A Case for Monarchy

[Perun]

Related to the "Monarchy or Republic" thread. Heres a defense of Monarchy.

http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/monarchy.php

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?

[Marulus]

This article is a testimony of a certain way of thinking present in some reactionary circles and smacking all too much of Burkeism. The author's assumption is that all countries of Europe passed through the revolutionary and Jacobinist mess, which ushered in today's mass-democracies with universal suffrage. However, he seems to forget - or intentionally pays no heed to that fact - that there is in Europe at least one country which retained the old-fashioned "feudal" rule and the monarchy, along with a large leisure class which, free of constraints to work for living, was able to pursue studies, and did that quite often. That country is England or generally Britain. And inspite of that, England with time adopted the same political system as European countries of the continent, with the sole difference that in the English case the change was effected through slow evolution instead of revolutions. One has only to read some of the historical overviews of the English thought in the 19th century (for example, that by Somervell), to come to the conclusion that systems of government devised by different lords living in leisure bear much resemblance to those invented by the continental revolutionaries.

On the other hand, the author omits the flagrant fact that ranks of 18th century aristocracy and royalty were infested deeply and thoroughly with Freemasonry. It was in many cases the aristicrats who ideologically paved the way for revolutions to come.

As much as the modern system is rotten, monarchy and hereditary nobility are hardly a solution.

[Errigal]

My argument against the British monarchy is that it does not do its job. Like the president of a republic, a monarch is supposed to act as the final arbiter in serious national disputes and to act as a force of continuity and stability for the state. Ideally, parliamentarians and prime ministers may be petty and corrupted politicians but the monarch or president has the character and dignity to inspire loyalty in the military, judiciary and police. Clearly the British monarch does not perform that basic task.

There is an atheist joke that says "a religion is just a group of people with the same imaginary friend". Well, that may not be fair of the religious but it is fair to say about modern British monarchists. There may as well be any empty chair in Buckingham Palace for all the good she does.

When I saw in the news Lord Goldsmith had a proposal to promote "Britishness" I thought of my own suggestions. If Queen Elizabeth II had done her job and stopped the Attorney General (Lord Goldsmith himself) from aiding Tony Blair's illegal Iraq war then there would have been an enormous boost in "Britishness". Having the monarch actually do the job she is paid for - rather than act like a postal clerk who just rubber stamps anything left on her desk - would have restored some confidence in the 70% of the UK population who did not want war.

Not giving out peerages to "Goldsmiths" would help too.