 |
| HM Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies |
I was not very familiar with the Bourbons until I began studying history on my own, one of the many things that highlighted how incomplete a standard education can be these days. When historical figures are demonized so strongly it would make sense that accurate and verifiable information about them would be readily available. In reality those who are portrayed as historical avatars of evil are difficult to research objectively, important facts surrounding them are either hard to find or are obscured by the often contradictory propaganda against them. The most obvious explanation for this is that history is written, or re-written, by the winners, and if there are gaps where logically there should not be, it is because someone doesn’t wish us to see what is there.
In 1848 the House of Bourbon decisively put down a revolution in Naples. Many Bourbon holdings had fallen to the revolutionaries and it was a surprise to the supporters of the “Revolution” that the King of Naples had turned defeat into victory there. What surprised me is the attention the event provoked from the two men that are widely considered the fathers of modern communism, Marx and Engles. Although the Bourbon’s are still popular in Southern Italy, I cannot claim to be a fan of absolute monarchy. However, I’m much less fond of Marxism and its consequences. The fact that Engles felt so strongly about the Bourbons makes them worth a second look; that he took the time to openly publish anti-Bourbon propaganda in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (No. 1, June 1, 1848) makes it even more important to review both the Bourbons and the forces arrayed against them. With his critique, Engels forces us to question the nature of the revolution in Naples, and its possible connection to the supporters of the Risorgimento. The following are excerpts from Engles essay:
"The House of Bourbon has not yet reached the end of its glorious career. True, its white flag has recently been rather besmirched and its withering lilies are drooping sadly enough. Charles Louis of Bourbon bartered away one dukedom [Lucca] and to abandon a second one [Parma] ignominiously; Ferdinand of Bourbon lost Sicily and in Naples was forced to grant a Constitution to the revolution. Louis Philippe, although only a crypto-Bourbon, nevertheless went the way of all French-Bourbon flesh across the Channel to England. But the Neapolitan Bourbon has avenged the honour of his family brilliantly."[...]"The House of Bourbon, however, may for the time being breathe a sigh of relief. Nowhere has the reaction which set in again after February 24 [overthrow of Louis Philippe] achieved such a decisive victory as at Naples and this in spite of the fact that the first of this year’s revolutions began precisely in Naples and Sicily. The revolutionary tidal wave, however, which has inundated Old Europe, cannot be checked by absolutist conspiracies and coups d'état. By his counter-revolution of May 15, Ferdinand of Bourbon has laid the cornerstone of the Italian republic. Already Calabria is in flames, in Palermo a Provisional Government has been formed and the Abruzzi will also erupt. The inhabitants of all the exploited provinces will move upon Naples and, united with the people of that city, will take revenge on the royal traitor and his brutal mercenaries. And when Ferdinand falls he will at least have had the satisfaction of having lived and died a true Bourbon."
The recent revolution in France was still clearly in the minds of Nobles across Europe; it was referred to as “The Terror.” Is it any wonder that the Bourbons reacted strongly against any similar attempt in their own kingdom? It never ceases to amaze me when Marxists become upset with enemies that do not lie down and allow themselves to be butchered by them. This combination of brutality and naiveté is typical of movements led by dishonest men and soldiered by the least educated and simplest folk they could recruit.
Marx and Engles helped provoke revolutions throughout Europe. Engles was a wealthy German, and Marx was a phony that always lived among the Bourgeois. Even in his exile (to England ironically), he sometimes lived on handouts from Engles instead of getting his hands dirty with real proletarian work. Neither one of them led the revolutionaries directly, nor did they have much in common with the poor people that they convinced to bleed and die for their cause. Those people were only a means to an end.
The “Revolution” never benefits the workers. It was designed to shift power from the old Noble families to their rivals who sprung from the merchant class, people like Marx and Engles themselves. The Marxists got around the “divine-right” of kings by eliminating religion, and reduced the competition by eliminating the remaining middle class. In the end they reduce the workers to serfdom again by abolishing private property. Today they encourage class warfare to achieve the same goal, whether the current ruling class is oppressive or not is not the point, the Marxists certainly will be. The Marxists, like the Moslems, have been targeting Europe for a long time, and “softer” versions of their ideology, such as liberal egalitarianism, eventually deliver the same results. The enemies of European tradition and ethnic identity may have changed names, but not their character.
Marxism can be said to be the child of the Jacobins who instigated the “Terror” in France and many revolutions abroad. While Marx and Engles eventually became critical of the Jacobins, their differences with them involve political structure in the post-revolution, they had no problem with their methods; the torture, rape, and mass butchering of their victims was an accepted part of their glorious “Revolution.” The suppression of regional differences and persecution of ethnic groups were a hallmark of true Jacobinism in France, just as it was in the Soviet Union. Interestingly enough, the Piedmontese conquest of the South was similar in terms of ethnic leveling. Consider the famous words of Massimo D’Azeglio: “We have made Italy, now we have to make Italians.”
Marxism can be said to be the child of the Jacobins who instigated the “Terror” in France and many revolutions abroad. While Marx and Engles eventually became critical of the Jacobins, their differences with them involve political structure in the post-revolution, they had no problem with their methods; the torture, rape, and mass butchering of their victims was an accepted part of their glorious “Revolution.” The suppression of regional differences and persecution of ethnic groups were a hallmark of true Jacobinism in France, just as it was in the Soviet Union. Interestingly enough, the Piedmontese conquest of the South was similar in terms of ethnic leveling. Consider the famous words of Massimo D’Azeglio: “We have made Italy, now we have to make Italians.”
 |
| Giuseppe Garibaldi – False Idol |
As for the Bourbons, their history is both positive and negative; but they are part of the history of the Mezzogiorno and sometimes you have to accept the bad with the good. Under the rule of the Bourbons most of the traditions and culture of Southern Italy were left intact. There are many Southern Italians who view the Bourbons favorably, and they have many good things to say about them, so regardless of any negatives that may come with them the Bourbons have a solid place in Southern Italian history and culture.
Inevitably there will be some who disagree with this assessment, and they certainly have the right to, but there is a more practical viewpoint to consider. The Bourbons are no longer in power, nor do their descendents have any realistic influence in modern politics. Conversely, there are other clear and immediate threats to all European ethnicities existing today. Marxists are anti-religion and anti-tradition. They will flood Europe with as many immigrants as possible to swell the ranks of the communist party and intimidate the native European populations. They will replace our culture and traditions with their hollow and self-serving ideology. Islam seeks to do something similar, but instead of eliminating religion and tradition they seek to replace it with their own, making loyalty to Islam take precedence over patria and ethnicity. They too will flood Europe with their own supporters from Africa and the Middle East to dominate us. They openly state this during their demonstrations and riots.
The Bourbons may be a point of difference between Identitarians in different parts of Europe, but this difference should be academic when we are facing Marxism and Islam, which are a current threat to our traditions, religions and whatever hope of ethnic autonomy we retain. Let us deal with the greatest threats first, after that the rest will seem easy.
