In one of the early episodes of Downton Abbey, there is a scene in which Robert, Earl of Grantham, explains to his daughter Mary that his estate and fortune cannot pass to her. The complex legal arrangements, combined with the fortune from Cora (Robert’s wife and Mary’s mother) that had saved the (bankrupt) estate, and the tradition of the inheritance going to the eldest male successor, prevented him from naming Mary as his successor.
Those details aside, what gives us a glimpse into his character is how he is torn between his love for his daughter and his duty to both his forebears and his descendants. He explains that he is a steward, not an owner (though he is the legal owner of the estate). He has a duty to pass on the estate, in its entirety, to the next Earl of Grantham. British law, at that time, was a bit biased in favor of the preservation of the aristocracy and those great estates. Despite a century of Progressivism, California Masonic Law is similar, favoring the status quo over new and barbarous innovations. If his Lordship were to divest Cora’s money and give it to Mary, the estate would surely fall. Giving in to his compassion would be the death knell for all that his forbears had worked for. Men and Masons in the West find themselves in a similar role now.
Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged.It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves.
This quote is from Peter Hitchens, and it pertains to the invasion refugee crisis in Europe. His audience is mainstream Britons. But there is a lesson here for us as well my brothers.
Hitchens points out, though he does not use these words, the pathological altruism that infects many of our fellows in the West. Guilt driven by our affluence drives us to give away our inheritance. Resting upon our laurels, we feel very high and noble, yet if we would only raise our eyes to the distance, we would see that the estate will not last. Continuing on this course is a dereliction of our duty to pass on to our posterity the results of our forefathers’ work and sacrifice.
But tell that to Finland’s PM, who has offered his neighbors some new “Finns” to make their community more vibrant. How many refugees can Finland accommodate? A better question may be: how many refugees can Finland accept while remaining predominately Finnish? How about Europe? How about America? It isn’t just Mexico these days supplying us with all the new “Americans.” Why do you think the ONOB phenomenon exists?
We at MR have no doubt that the brethren have a great deal of sympathy for these refugees. We do too. But we also don’t take issue with delineating very clear and rigid lines when it comes to which foreigners we welcome, and how many. I fear that many of our fellow Westrons tend to feel first and think later. Masons are particularly susceptible to this sort of thing. We like to pat ourselves on the back for our tolerance, even as we avert our eyes to the consequences of leaving the door wide open. American Masons are even more prone to this pathological altruism, since we have each been taught, since elementary school that we are the “melting pot,” and that it is right and just and proper that any oppressed person (and all of his extended family) should be admitted.
But do we have an obligation to admit anyone? Think on this for a minute. We doubt anyone has ever posed this question to you. Do we, as Americans, have a duty to admit and accept any foreign person (legally or not)? If you answer “yes,” whence came this obligation? We cannot find it in the Constitution. If it does not exist, why do agents of the government, reporters and academics all start from this premise?
The well-read Mason will likely have encountered related questions, if not the one just posed. If there are now in excess of 10 million Mexican nationals (probably far more since MR does not recognize the children of foreigners as citizens), and 100 million more would like to come, is that a problem? This thought experiment always ends the same way. Eventually we reach a number of proposed “new Americans” that even the most left-wing, Cheap Chalupas type will ultimately agree is too high. But they will only admit that when pressed into the corner. Your job, secret NeoReactionary Mason that you are, is to point this out when you can, until the cognitive dissonance heats up enough that your brothers feel the burn (just a little).
The meaning of all this, my brothers, is that there comes a point at which your lodge will no longer be your lodge. When your city will no longer be your city. When your nation will no longer be your nation. Listen to his Lorship, Robert, Earl of Grantham. You are a steward of this nation, not an owner. It was bequeathed to you by your fathers, that you might enjoy its blessings, and in turn, pass them on to your children. You may not give it away, and you may not burn it down. So it is with your Lodge. Culture matters brethren. Act only from altruism, and the estate will fall.