Why is
Catholicism being promoted as the solution to social collectivist tyranny?
Here's the reason I strongly mistrust High
Church mummery and its rejection of individual salvation in favour of some
unbiblical form of collective salvation. My concern is that there is far too
much talk of the importance of Catholic Christianity as an antidote to the WOKE
Globalists agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I mean the
Truth of the Scriptures. No one stands between man and God but Christ alone,
certainly not a priesthood ordained by the institutions of men! So, permit me to
explain how I have come to these conclusions.
How the
Protestant Reformation became an agent of economic freedom and social change:
Protestant Europe’s greater economic success
compared to the Mediterranean South stems from a complex interplay of
historical, cultural, and institutional factors. Here are the key reasons
scholars have identified:
📚 1. Literacy and Education
- The Protestant Reformation emphasized personal
Bible reading, which drove widespread literacy and education reforms.
- Protestant regions invested heavily in
schooling, boosting human capital and labour productivity.
💼 2. Work Ethic and Entrepreneurship
- Max Weber famously linked
Protestantism—especially Calvinism—with a “Protestant work ethic” that valued
hard work, thrift, and discipline.
- This ethic encouraged entrepreneurship,
innovation, and long-term investment.
🏛️ 3. Institutional and Legal Reforms
- Protestant areas often developed more
inclusive institutions, promoting civil liberties, property rights, and rule of
law.
- These institutions fostered business
competition and economic dynamism.
🌍 4.
Religious Freedom and Exchange of Ideas
- Protestant regions broke the Catholic Church’s
monopoly, allowing for freer exchange of ideas, press, and assembly.
- This openness catalysed technological
innovation and economic growth.
🕊️ 5. Counter-Reformation Constraints
- In contrast, Catholic Mediterranean countries
were shaped by the Counter-Reformation, which reinforced centralized religious
authority and discouraged dissent.
- This often led to intellectual conservatism
and slower adaptation to modern economic practices.
🌐 6. Global Focus vs. Domestic
Development
- Catholic powers like Spain and Portugal
focused heavily on overseas empires, sometimes at the expense of domestic
economic development.
- Protestant countries, lacking vast colonies
early on, invested more in internal infrastructure and industry.
Roman
Catholicism and the Rise of Feudalism:
The
Power Vacuum of Post-Roman Europe
After the Western Roman Empire collapsed,
bishops and abbots stepped into roles once held by civil governors. They
managed roads, collected taxes, and maintained local order, filling the
administrative void left by Rome’s fall. This set the stage for a system where
landowners—secular and ecclesiastical—wielded both spiritual and temporal
power.
Church
Landholdings and Feudal Contracts
The Church amassed vast estates across Europe,
at times controlling up to one-third of arable land. To defend and cultivate
these lands, ecclesiastical lords granted parcels to knights in return for
military service and loyalty. These arrangements mirrored—and reinforced—classic
feudal bond between lord and vassal.
Ecclesiastical
Hierarchies as Feudal Lords
Many high-ranking clerics held dual titles:
bishop-lords or abbot-landers. They levied rents, enforced local justice, and
mobilized peasant labour. By adopting feudal practices themselves, church
leaders embedded the system into the very fabric of medieval society.
Moral and Ideological
Legitimization
Priests and monks preached that social order
reflected divine will, portraying oaths of fealty as sacred pledges before God.
Papal rulings and Church councils regularly upheld the rights of lords over
vassals and serfs, giving spiritual cover to feudal obligations and
hierarchies.
Education,
Record-Keeping, and Legal Continuity
Monasteries preserved Roman law codes and
administrative manuals, training clerks who later served in feudal courts.
Cathedral schools maintained literacy and record-keeping, ensuring that
charters, land grants, and legal disputes all followed a common framework—further
cementing feudal structures.
Although Roman Catholicism did not invent
feudalism, its landed wealth, bureaucratic apparatus, and moral authority were
key to feudalism’s adoption and longevity across medieval Europe.
William the
Conqueror’s Imposition of Tyranny and Feudalism on England:
Pre-Conquest
Anglo-Saxon Freedoms
Before 1066, English society was built on
customary land rights and local governance. Free peasants held land by
inheritance or local agreement, and legal disputes were settled in shire and
hundred courts. The king’s power was balanced by the witan—a council of
nobles—and local earls who protected community liberties.
Military
Conquest and Crown Monopoly of Land
After defeating Harold at Hastings and his
coronation on Christmas Day 1066, William declared that all English land
belonged to the crown. He kept roughly one-fifth for himself, granted a quarter
to the Church, and parcelled out the remainder to about 170 Norman
tenants-in-chief in proportion to their service. This unilateral redistribution
eradicated the Anglo-Saxon landowning class and solidified Norman rule.
Formalization
of Feudal Bonds
William introduced a rigid hierarchy based on
land-for-service:
·
King: ultimate landlord
·
Tenants-in-chief (barons and bishops): received
large fiefs in exchange for providing knights
·
Knights: held manors and swore fealty to barons,
then to the king
·
Villeins and serfs: bound to the manor, owing
labour and dues
Each grant was sealed by a homage
ceremony—kneeling bareheaded, hands clasped, and oath sworn upon a holy
relic—to ensure lifelong loyalty.
Castle-Building
and Military Control
To enforce his new order, William and his barons
erected motte-and-bailey castles across key locations. These fortifications
served as military strongpoints, administrative centres, and psychological
deterrents against rebellion. By 1087, hundreds of these castles dotted the
landscape, ensuring Norman dominance even in remote regions.
Tyrannical
Reprisals and the Harrying of the North
Resistance met ruthless suppression. In late
1066 and again during uprisings of 1069–70, William’s forces burned villages,
slaughtered livestock, and laid waste to farmland in Yorkshire and beyond. This
“Harrying of the North” caused widespread famine and displacement, breaking the
spirit of any remaining Anglo-Saxon opposition.
Domesday
Survey and Administrative Overhaul
In 1086, William commissioned the Domesday
Book—a comprehensive survey of landholdings, resources, and taxable value
across England. This unprecedented record allowed the crown to extract taxes
with precision and to revoke fiefs from disloyal lords, cementing financial
control and curtailing noble autonomy.
Erosion
of Local Liberties and Legal Traditions
Norman law replaced many Anglo-Saxon customs.
Forest laws restricted peasant access to woodlands and game, murdrum fines
penalized communities for the death of a Norman lord, and the witan was
supplanted by the king’s Curia Regis. Freeholders became tenants who needed
royal or baronial consent to sell or bequeath land, erasing centuries of local
freedoms.
William’s reforms transformed England from a
network of free communities into a tightly controlled feudal monarchy. His
strategies of land confiscation, castle erection, and harsh reprisals ensured
that all power flowed upward—from serf to knight, baron to king—where once it
had been dispersed among many.
Feudalism in North
America, the Seigneurial System of New France:
Origins and Definition
The seigneurial system was a land‐tenure framework
introduced in New France in 1627 and rooted in French semi-feudal
tradition. All territorial claims
nominally belonged to the French king, who granted vast manorial estates
(seigneuries) to seigneurs in exchange for developing the colony. Although inspired by European feudalism, it
adapted to North American realities, emphasizing settlement over purely
aristocratic privilege.
Land Distribution and
Lot Layout
Seigneuries were typically about 1 × 3 leagues (5 × 15 km) and
subdivided into long, narrow river lots (rangs) averaging 3 × 30 arpents. This design maximized access to waterways—the
main transport arteries—and fostered neighborly interaction. The Crown or the Company of One Hundred
Associates parceled fiefs along rivers, then seigneurs conceded lots to
habitants who pledged to bring the land into cultivation within a set timeframe.
Seigneur’s Rights and
Responsibilities
Each seigneur held both onerous and honorary rights secured by a
notarized concession act. He was obliged
to build and maintain a gristmill, preside over a local court, and ensure
communal infrastructure. In return,
seigneurs collected:
- Cens (symbolic feudal tithe)
- Rente (fixed cash or in-kind rent)
- Banalités (mill-use fees)
- Hunting, fishing, and timber licences
By the early 18th century, seigneurs also claimed several days of corvée
labour annually.
Habitant Obligations
and Status
Habitants (tenant-farmers) held freehold‐style rights within their concessions, paying fixed rents that did not
adjust for inflation or time. They were
free to cultivate and profit from their plots, subject to:
- Grinding grain at the seigneur’s mill
- Performing corvée work when required
- Respecting restrictions on resale or sub-letting without seigneurial
consent
This blend of freedom and obligation distinguished New France’s system
from full feudal serfdom.
Administration and
Legal Framework
The French Crown regulated seigneurial tenures by law, stipulating that
land be cleared within a given period or revert to the seigneur. The Company of One Hundred Associates
subinfeudated most of its territory, expecting it to be peopled by 4,000
settlers over 15 years. Concession
contracts detailed mutual obligations, preserving Roman-derived legal
continuity and ensuring systematic colonization.
Abolition and Enduring
Legacy
Under British rule, the seigneurial system persisted until the Feudal
Abolition Act of 1854 converted all tenure to freehold. Although formally ended, long-lot patterns
and place names endure across Quebec’s rural landscape, and the system shaped
landholding practices well into the 19th century.
Canada's
road to serfdom:
Given the fact that Quebec has never known
individual liberty under English Common Law why should wonder that Canada itself
should still suffers from this legacy? This is especially so given the fact
that Quebec insists it should remain a separate nation within the Dominion but
demands the rest of the nation fund its inherent failures to modernize. This
failure is accompanied by a toxic loathing of Anglo Canada. So, we must dare to
ask where did Quebec’s tyranny originate? From France of course! To quote famed
British historian Dr. David Starkey, “All The Worst Ideas Are French.”
Whether we are to talk about William the Bastard
of Normandy, France who brought feudalism to England or the feudal habitants of
Quebec whose adoration of the Catholic Church and slavery under Quebec’s seigneurial
system, the Quebecois merely exchanged one form of tyranny for
another totalizing monster, BIG GOVERNMENT. They whine about how they have been
victimized by Anglo Canada, yet they have managed to do that all on their own. Despite
this they persist with a grievance narrative that makes them feel justified in
raping the nation to fund their giant welfare project.
It is also worth noting that the biggest
centralizing, heavy handed wastrels that Canada has ever seen were raised as Catholics
including Pierre Trudeau, what many view as an illegitimate son, Justin Trudeau,
and currently Mark Carney. Canada was historically freer and more prosperous
under Protestant leadership. As a radical low church believer, yes radical
since I recognize the danger of denominationalism itself as a threat to
primitive Christianity, I believe church fellowships ought to be autonomous,
indigenous, and self-governing bodies expressing Christ in every local where Christian
believers gather. This expression of Christianity will ensure the freedom in
Christ which was promised to us in the Scriptures.
So, here's an image of what Roman Catholics did
to God fearing folk who believed the individual must know God for themselves.
Up to 30,000 Huguenots were murdered at the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre
alone. Catholicism has always associated itself with the globalist elite. By
embracing it you'll only exchange one slave master for another!
Galatians 5:1 New American Standard Bible
It was for freedom that
Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to
a yoke of slavery.