← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 11630 | Posts: 2 | Started: 2003-12-28
2003-12-28 07:19 | User Profile
[url]http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/monarchy.php[/url]
A Case for Monarchy By Archonis
Over the past 2 years or so, I have done some serious reflecting on the nature of the Republican and Democratic forms of government, and contrasted them in my mind with other forms of government; such as Communism and Socialism. I have found all these systems wanting in a greater or lesser degree, because in spite of the varied ideologies they have they all suffer from a diseased concept concerning the nature and purpose of the State, and its proper relations to the people. In regards to Republicanism and Democracy, these are based on the illusory concept of "Popular Suffrage," which in fact means nothing in that the masses have neither the capability or know-how to determine or understand the workings of the State in relation to the economy, so purely economic interests seize the opportunity of this vacuum to co-opt the State to insure their control over the economy and the socio-political system. Thus under the guise and fraud of the "will of the people," the most banal aspects of the mass culture enshrine themselves as an oligarchy and plutocracy, and through finance easily control the political class as well as the political process of so-called "elections."
It is common knowledge that all political candidates and parties are controlled by monied interests, just as the political system and its laws are in turn controlled by lobbyists who are also controlled by monied interests. Thus as Julius Evola has pointed out, in this way the purpose and nobility of the State is destroyed through its subordination to the principles of the economy. No matter what system you look at in the modern world, these same subversive processes hold sway and engage in a process of dialectical disintegration with one another. The machinations of high finance and distribution of currency in excess of the GNP of Nations, causes them to fall into patterns of debt in the public and private sectors. This is true no matter what the ideology, as the principles of economy are the same. Similarly the creation of surplus value through wage/profit coefficients, creates an inductive disparity between wages and prices which relocates all wealth to the Capitalist class through the draining of the purchasing power of the wage earners, distributing profit to themselves and scarcity to the workers respectively.
In spite of the fact that this is also true in Communist countries as the party-bosses raid the coffers of the State to obtain the profits of "State Capitalism," such processes in Capitalist countries do nothing but foment discontent and further the interests of those who would preach the gospel of totalitarianism and Marxism. The perversion of Democracy is that it gives power to the plutocrats in light of the incoherent "mass-will," by default, and through making the State a vehicle of avarice devoid of honor; thereby gives the State too much centralizing power over all aspects of human life. Thus in all collectivist systems based on identification with the masses, (which is every State-based system other than Monarchy) you paradoxically have a totalitarian system based on the tyranny of economic interests and a ruling elite that is unfit to rule, due to the fact that they are beholden only to Mammon and not to any higher principle of honor.
Now, this is the malaise of our times, no doubt. Being an American and citizen of the U.S., I was raised to believe in the myth of Democracy and to view Monarchy as some kind of system of tyranny. But is it really? I think not! Societies of egalitarianism are in fact the biggest tyrannies, for they reduce all aspects of life to that which resonates to the lowest common demominator, and the stolid aspects of mass-culture and values are made into Law and wielded over the population like a gigantic club. The lowest is made highest and thus regiments all aspects of life in machine-like and brutal manner, and loyalty to the State is compelled by force from the top-down, rather than being inspired from the bottom-up, which is the case in Monarchies. Democracy, Republicanism, Socialism, Communism, as well as the over-industrialized and technological artifacts of the world need to be done away with. All of these are but interrelated syndromes of the same disease, which does nothing but reduce Man to a level that is almost less than an animal, by dehumanizing him with the false values of objectivity and modernity at the expense of the subjective verities of truth and honor. A return to Monarchy is the sole hope of the world. Under Monarchy the State is relegated to its primary purpose, to hold the power of economic interests in check so they cannot despoil the people or the land. The mercantile classes are fit to trade but not fit to rule, and the communists I include in this group, due to their myopia about anything outside of "principles of economy." The modern world is the result of this situation, and its diseased condition is blatantly obvious. The Monarchy and Nobility should be the masters of the wealth of society and not the Capitalists, and their wealth should be bestowed by right and not by virtue of the fact that it was earned. Only in this way can the classes of the Nobility have an unbroken training and tradition in the proper uses of wealth, for their benefit and that of their domains.
Even more so, does this apply to the Monarchy. Because the wealth is already in the possession of Royalty and Nobility, the profit-motive and the motive to exploit society for mundane ends is removed . There is nothing to be gained by such economic mediocrity, and thus the Monarchy and Nobility can be concerned with matters of Politics and Sociology, as well as matters pertaining to the well-being of their domains . The moderns will cry: "What is to be gained by such a leisure-class that do not earn their wealth like we do?" A great deal. Only by having a leisure-class freed from material cares is it possible to have a truly educated class. Many captains of industry and Capitalists have conceeded that they have not had the time to become well-read and cultured people. And yet they are leading and controlling the world with only the most feeble an d superficial of educations. Even if they spent a good time in college, this cannot match a lifetime of education that can be obtained by people who are freed from the cares of earning a living. Thus the knowledge of the Royals and Nobility will be superior and more qualitative; and not based on the mundane ends of economy alone, but on higher things and values that alone can give the laws of economy a purpose. The Monarchist traditions of the State and Nobility exercises dominion but not tyranny. In this dominion the various peoples among the ruled manifest loyalty to the Crown, not because the Crown dictates their every choice through the contingencies of the laws of economy, but because the Crown gives them the right to flower as peoples that are fully human, only needing to labor solely to support their own station in life. As Evola pointed out, the feudal system is organic and allows for individual self-actualization for the peoples under it, and does not just regard them as economic units.
Monarchy allows for tremendous decentralization between the auspices of the Royal House, the Nobility, the Houses of Government, and the people. Even the life of a serf is something that a modern worker would envy. A serf labored only during planting and harvesting under the agrarian system, the rest of that time was free-time for the serf to pursue his own interests. You had festivals that went on for months among the serfs, and a noble could be imprisoned for letting his serfs starve if they were old or sick. The ruling classes were accountable not just to their superiors, but also to those lesser than them. They profited from the serfs, but the serfs also profited from the use of the land and worked far less than people do now under the plutocratic tyranny of industrialism. Who is the bigger slave, the serf or the wage-earner? I am certain the wage-earner of modern times would envy the serf. And if Monarchy would treat even the serfs in a more humane way than the poor are treated now, how much better would it be for everyone else! The serfs were valued, and not stigmatized for their spartan life, it was proper to their station and not a reason for criticism. The modern poor are psychologically stigmatized for their inability to make a fortune, as if everyone could just go and do that! The stability of social stations and the purposes innate to them makes for psychological health among human beings. A place from which you can neither rise nor fall, is a rock from which all endeavor can flower and work can exist for its own sake, not for the ulterior motive of either rising from or preventing a fall from where you are. The instability of human purpose and work and its subordination to purely economic ends is the primary cause of social and individual instability and psycho-pathology. A cause and result of modernism. Monarchism with its castes and roles frees humanity from the anxiety of striving to or falling from a particular station in life, each of which is valued in the context of community. Trade guilds, serfs, the ministers of state, Nobility and Monarchy, were an organic continuity that allowed for the flowering of human nature in its diverse forms, from the most humble to the most lofty. Is it any wonder that Monarchy is the most stable and humane from of government the world has ever known? And is it also any wonder that Democracy, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Republicanism, are decaying and crumbling away as we speak, from the entropy of their ignorant and mis-begotten valuations and constructs?
Perun1201: I'm not a Monarchist per se, but I have always admired the level that tradition, ceremonies, ritualism, and sense of nobility were upheld under the Monarchies. I adhere to the notion of a "Popular Monarchy", which was a notion upheld by many emigre White Russians. That is, the Czar and the nobility exist, but its more of a populist form of monarchy.
I noticed often how the Fascists and National Socialists often adopted many aspects of monarchism in their forms of government. I find many similarities between how high the German people felt about Hitler to the way they felt about the Kaiser.
The way Hitler's name and title of Fuhrer was always invoked to add authority is not entirely different to how it was done for a King in a Monarchy. The slogan "For Fuhrer and Fatherland" is really a NS adoptation of the Monarchist slogan "For King and Country". The level of ritualism and ceremonies under both regimes is very much in vogue with the spirit of the Monarchies. And of course the SS was very much the NS version of the Royal/Imperial Guard, as Himmler often compared his men to.
So I believe that even if a monarchy cannot be created per se, like the NS and Fascists we must adopt many aspects of the Monarchy system and apply to our modern forms of government.
2003-12-28 14:53 | User Profile
That monarchies have some desirable features is obvious. Beyond the benefits already stated, they are more predisposed to reduce the size and parasitic nature of bureaucracy, they are more accommodating to speedy decision making when required, and they fit an innate (not alway conscious) human need for hierarchy where citizens know their place. Alas, this last point is a tricky one. A stratified society is an efficient society, but is it desirable, even viable in the long term, that the populace be aware of the extent of stratification?
Here the essayist expands on what he thinks is a clincher--serfdom with recognition and honour--without a hint of acknowledgement that he nears the point most responsible for the demise of monarchies and the chief obstacle in their resurrection. Which, needless to say, is insurmountable in an age where equality is the main religion. Class distinction is always present, no matter the system of government, but only a monarchy confirms it in writing; or, rather, only a democracy prohibits publication of the obvious.
[QUOTE]Who is the bigger slave, the serf or the wage-earner? I am certain the wage-earner of modern times would envy the serf. And if Monarchy would treat even the serfs in a more humane way than the poor are treated now, how much better would it be for everyone else! The serfs were valued, and not stigmatized for their spartan life, it was proper to their station and not a reason for criticism. The modern poor are psychologically stigmatized for their inability to make a fortune, as if everyone could just go and do that! A place from which you can neither rise nor fall, is a rock from which all endeavor can flower and work can exist for its own sakeââ¬Â¦ [/QUOTE]
This is reaching, and badly at that. No one today is being stigmatized save the white heterosexual male and the criminal. The underprivileged have a social safety net behind them and the only stigma they may endure is for their inability to cease relying upon it. Failure at ââ¬Åmaking a fortuneââ¬Â is no stigma at all unless one gives up trying. Whether serfs ââ¬Åwere valued or not stigmatized for their Spartan lifeââ¬Â is a matter of opinion, and while all rulers will privately concede that, in their own way, they value their subjects, few will go out of their way to minimize their exalted status when appropriate and take care [I]to appear[/I] to rule according to some natural law.
During good and carefree times the star quality of monarchy is a plus, during troubled times it is its Achilles heel. Grabbing power is straightforward. One invokes the name of a fairer government. The less powerful elements are annexed in the name of morality and progress, and the opposition dies of its own entanglements. Always the outgoing ruling elite is said to be ââ¬Åout of touch with the people.ââ¬Â An argument more easily sustained when applied to a class whose members have never been commoners. Contrast that with the elites running democracies. It is no accident that all modern politicians describe their trade as ââ¬Åservingââ¬Â the people. This deflects criticism away from the administrators on to the system. Since monarchy [I]is[/I] the system, it follows that it can never avail itself of the system deficiency defence in the court of public opinion. Here we see the mantrap that is democracy. In a world drunk, not incidentally, on ââ¬Åwheez all equalzââ¬Â maxims this particular bondage is sans equal among all the methods of governance.
That said I am not averse to seeing aspects of monarchies incorporated by a worthwhile, pro-white ruling party. However, I foresee countless, perhaps insurmountable, difficulties in convincing fellow (racially aware or otherwise) whites of its merits. The first question/objection that a supporter will have to answer is from what ranks do you intend to draw the nobility or educated class of administrators, and whether, perchance, you fancy yourself being a member of such a caste. :holiday:
Iââ¬â¢ll add that the desirability of one political system over another must, in addition to personal fetishes, at all times take into consideration the geo-political situation, particularly from a racialist perspective. In a more perfect world, i.e., where other races do not outnumber ours by so wide a margin, where they are geographically isolated, where their countries are technologically weak, divided and possess no threat to our nations, I would tend toward something akin to Jeffersonian style Republic, with rigorous ban on political parties. If such is not the case, however, if whites and their culture are in retreat on all fronts and others are gaining technologically, then count me among the rank of those who cheer for the return of the king, cognisant that forfeited personal liberties will not be returned with perfect symmetry.
There is one other point of some small import. When I was much younger I used to agonize quite a bit over what to ask my parents for Christmas. The choices were many but the family budget precluded full nourishment of my appetite. Difficult decisions were made, but no matter how carefully weighed they always turned out to be wrong, at least in part. Not right away, of course, but whenever boredom set in the passed alternatives invariably looked more appealing. At the tail end of those years I made something of a conceptual breakthrough, courtesy of a visiting uncle, with his new and much younger wife in tow. One day, by ourselves, we talked about women and the merits of this versus that physique. Mindful of my disadvantage/early pubescence, and the fact that I was in the company of a connoisseur, I tried to keep it brief and said something to the effect that an ââ¬Åaverageââ¬Â specimen was most desirable. He seemed unimpressed. So incited, I asked (somewhat bitter) what [I]he[/I] was complaining about. ââ¬ÅAverage is fine, it is just that sometimes you long for something meatier,ââ¬Â came the response. (His new wife was on the skinny side.) Thus it hit me that doubt and the fluctuating appeal of alternatives is really a constant, playing off limit versus ready availability, and applicable to any number of things including desire for toys, women, and quite likely, political systems.