A Royal Future

Among the disgruntled peoples of Europe and America, there is a tendency to grab at the lowest hanging fruit. The common disgruntled man immediately looks to the system of government in which he lives, and often time rightfully places blame upon it for his misfortune.  Then this man seeks out a system that is perceived to be better, that will fix his many woes.  Where does this man turn to find such a system? He turns to what the mainstream media, and Academics present as viable alternatives.

For this reason, disgruntled western man can only seem to choose from the pool of competing 20th century systems of government.  If liberal democracy and its corporate capitalism doesn’t work, surely some variant of Marxism will.  Such a man will not give a fair shake to Fascism, because Fascism was swiftly militarily defeated and vilified by both the Communist and Liberal Democratic powers.  The fact is, all the competing political theories of that tragic century are all equally terrible.  What direction should the disgruntled man be directed to? The disgruntled man should correct the mistakes of the 20th century, which emanated from enlightenment rubbish, and correct the wrongs that have and continue to wreak havoc on mankind. However, this correction should not include completely untested models, that lack in the beauty of natural order. Sanity must be restored, by a return to Royal Monarchs, which have a more proper aesthetic, and a more efficient system for governing than the prominent neoreaction theory of neocameralism.

Contrary to popular belief, by all objective observable criteria, Monarchy has been a resounding success.  Recorded history makes it evident, that Monarchy has been the predominant form of governing on Earth since at least 3,000BC.  What evidence is there that humans at large are so much more advanced, and intelligent than all of humans of the past? If Monarchy was such a menace to the Earth, would it have remained so dominant a force?  Liberal democracy is a mere speck, in comparison.

For example, beginning with the unification of upper and lower Egypt, monarchy led to nearly three millennia of stability since 3150 BC. Certainly, it was developed in pre-historic times, flourished in the Greek Bronze Age, in Rome between 700 and 500 BC, The Chinese states, and early medieval Western Europe.  The worlds greatest cultures and institutions, in every period, were cultivated and shaped by the Royal dynasties.  Even the Nubian Kingdom in Africa produced periods of continuous stability, one lasting for at least 900 years.  Until the pernicious lies wreaked chaos in England, the feudal Monarchs also produced stability.  There is no doubt that Monarchy built great things! As pointed out at Unqualified Reservations, the world’s most beautiful and impressive architecture were built under the royals’ watch.  One need only to compare the age of the Monarchs, to the age that followed.  The rise of popular government, whose various expressions fought for dominance, destroying much of the cultures they consumed, and leading to the most bloodshed in the planet’s history.         

 Why exactly was Monarchy so successful? First and foremost, it is a natural reflection on Earth, of the hierarchy of Heaven. The Christian teaching of man, being created in the image and likeness of God, also applies to the order of civilization.  Because mankind is created in His image, the most ideal form of government is that, of as a single head.  Just as the father is the head of the family, so the King is the head of nation.   Under a monarchial system, people are more inclined to reverently view the monarch as a dear relative, with a healthy blend of fear and adoration. 

Another factor for success, monarchs treated statecraft as the family business.  Thus, much care was given, to pass down a successful business down to the next generation.  Logical chains of successions bred stability with crises often at moments where succession was uncertain. Certainly, a poorly run state would be a huge burden to pass down.  Monarchs thus treated their work, as a duty, one in which they didn’t choose for themselves.  Yet they lived in the service of their nation. It resembled a healthy familial relationship, perhaps this why many far-left ideologies attack the family unit so viciously.  Additionally, monarchial governments were far less intrusive against individual liberties, and privacy, than the post-revolutionary regimes who claimed such things as their cause.  The revolutionary actors, as sincere as they may have been, did not foresee how the maintenance of a redefined sovereignty would lead to more intrusion and the negation of liberty.  

 Some contemporary fringe thinkers, seem to recognize the superiority of the old regime, over the current, but rather than advocating a return propose instead what is known as neocameralism.  In a nutshell, rather than adopting the family business model, its advocates favor the Corporate structure; a CEO and shareholders.  The shareholders would elect the CEO, who in theory would exert absolute authority over the government and its dependents.  The shareholders, would have the authority to depose the CEO, should the CEO become tyrannical or mismanage the organization.  With the shareholders having such powers, this system would devolve into simply a micro bureaucracy, with the shareholders essentially leveraging the most power and control. 

This was the reactionaries’ attempt to address the criticism often brought forth, about the turmoil surrounding succession plans.  However, all that this accomplishes is the conception of a new, unnatural, and utopian form of government that has never been tested.  One can look at the devolution of current tech firms into massive SJW goblins to see the danger of that view. It’s also highly unlikely, given the attitudes of men towards large corporations, compared to the preference shown towards family business, that they would adopt such a form of government.  The relationship between the people, and the CEO and shareholders, will be impersonal.  The aesthetics will not have the personal touch, which built the Western World upon beauty, and magnificence.   

 It is true that succession of authority is pivotal and crucial to the stable continuous royal monarch.  People living in the United States should know, as they endure a similar upheaval every four to eight years.  Monarchial systems would often only encounter this after a period of 25 to 50 years, but modern methods of fertility science should change that frequency of crisis. It is essential that a law of succession is established.  Such as the Russian Pauline laws, instituted by Paul I (1796-1801).  The Pauline succession recognized that male succession was preferable but allowed for females to succeed to the throne if the male line became extinct.  In a restored West, such a system would help prevent conflict and ensure that the line does in fact remain intact.  It would be acceptable, and perhaps a good idea for something like a corporate board to exist, for the sole purpose of ensuring that the laws of succession are adhered to.  This board should be Aristocratic, and a hereditary position. However, a traditional Church body which would conduct the coronation, could also play a role in that process. 

 It seems that Moldbug himself would prefer the Royalist Monarchs, but thinks that American sensibilities would be more suited to Neocameralism. The reality is, that Americans are still human, and still persons of European heritage.  Royalism, given its historical success and track record, is exactly what America and the West needs to restore it to its former glory. Reactionaries, and all those explaining governance futurism should endeavor to restore our ancestral heritage of beauty and magnificence.

12 Comments Add yours

  1. This is a really solid, normie-friendly argument for monarchy. On a purely theoretical level, though, by making Monarchy compete in the sort of ideological market you’ve used as your framework, aren’t you by necessity adopting the Liberal frame? In any given marketplace, the market-minded will always outsell all others, meaning the game seems rigged in favour of any Liberally-minded, which is to say materialist ideology.

    What I’d like to know is how do you think we can break the framework? What kind of political vocabulary do we adopt to replace the language of Liberalism and escape the traps it sets for us?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Michael Sisco says:

      This is an interesting point. Honestly, I’m not sure that we should let them have their monopoly on the meaning of words. I’d have to contemplate this more, but my knee jerk reaction is…….who gives a damn what words they use. I think most rational people can decipher our intent with words via the context in which we use them. But your first point regarding the market minded, I think is more of a critique against neocameralism. Monarchy itself has actual tradition and a transcendent force to lean on. Which I think is the answer to your question. Liberalism has no sense of natural/divine hierarchy, rather it constantly seeks to undermine it.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. boomrx says:

    Well stated, but I very much disagree. I have faith in the Constitutional Republican system, but the miasma of DC has necessitated a polity of corruption that has no peer. The problem is the people in positions of power there, both elected and bureaucratic, are no longer thinking of themselves as representative of the people, but acting as kings controlling their segregated fiefdoms and colluding with their ruling class brethren to make sure the perverted status quo remains the same. Obama ruled as a monarch already. His cult of personality was ironclad and deflected any criticism back on the critic sevenfold.

    Reform the system. Mandatory random drug tests for all politicians and bureaucrats would probably clear out half of them in a year. Term limits also must be instituted on the elected officials so they can no longer make what used to be a temporary dispensation into a long and lucrative career. There are other common sense solutions to this problem, I am sure.

    Reform the current system, do not fall back on the thing that this country was founded upon breaking away from because of the monarchy’s oppressive impositions.

    Like

    1. I could not disagree more. I must emphatically reassert the fact that Republicanism is a suicide pact that will consume us all with what is left of the Faustian West.

      There is only one future in which we and our people survive, and it is the one in which we choose to altogether abandon liberalism and all its empty promises. There is no going back and no stopping time at any point. America as a project was an error, and it has quite nearly cost us everything. Speaking of “oppression” or “liberty” as meaningful concepts is indulgence in deadly delusion. Our enemies created these categories, and our enemies control their meaning.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Alfonz Cavalier says:

      Participatory government of all kinds is a dangerous illusion. In reality, it hands power to oligarchical factions, who keep most of their designs hidden from view. Obama did not rule as a monarch – he ruled as a popular despot, promising bread and circuses to certain groups within society while balancing oligarchic interests behind the scenes. This is not how monarchy functions or how monarchs behave – a king is a unitary focus of power whose legitimacy is unquestioned, therefore he has little need to play politics. Americans brought up to revere written constitutions and to assume that the ‘separation of powers’ is all that keeps them being literally enslaved just use ‘monarch’ as a synonym for ‘autocrat’, which is not at all accurate.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. SpeakerOTH says:

    What would your opinion on succession during the Roman Principate? Essentially where a worthy successor would be “adopted” into the family and groomed for rule vs. The direct descendent. I’m worried of the shielded from reality trust fund baby getting power merely because he’s the father’s son.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Michael Sisco says:

      I’ve thought about that before as well, and I think it was fairly effective. But I’m not sure that you avoid the trust fund baby affect. lol I lean more towards the direct descendants, but I wouldn’t be offended if the Roman system were adopted. I’m obviously a big fan of the Pauline rules the later Tsars.

      Like

  4. Alfonz Cavalier says:

    As a European, and the subject of an actual irl monarch (albeit one with almost no real political power), I agree. I still think it would be just about possible for a restoration of recent or established dynasties to be the main vector for a broader reactionary/ Restoration project in western culture. It would take some serious plotting however, and most likely a seismic shift in wider society.

    If such a restoration isn’t possible, then I’m afraid that monarchy will most likely only be restored once order is restored, probably by warlords. You only get detailed systems of legitimacy, stable dynasties, succession laws, and all the pomp and pageantry that reactionaries like after the messy work of creating a stable social order has been done. I have some sympathy for those reactionaries who suggest that we’d need an authoritarian form of republican government first, before this sort of thing can emerge.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Arimathean says:

    1. You claim 5,000 continuous years for monarchy. That’s nothing. Humans were hunter-gatherers for 500,000 years. That’s the lifestyle that is natural to humans. Monarchy is every bit as unnatural as democracy. Furthermore, monarchy was neither universal nor continuous. Two of history’s greatest civilizations – the Roman Republic and Athens – are obvious exceptions to your assertion. Most civilizations cycled through various forms of governance. Monarchy was not particularly stable in most instances.

    2. You repeat the lie that all three forms of governance associated with the 20th century come from “the Enlightenment”. But both fascism and communism came out of the reaction AGAINST Anglo-American liberalism. Furthermore, the claim that the three forms “are all equally terrible” is absolutely indefensible. Liberal democracy is far from perfect, but it is the best that has ever existed. Communism is probably the worst. Monarchy is, at best, somewhere in between these extremes in its ability to deliver the things people want – e.g., liberty, prosperity, stability.

    3. Monarchy is not a particulary stable form of government. Monarchs’ authority tends to be entangled with their primary role – leadership in war. Therefore kings usually have an incentive to engage in warfare to enhance their own wealth, power, and authority vis-a-vis their subjects. If there are no external enemies to fight, the people reasonably feel less dependent on the king – and less willing to pay his taxes. This is a recurring problem in all autocratic governments, including monarchies.

    4. Forms of government co-evolve with other social forces – particularly forms of economic subsistence. Monarchy has become extinct (more or less) through this natural process of evolution. Perhaps we will suffer a catastrophe that wipes out civilization and technology and makes monarchy viable again – but I hope not. Perhaps the future will bring us a new subsisitence form in which monarchy will be viable again – but we will not live long enough to see it.

    Like

    1. Michael Sisco says:

      Read On Power by Bertrand De Juvenal. Yes, Monarchy in some forms was part of the growth and extension of the Mega State in the form that emanated just before the enlightenment. That’s a topic for a separate essay. Anyhow, the family unit as the smallest cell of society, with the father as it’s head, is Monarchy. Your implication that hunter gather society is anything resembling a Popular Government is absurd. The issues with the later “Old Regime” is they succumbed to absurd enlightenment ideas….that’s where the instability came from. By dangling the revolutionary masses a carrot…

      Like

    2. Michael Sisco says:

      Man your arguments are so absurd. lol You literally appeal to un-recorded pre-history. And communism was more of a reaction against the industrial revolution, but still was closely related to in enlightenment principles as Anglo Liberalism.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s