are less courageous and less decisive and less willing to act in the national interest than the people.
UPDATE: Zerohedge notes that IT HAS BEGUN. Businesses are listing prices in drachma.
Washington (CNN)American public opinion on the Confederate flag remains about where it was 15 years ago, with most describing the flag as a symbol of Southern pride more than one of racism, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. And questions about how far to go to remove references to the Confederacy from public life prompt broad racial divides.
The poll shows that 57% of Americans see the flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism, about the same as in 2000 when 59% said they viewed it as a symbol of pride.
In other words, nothing has substantially changed, but the government-media-corporate alliance has teamed up in order to sell their version of reality. Confederate flag backers can puncture this propaganda by following the lead of the pro-gun forces and destroying the careers of every politician who supported the attack on the flag, beginning with South Carolina governor Nikki Haley.
Of course, it should come as no surprise that the former Nimrata Nikki Randhawa would completely fail to understand Southern Pride. Along with Sen. Edward Kennedy, she is Exhibit A in the inability of second- and third-generation immigrants to understand the spirit of America, even though they were born inside its geographical boundaries, and even though they believe themselves to love and be loyal to America.
It’s no wonder conservatives are reliably losing when you consider how long they have enthusiastically accepted their enemies as their “opinion leaders”:
A Conservative commentator has tearfully urged the Republican Party to accept gay marriage to prevent the party becoming a “relic”. Speaking in an interview with CNN shortly after the historic Supreme Court decision to legalise same-sex marriage was handed down on Friday, S.E. Cupp was moved to tears as she explained gay people just wanted “the human dignity the rest of us have”.
If you want to win, stop paying any attention whatsoever to ideological enemies simply because they put on your jersey and claim to be one of you while arguing the opposite of your opinions and rejecting your beliefs.
If people want “human dignity”, then they need to earn it by behaving in a dignified manner, not by throwing “pride” parades and behaving like pagans.
And as a general rule, don’t listen to anyone who substitutes tears for rational argument. That’s the lowest and least intelligent form of rhetoric. Accepting the gay agenda has already made relics of the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches. Following suit will do the same for the Republican Party. And it will do the same for the United States of America.
The USA has observably made its choice. It has abandoned faith in God for trust in the god of this world and prince of this age. And once faith has departed from a nation, it seldom returns, as Juan Donoso Cortés observed in his speech to the Spanish Parliament on January 4, 1849.
There are only two possible forms of repression: one internal and the other external; religious repression and political repression. They are of such a nature that when the religious thermometer is high, the thermometer of political repression is low; and, when the religious thermometer low, the political thermometer—political repression—tyranny is high. That is a law of humanity, a law of history. If you want proof, Gentlemen, look at the state of the world, look at the state of society in the ages before the Cross; tell me what happened when there was no internal repression, when there was no religious repression. That was a society of tyrants and slaves. Give me the name of a single people at this period which possessed no slaves and knew no tyrant. It is an incontrovertible and evident fact, which has never been questioned. Liberty, real liberty, the liberty of all and for all, only came into the world with the Savior of the world; that again is an incontrovertible fact, recognized even by the Socialists.
Gentlemen, I beg you to pay attention; I am going to present you with the most marvelous parallel which history can offer us. You have seen that in antiquity, when religious repression couldn’t go any lower because there was none, political repression rose until it couldn’t go any higher, because it went all the way up to tyranny. Very well then, with Jesus Christ, where religious repression is born, political repression completely disappears. This is so true, that when Jesus Christ founded a society with His disciples, that society was the only one which has ever existed without a government. Between Jesus Christ and His disciples there was no other government than the love of the Master for His disciples and the love of the disciples for their Master. That is, that when the internal repression was complete, liberty was absolute.
Let us pursue the parallel. Now come the apostolic times, which I shall stretch from the time of the Apostles, properly speaking, to the period when Christianity mounted the Capitol in the reign of Constantine the Great. At this time, Gentlemen, the Christian religion, that is, the internal, religious repression, was at its zenith; but in spite of that, as always happens in human societies, a germ began to develop, a mere germ of license and religious liberty. So, Gentlemen, observe the parallel: with this beginning of a fall in the religious thermometer there corresponds the beginning of a rise in the political thermometer. There is still no government yet, for government is not yet necessary; but it is already necessary to have the germ of government. In point of fact, in the Christian society of the time, there were no real magistrates, but there were adjudicators and arbitrators who form the germ of government. There was really nothing more than that; the Christians of apostolic times engaged in no lawsuits and never appealed to the Courts: their disputes were settled by the arbitrators. Notice, Gentlemen, how the scope of government is enlarged with the growth of corruption.
Then came feudal times. Religion was still at its zenith during this period, but was vitiated up to a point by human passions. What happened in the political sphere? A real and effective government was already essential; but the weakest kind was good enough. As a result, feudal monarchy was established, the weakest of all kinds of monarchy.
Still pursuing our parallel, we come to the sixteenth century. Then, with the great Lutheran Reformation, with this great scandal which was at the same time political, social and religious, with this act of the intellectual and moral emancipation of the peoples, we see simultaneously the growth of the following institutions. In the first place, and immediately, the feudal monarchies became absolute. Gentlemen, you believe that a monarchy cannot go beyond absolutism: what can a government be beyond absolute? However, the thermometer of political repression had to rise even higher, because the religious thermometer continued to fall: and the political thermometer did in fact rise higher. What did they create then? Standing armies. Do you know what standing armies are? To answer that question, it is enough to know what a soldier is: a soldier is a slave in uniform. So you see once again, when religious repression falls, political repression rises, it rises as high as absolutism and even higher. It was not enough for governments to be absolute; they asked for and obtained the privilege of having a million arms.
In spite of this, Gentlemen, the political thermometer had to continue to rise because the religious thermometer kept falling; it rose still higher. What new institution was created then? The governments said: We have a million arms and it is not enough; we need something more, we need a million eyes: and they created the police, and with the police a million eyes. In spite of this, Gentlemen, the political thermometer and political repression had to rise to a higher pitch still, because in spite of everything, the religious thermometer kept falling; so they rose higher.
It was not enough for the governments to have a million arms and a million eyes; they wanted to have a million ears: and so they got them through administrative centralization, by means of which all claims and complaints finally reached the government.
Well, Gentlemen, that was not enough; the religious thermometer continued to fall and so the political thermometer had to rise higher. And it rose. Governments said: A million arms, a million eyes and a million ears are not sufficient to repress the people, we need something more; we must have the privilege of being simultaneously present everywhere. This privilege also they obtained: the telegraph was invented.
Such, Gentlemen, was the state of Europe and the world when the first rumblings of the most recent revolution told us all that there is still not enough despotism on the earth, since the religious thermometer remains below zero. And now the choice between two things lies before us.
I have promised to speak today with complete frankness and I shall keep my word.
Well then, it’s either one of these two: either a religious reaction will come, or it will not. If there is a religious reaction, you will soon see that as the religious thermometer rises, the political thermometer will begin to fall, naturally, spontaneously, without the slightest effort on the part of peoples, governments, or men, until the tranquil day comes when the peoples of the world are free. But if, on the contrary, and this is a serious matter (it is not customary to call the attention of Consultative Assemblies to questions of this nature; but the gravity of events today is my excuse and I think that your benevolence will also excuse me); I say again, Gentlemen, that if the religious thermometer continues to fall, I know not whither we are going. I do not know, Gentlemen, and I shiver when I think of it. Consider the analogies I have put before your eyes; if no government at all was necessary when religious repression was at its zenith; when religious repression is no more, no type of government will be enough—all despotisms will be insufficient.
This is putting one’s finger into the wound, Gentlemen—this is the problem which faces Spain, Europe, humanity, and the world.
Notice one thing, Gentlemen. In the ancient world, tyranny was fierce and devastating; and yet this tyranny was physically limited, since all States were small and international relations between them all were completely impossible; consequently tyranny on the grand scale was impossible in antiquity, with one exception: Rome. But today, how greatly are things changed! The way is prepared for a gigantic, colossal, universal, and immense tyrant; everything is ready for it. Gentlemen, observe that there are no physical or moral resistances anymore—there are no physical resistances anymore because with steamboats and railroads there are no borders any longer; there are no physical resistances anymore because with the electric telegraph there are no distances anymore; and there are no moral resistances because all wills are divided and all patriotisms are dead. Tell me, therefore, if I am right or wrong to be worried about the near future of the world; tell me whether, in dealing with this question, I am not touching upon the real problem.
There is only one thing that can avert the catastrophe—one and only one: we shall not avert it by granting more liberty, more guarantees and new constitutions; we shall avert it if all of us, according to our strength, do our utmost to stimulate a healthy reaction—a religious reaction. Now is this possible, Gentlemen? Yes, it is. But is it likely? I answer in deepest sorrow: I do not think it is likely. I have seen and known many men who returned to their faith after having separated themselves from it; unfortunately, I have never known any nation which returned to the Faith after having lost it.
