“Cultural Marxism Is Consistent With Liberalism”: Interview With a Carlist

When the 'red berets', the Carlist Requetes, went into battle in the Spanish Civil War, they bore the image of the Sacred Heart on their rifle butts.

From One Peter Five

By Theo Howard

Miguel Quesada Vázquez holds a degree in History and is a member of the Board of the Círculo Hispalense (Seville, Spain) of the Traditionalist Communion. In addition to his local activism, he is a regular contributor to the Catholic-monarchist newspaper La Esperanza. He is the author of the books: España Viva. Ideas para una restauración política católica (Seville, Campomanes, 2020) and Iglesia, Sociedad y Modernidad. Fundamentos del orden social cristiano (Seville, Campomanes, 2022).

TH: Señor Quesada, thank you for joining me. Can you begin by telling us how you became a Carlist and embraced traditionalism in all its aspects?

MQ: My contact with traditionalism occurred when I came across the name of D. Juan Vázquez de Mella in a book. I became interested in his work and acquired a copy of the first volume of his work Ideario. In my case, Carlism does not come from family tradition, and I must confess that I did not pay much attention to it before. This is largely due to the profound falsification that Carlism suffers today, from schools to universities. When I first read Mella’s texts, I was amazed by the clarity of his judgment and the depth of his traditionalist analysis. He offered, in particular, a perspective that transcended the outdated frameworks centred on “conservatism” or “progressivism,” presenting a critical reading of the current situation that identified Modernity, in a theoretical sense, as the root of the problem. On the other hand, its non-ideological nature is powerfully striking, as it opens the door to a “realistic” conception of the world, detached from modern rationalism.

TH: Christendom is a term that seems to be attracting renewed interest among Catholics, particularly among the laity. Can you explain why Christendom is inseparable from Christianity and why its building is an indispensable vocation for the laity?What becomes implied when the mission to build Christendom is denied or minimised?

MQ: First and foremost, we must begin by pointing out what Saint Thomas declares at the beginning of the Summa: grace does not eliminate nature, but perfects it. Thus, through the action of grace, man becomes a child of God. On the other hand, man possesses a social and political nature, and this, too, is perfected by grace. In this way, the political community is perfected as the res publica christiana. Christendom is, therefore, the political order perfected by the grace of Our Lord. It must be noted, however, that it is not synonymous with the Church, which is a society of supernatural origin, but rather it refers to the natural political community perfected by grace.

The fight for the Kingdom of Christ, as Pius XI points out, cannot avoid the political sphere without resulting in failure, for politics is the science and art of the common good. Thus, the paramount mission of the laity is the fight for the Kingship of Our Lord, the restoration of the Catholic City, as Saint Pius X says. It is dangerous to forget this duty and to fall, even within the traditionalist world, into turning laypeople into clerics concerned with “chapel matters.” The duty of the layperson is, pre-eminently, political.

TH: Today, one finds many Catholics focusing their political efforts against ‘progressivism’, Cultural Marxism, or, now, the even more amorphous ‘Wokeism‘. Can you explain why you believe Liberalism continues to be the main revolutionary anti-Christian ideology today?

MQ: The so-called “cultural Marxism” is certainly a grotesque invention. Liberalism, following Danilo Castellano, is the affirmation of “negative” freedom, that which has no rule other than itself, meaning without a rule. The political-legal formulations of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, or Hegel demonstrate the reformulations of man’s liberation, culminating in self-determination. Certainly, during the time of the so-called “Strong Modernity,” the ownership of “negative” freedom remained in the hands of the State as an indirect guarantee of individual freedom. After World War II, “Weak Modernity” shifted the focus to individual self-determination, to which politics and law became subordinate. Nonetheless, the Liberal core of all ideologies is undeniable, as they all have liberation as their goal, with the revolutionary subject changing from the individual to the State, passing through the proletariat or the Nation.

“Cultural Marxism” is, therefore, consistent with Liberalism. Gender ideology, transhumanism, the dissolution of the family, etc., as contemporary phenomena, are directly related to individual autonomy, inherited from ideological Liberalism. Thomas Molnar pointed out the American roots of all these phenomena, which benefit from the so-called “political correctness” for their contemporary imposition.

TH: Some traditional Catholics continue to advocate for political action within existing ‘right-liberal’ parties like the Republicans in the US, the Reform Party in the UK, or Vox in Spain. They even suggest an ‘entryist’ strategy where we might go ‘under the radar’ of the liberal ideologies of these parties and ‘convert them from within.’ What do you think of this tendency and strategy?

MQ: It is worth pointing out several observations. First, as a background note, it is pertinent to observe Francisco Canals’ sharpness in stating that “the moderation of bad principles is often very effective in doing harm and weakening good, while moderation in affirming good principles makes their application impossible. Evil arises from the lack and deprivation of full good, while good is constituted by the complete perfection of a reality or action”. Although this judgment could sum up my response, let’s clarify what has been said regarding the issue of entryism. 

Entryism, a tactic typical of the children of darkness and not of the children of light, leads to three forms of lying, as I have written on several occasions. The first is to convince ourselves that we are not participating in evil, which is self-deception; the second is to drag others into cooperating with evil, which is deception; and the last, once the sterility of the attempt is evident, is disenchantment. Entryism suffers from an assumption of modern politics, founded on voluntary consensus, without understanding that politics operates in a qualified manner in the pursuit of common goals, so it is the whole that moves the parts, not the other way around.

TH: I believe you have echoed Archbishop Lefebvre’s position before, that the heart of the ecclesiastical revolution of the Vatican II period was the de facto denial of the Kingship of Christ through the affirmation of ‘Religious Liberty’. You have stated that this retraction was the result of the successive defeats of the Church in the fight against Liberalism in the previous century, leading to a kind of “baptism” of defeat. Can you elaborate on this? 

MQ: It is a broad question that I will try to answer as concisely as possible. First of all, the revolutionary era qualitatively differs from previous periods in history. In those times, evil was part of life but was associated with individual corruption, as phenomena such as tyranny or despotism can demonstrate. Jean Ousset claimed that with the Revolution, heresy took on a political form, thus affecting humans substantially, as they live in community. From this perspective, the Church began a fierce battle against Liberalism, the mother of all ideologies. The examples of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII leave no room for doubt. However, as the fruits of the Revolution solidified, ecclesiastics chose to adapt to these changes in practice. In the upper echelons (bishops, cardinals, etc.), the convenience of maintaining a peaceful relationship with the new powers became a source of pressure on Rome, through members of the Vatican Secretariat of State, who never changed. These pressures, combined with a legitimate concern for the state of souls, led the Popes to practically recognize the new regimes, although they condemned them—fiercely—in theory. An example of this is the Ralliement of Leo XIII, which culminated—although he did not live to see its consequences—in the separation of Church and State in France.

The Second Vatican Council was conceived as an opportunity for the most progressive modernists to change doctrine. Without addressing the issue of drafting the conciliar texts—a vast topic—what is indisputable is that their application was interpreted in a Liberal sense, not only by the most progressive bishops but also by the Popes, with whatever nuances might be introduced. The justification for this conciliar shift was carried out through what Augusto del Noce called clericalism, meaning the tendency to baptize every historical event simply because it exists, in order to align with ‘Progress’ or the ‘course of History.’ This attitude of clerics was common not only since the Council but even before, although, it is true, during the Council it filtered into all the documents. In this situation, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s stance is to be admired and recognized for his resistance to modernism and his work in restoring the Catholic priesthood. The Traditionalist Communion witnessed his bravery and supported him when many among the clerics fled.

TH: You have written a book on ideas for the restoration of the Catholic City. Can you offer our readers a preview of one or two of these ideas which they might consider implementing? Are there any that might be particularly opportune for American readers? 

MQ: Firstly, we must remember that the end qualifies the means. An academic end, for example, requires academic means, and a political end requires political means. It is mistaken to aim for the restoration of Christendom as a political goal without employing means of that nature, believing, naively, that a devout life is enough. As we have said, a political end requires political means; in our case, this requires a solid formation in Catholic political doctrine and a method aligned with these principles, detached from modern ideologies.

The case of the United States is particular. It is true that there is a perceived rise in traditionalist groups, though more of a religious than political nature. On the other hand, many of these groups are tied to the theological and political error of Americanism, denounced by Leo XIII, which is a form of Liberalism that confuses the political community with “particular communities,” today lobbies, within a framework of common tolerance of creeds. It is the denial of Hispanic traditionalism, which is founded on plurality based on a common assent to a common good, rather than on pluralism born from moral and religious nihilism. My advice to American traditionalists is that they study the texts of authors who, though they may have lived or live in the United States, do not fall into religious or political Americanism, such as Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Thomas Molnar, or, in our time, John Rao.

TH: Our mutual friend Don Miguel Ayuso Torres has said that with the political sphere largely closed to us today, our efforts should be concentrated in the pre-political sphere, which is to say the cultural sphere. Of course, there has been much discussion of the ‘Benedict Option’, which is itself polluted by Liberal presuppositions. What do you make of these ideas?

MQ: It is necessary to clarify. It is logical that the current system makes any electoral possibility for traditionalist groups impossible. In this regard, Professor Miguel Ayuso highlights the importance of “pre-politics”, which, in times when politics is inaccessible, takes on a political nature. Nevertheless, “pre-politics” never renounces the political nature of the action we must take; it proclaims the irreplaceable condition of politics and sets it as the goal of our efforts. The common good, as a superior end on the natural level, is never dispensable without falling into grave error, which implies that in moments of greater obscurity, duties regarding the common good are integrated into “pre-politics”. This has nothing to do with two temptations that arise from a poor understanding of what has been said.

Firstly, closely tied to the Anglo-Saxon world, we find the anti-political temptation from “civil society”. This consists of adopting the contractualist conception of society and viewing politics not as the science and art of the common good, but as power to conquer and dominate, in competition with other social groups. Civil society acquires an autonomous component from politics and is conceived as prior to it. This is unacceptable, as Aristotle already points out the natural and non-voluntary condition of politics.

On the other hand, the “communitarian” temptation, revived by Dreher’s confused, eclectic, and inconsistent book, is the other temptation I mentioned earlier. In this case, politics is not even understood as an evil to be conquered, which is an error, but rather, in line with the Lutheran interpretation of the natural order, it is seen as an irredeemable evil from which we must withdraw to safeguard our well-being. This Gnostic, contractualist, and Liberal conception is refuted by Saint Thomas himself, who affirms in the Summa that the particular good, separate from the common good, is not good and becomes degraded.

TH: After studying the texts of the authors you have suggested and acquiring a solid formation in Catholic political doctrine what kind of political method do you think American traditionalists should follow?

MQ: As you say, after consulting the most significant authors of traditionalist thought, it is necessary to organize action. My advice is that, starting from small study and training circles, political circles of the same nature should be created. This has been the path followed by various circles of the Traditionalist Communion currently scattered around the world, from the United States to the Philippines, passing through Hispanic America. These circles should not operate autonomously, as there is a risk of hindering the duty of transmitting what has been received. It is necessary to have a unity that directs the various activities of each circle towards the common good. We must not, in any case, underestimate political activism, as essences not realized in existences run the risk of falling into ideology in a way that is difficult to avoid. Take heart, victory is ours, and as Our Lord says, “he who perseveres to the end will be saved.”