Legitimizing the Illegitimate

Book I

Laws By Plato, written in 360 B.C., has in Book 1 three Characters speaking in THE DIALOGUE.

ATHENIAN STRANGER;

CLE ANIAS, of Crete;

MA GAL ILUS, of Lac Edaemonia

Athenian Stranger: Tell me, Strangers, is a God or some man supposed to be the author of your laws?

Cle Anias: A God, Stranger; in very truth a, God: among those of us from Crete he is said to have been Zeus, but in Lac Edaemonia, whence our friend here comes, I believe they would say that Apollo is their lawgiver: would they not, Ma Gil Ilus?

Ma Gal Ilus: Certainly.
Ath. And do you, Cle Anias, believe, as Homer tells, that every ninth year Minos went to converse with his Olympian sire, and was inspired by him to make laws for your cities?

Cle. Yes, that is our tradition; and there was Rhodemanthus, a brother of his, with whose name you are familiar; he is reputed to have been the justest of men, and we of Crete are of opinion that he earned this reputation from his righteous administration of justice when he was alive.

Ath. Yes, and a noble reputation it was, worthy of a son of Zeus. As you and Ma Gal Ilus have been trained in these institutions, I dare say that you will not be unwilling to give an account of your government and laws; on our way we can pass the time pleasantly in about them, for I am told that the distance from Cnosus to the cave and temple of Zeus is considerable; and doubtless there are shady places under the lofty trees, which will protect us from this scorching sun. Being no longer young, we may often stop to rest beneath them, and get over the whole journey without difficulty, beguiling the time by conversation.

Cle. Yes, Stranger, and if we proceed onward we shall come to groves of cypresses, which are of rare height and beauty, and there are green meadows, in which we may repose and converse.

Ath. Very good.
Cle. Very good, indeed; and still better when we see them; let us move on cheerily.

Ath. I am willing. And first, I want to know why the law has ordained that you shall have common meals and gymnastic exercises, and wear arms.

Cle. I think, Stranger, that the aim of our institutions is easily intelligible to any one. Look at the character of our country: Crete is not like Thessaly with it’s large plain; For this reason they have horsemen in Thessaly, and we have runners.  The inequality of the ground in our country is more adapted to locomotion on foot; but then, having runners we must have light arms.  No one can carry a heavy weight when running, and bows and arrows are convenient because they are light.

Now all these regulations have been made with a view to war, and the legislator appears to me to have looked to this in all his arrangements: the common meals, if I am not mistaken, were instituted by him for a similar reason, because he saw that while they are in the field the citizens are by the nature of the case compelled to take their meals together for the sake of mutual protection.

He seems to me to have thought the world foolish in not understanding that all are always at war with one another; and if in war there ought to be common meals and certain persons regularly appointed under others to protect an army, then the same should be continued in peace.

For what men in general term ‘peace’ would be said by him to be only a name; in reality every city is in a natural state of war with every other, not indeed proclaimed by heralds, but everlasting. And if you look closely, you will find that this was the intention of the law maker of Crete; all institutions, private as well as public, were arranged by him with a view to war; in giving them he was under the impression that no possessions or institutions are of any value to him who is defeated in battle; for all the good things of the conquered pass into the hands of the conquerors.

Ath. You appear to me, Stranger, to have been thoroughly trained in the institutions of Crete, and to be well informed about them; will you tell me a little more explicitly what is the principle of government which you would lay down? You seem to imagine that a well governed state ought to be so ordered as to conquer all other states in war: am I right in supposing this to be your meaning?

Cle. Certainly; and our Lac Edaemonian friend, if I am not mistaken, will agree with me.

Ma G. Why, my good friend, how could any Lac Edaemonian say anything else?

Ath. And is what you say applicable only to states, or also to villages?

Cle. To both alike.
Ath. The case is the same?
Cle. Yes.
Ath. And in the village will there be the same war of family against family, and of individual against individual?

Cle. The same.
Ath. And should each man conceive himself to be his own enemy:-what shall we say?

Cle. O Athenian Stranger!  Inhabitant of Attica I will not call you, for you seem to deserve rather to be named after the goddess herself.  Because you go back to first principles you have thrown a light upon the argument, and will now be better able to understand what I was just saying, that all men are publicly one another’s enemies, and each man privately his own.

(Ath. My good sir, what do you mean?)—
Cle….. Moreover, there is a victory and defeat, both the first and best of victories, and also the lowest and worst of defeats, which each man gains or sustains at the hands, not of another, but of himself; this shows that there is a war against ourselves going on within every one of us.

Ath. Let us now reverse the order of the argument: Seeing that every individual is either his own superior or his own inferior, may we say that there is the same principle in both the houses and the village, as well as the state?

Cle. You mean that in each of them there is a principle of superiority or inferiority to self?

Ath. Yes.
Cle. You are quite right in asking the question, for there certainly is such a principle, and above all in states; and the state in which the better citizens win a victory over the mob and over the inferior classes may be truly said to be better than itself, and may be justly praised, where such a victory is gained, or censured in the opposite case.

Ath. Whether the better is ever really conquered by the worse, is a question which requires more discussion, and may be therefore left for the present.

But I now quite understand your meaning when you say that citizens who are of the same race and live in the same cities may unjustly conspire, and having the superiority in numbers may overcome and enslave the few just; and when they prevail, the state may be truly called its own inferior and therefore bad; and when they are defeated, its own superior and therefore good.

Cle. Your remark, Stranger, is a paradox, and yet we cannot possibly deny it.

Ath. Here is another case for consideration: In a family there may be several brothers who are the offspring of a single pair; very possibly the majority of them may be unjust, and the just may be in a minority.

Cle. Very possibly.
Ath. And you and I ought not to raise a question of words as to whether this family and household are rightly said to be superior when they conquer, and inferior when they are conquered; for we are not now considering what may or may not be the proper or customary way of speaking, but we are considering the natural principles of right and wrong in laws.

Cle. What you say, Stranger, is most true.
Ma G. Quite excellent, in my opinion, as far as we have gone.
Ath. Again; might there not be a judge over these brethren, of whom we were speaking?

Cle. Certainly.
Ath. Now, which would be the better judge-one who destroyed the bad and appointed the good to govern themselves; or one who, while allowing the good to govern, let the bad live, and made them voluntarily submit? Or third, I suppose, in the scale of excellence might be placed a judge, who, finding the family distracted, not only did not destroy any one, but reconciled them to one another for ever after, and gave them laws which they mutually observed, and was able to keep them friends.

Cle. The last would be by far the best sort of judge and legislator.
Ath. And yet the aim of all the laws which he gave would be the reverse of war.

Cle. Very true.
Ath. And will he who constitutes the state and orders the life of man have in view external war, or that kind of intestine war called civil, which no one, if he could prevent, would like to have occurring in his own state; and when occurring, every one would wish to be quit of as soon as possible?

Cle. He would have the latter chiefly in view.
Ath. And would he prefer that this civil war should be terminated by the destruction of one of the parties, and by the victory of the other, or that peace and friendship should be re-established, and that, being reconciled, they should give their attention to foreign enemies?

Cle. Every one would desire the latter in the case of his own state.
Ath. And would not that also be the desire of the legislator?
Cle. Certainly.
Ath. And would not every one always make laws for the sake of the best?

Cle. To be sure…

Here I leave Plato.  Their conversation continues in a logical manner, but I’ll jump now to the French Revolution, and what we find in ‘Memoirs of Barras’, where he refers to himself in third person, since these are official transcripts taken at government meetings:

“Barras presents a moderate petition to allow the imprisoned priests to be allowed a trial to prove their innocence and to know the charges.  (The full petition is in Memoirs of Barras)

Seiyes says to Barras:

“Why do you speak to us of your transported priests?  Your Rochefort priests no longer exist. Once they are transported they are dead and so there is no need to trouble ourselves about them.”  Touche, head of Police, smiles approvingly at Seiyes and says’ “Citizen Directors, I shall watch these moderate petitioners no less than the other enemies of the Republic.”

The trial of the priests never occurred because “their trial will prove that they have ever preached peace, and peace only, that their Catholic religion does not allow them to interfere in revolutions of empires nor to pass judgment on the rights of those governing them. Their religion in fact imposes upon them the obligation to respect even the most rigorous authority.”  The directors were not given the authority to investigate the charges, only to decide upon the place of exile. (Law of 19th Fructidor)”

Barras, for a time the Head of the Directors (Directoire) of the New Republic of France was known to be working behind the scenes helping people escape false accusations and persecution during the French Revolution.  When once someone tried to arrest him, he swung his sword, cut off the man’s hand, and spurred his horse to gain distance. The priests that he was protecting were followers of people like Father Cajetan who lived during the run-up to the French Revolution, when France’s own Kings were nothing more than treasonous or poisoned puppets or children whose parents had been poisoned.

From Father Carota’s website:

FATHER CAJETAN, or Padre Gaetano Maria da Bergamo, was one of the great

Italian Missionaries of the eighteenth century. Born in 1672 he was professed a Minor Capuchin in 1692, and died in 1753.

Of Fr. Cajetan’s thirty volumes of writings Benedict XIV says that: “they have this rare quality in our day, that they satisfy the intellect and the heart; their solid doctrine in no way dries up their tender devotion, and their devotional sweetness in no way detracts from the perfect solidity of their doctrine.” Fr. Cajetan was a model Religious, remarkable for his charity, zeal and love for God and for souls, which he had built up in the solid foundation of profound humility, with which he united a tender devotion to the Blessed Virgin.

How did France get to this point?  Who were the lawmakers at this time? Why where laws being made to have the followers of priests like Father Cajetano exiled from France, their institutions burned, dismantled, looted and subjected to sacrilege?

Was this best for the people of France, or was it best only for a few, mainly the illegitimate?

In order to find out exactly who benefitted from laws expelling Catholic Priests from France, it’s necessary to take a close look at what happened after the Massacre of the Catholic King Francois 1 and his family at Blois.  After these illegitimate Valois Kings came into power, King’s mistresses began to take control. Of an illegitimate family himself, Cardinal Richelieu magically made all of King Louis XIV’s illegitimate children into ‘legitimees’, supposedly by Catholic law.  It’s a story that involves witchcraft trials at the highest level of Catholic government. These bogus trials lead, in some cases to confiscations of large estates.  Ironically enough, one trial led to incriminating revelations about the Kings ‘Head Mistress’, a term which in itself gives clear evidence that the monarchy was dysfunctional after the Massacre of the Catholics at Blois.

After the massacre, Cardinal Richelieu bragged that he had “subdued” the Nobility.   By the time Richelieu died, the entire structure of Catholic Monarchy had been blasted away by the precepts of men.  Louis XIV lamented that all ‘my best Nobles’ were living in Nova Scotia, because they preferred living there.  But they weren’t ‘his’ nobles. In making war upon them, he had allied with Richelieu.  In lieu of righteousness, he chose riches. Without the Catholic Church for guidance, the illegitimate families that Richelieu supported began to interbreed in a shocking way, generation after generation, until they lapsed into sterility, madness and disability.  The legitimate families didn’t make that mistake.  Instead, they spread out over America, twelve healthy children to each marriage, and forgot all about the whole mess.

Richelieu,  the Red Eminence, French l’Éminence Rouge  (born September 9, 1585, Richelieu, Poitou, France—died December 4, 1642, Paris), chief minister to King Louis XIII ofFrance from 1624 to 1642. His major goals were the establishment of royal absolutism in France and all of Europe, thereby eliminating the power of the same Catholic Church whose power he abused to achieve this.

The family du Plessis de Richelieu was of insignificant feudal origins but, by intermarriage with the legal and administrative classes (code word for Jewish), rose to some prominence and acquired the seigneury of Richelieu in Poitou.

Richelieu, hiding behind Louis XIV and pretending to be Catholic, laid claims to Brabande by making war upon the young King’s own Catholic border lords who were responsible for France’s most important defensive structure. The immediate value was the tax collection at each gate.  In addition, there were established trade fairs and factories of every kind, vineyards, farms and processing structure as part of the claim.These wars are called the “Wars of Devolution” (1667-8). The French King, made an alliance against his own people, in favor of Protestant England, Holland and Sweden. The war was ‘suspended’ in favor of “annexations through dubious legal  process”. [Norman Davies]  Richelieu bears a remarkable resemblance to his main ally, Queen Elizabeth I of England, the illegitimate English Queen that looks so much like a man.

Law courts were established in which the King laid claim to scores of cities and jurisdictions, the entire eastern border defense network whose origins traced back to the 800’s and the roots of the Berard family. The family of Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, married into the family called Berard which later became known as the ‘Medici’ and De la Brosse of the House of Lorraine.  This large family group came to be known as The Guise, the main target of the Protestant usurpers.  Their territory encompassed the Ardennes, which gives us the suffix Ard.  This explains why New France was also called Nova Scotia.

The rigged courts gave favorable verdicts to the King’s claims on notable places such as Strassburg in 1681; Luxemburg 1684.  Every favorable verdict led to immediate occupation of the district, which was blatant theft under cloak of law. We aren’t told clearly what happened to the people who rightfully owned this quarter part of France.  By calling this territory “Spanish Netherlands” our history books blind us to the extent of the territory in question, made up of many nations whose names have been wiped off the map: the Duchies of Brabant and Limburg, Cambrai, the Marquessate of Antwerpen, the Lordship of Mechelen, Guelders, the counties of Namur, Artois and Hainaut, a third of the County of Burgundy and a quarter of the Duchy of Luxembourg.

1024px-Map_Devolution
Map of the Territory taken over by the illegitimate and Protestant branches through their control of the court system.  This is how Richelieu ‘subdued’ the legitimate Catholic Nobility. Each place named on this map represents stolen land and lordship, which means stolen taxes and enslavement of the people. High resolution image here.

The next step in the process of destruction of the Catholic monarchy occurred during the minority of the orphaned Louis XV, between 1715 and 1723.  His uncle the Regent gave to Parliament the right to argue against Royal Decrees.  This sentenced the next king, Louis XIV, to death by Parliament decree.

A Parliament is a shadowy force, free of responsibility, unlike a King who stands with his family openly facing the people, a target for retaliation if justice is not delivered.  A Parle-mente is literally a ‘mentality of talking’.   When we begin to honor ‘talking’, we put our faith in lawyers and bureaucrats, and this is the point at which we hand over our power to those with slippery morals, whose laws can appear to justify almost anything.

Parliament is a Protestant concept. With the introduction of Parliament, France’s monarchy ceased to be Catholic. Legitimate monarchy is a Catholic concept that requires the structure of Christ’s One True Catholic and Apostolic Church and submission to God’s unchanging law.  The illegal ‘legitimization’ of the children of Louis XIV’s mistresses, those born out of wedlock, allowed the Ship of Mother Church to be hi-jacked by Her enemies.

It becomes plain to see that children of the Catholic nobility, specifically the Guise, would have certainly been the first to leave for Western France, also called New France and Nova Scotia. America never was a colony of France. Nova Scotia and most of America was France in every aspect.  Appointments of Governor and Intendant in New France were still under the control of King Louis XIV, even when he was under the power of his mistresses and their children.  This led to the corruption in Nova Scotia that ended in the ‘French’ General Montcalm selling Fort Frontenac, Quebec to his English cousins who had infiltrated British government.  The only nations that mattered were the legitimate nation of the Catholics and the illegitimate nation of the Protestants and their Jewish allies. To think in any other terms is to miss the point.

Besides the migration of the Catholic Nobility to America, further emigration from Europe was spurred by catastrophic weather and plagues that began to occur at this time. Economic devastation was happening on all sides.  The French army at the time of the decadence of Louis XIV was down to 50,000 men, and even those were probably foreign mercenaries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s