Thursday, November 26, 2009

Monarchists Seize the Day

All around us, on a daily basis, we are surrounded by the wrecks and failures of the modern liberal state. Empty or half filled promises, grown on the backs and suffering of a degraded peasantry. What began with the American masonic revolution of 1776 and sputtered on and off in Europe and the world through the 1800s, taking firm hold in the 1900s, first as a pseudo republicanism, than as war fascism, communism and socially liberal corporate capitalism (aka modern democracy or rather corporate-state fascism) has brought us endless wars, cultural destruction (as Americans like to call it: destructive creativity), moral depredation, spiritual death and a society of angry, childless, degraded, shamed and spineless Caucasians of every European stripe, up to their ears in meaningless things, without the stable families, children or friends to enjoy them with. This in short, is the modern version of success: crime, death, despair, loneliness, Godlessness and no moral or spiritual purpose of being, outside that of a worker ant.

In short; the anti traditionalism, anti Church and thus Anti Monarchist society of the new liberal (wym)myn of the 1900s and early 2000s is dieing, bringing with its demise an ever quickening decline into a soulless, Godless, poverty and state barbarianism, where the value of the the life of a piss ant peasant (that would be 98% of you) is only valued in how it serves the state and the 2% Alpha population leading their own Godless, valueless and deprived lives. In other words: all you modernisms are nothing but the bowl movement waste products of the Devil to whom the West as a whole is ever more on its knees groveling, like a drug addict suffering withdrawal before the likes of his drug seller master.

Now compare this to the majority of the monarchies of the end of the pre World War One age. Not the propaganda spewed by the endless line of new Liberalism's propagandists but to actual fact. To do this, we must tear away the propaganda of the liberals, specifically the Americans and the Wall Street uber machine of Christless profit at any and all costs. Furthermore, we must pull away the veil of the daily miseries that were in no way the fault of the monarchies in specific and their societies but were suffered equally in America and other areas due to a lack of technology that would have come along regardless, to remove them from the human experience.

Monarchies and monarchistic societies of the 1800s and the early 1900s were on average stable, content and purpose driven societies. People born into them were assured of a world order in which they had a place, in which they could move up or down by their own hands, steadily if not quickly, but in which they were relatively sure that stability and sanity would reign as assuredly as the sun would rise and settle. In almost all of them, they were also assured of a steady conservative but undeniable improvement in their lives.

In Russia, for example, under Catherin the Great, the first worker rights laws were passed in Europe, forbidding child night labour and women and children from working in dangerous state enterprises, such as mines and munitions plants.

Economies were also stable, with few major bubbles and little loose monetary policy. The most famous exception of this was the Spanish monarchy after getting its hands upon the South American gold. Spending with abandon and collapsing its economy. Coincidentally, they also practiced the first real instance of Free Trade, allowing most of their goods to be produced outside of their economy and imported in. Of course it worked just as well in the 1600s as it did in the 1900s and 2000s, in other words, an abject failure. After its economic collapse, sanity and mercantilism returned quickly.

Another famous example is France during the American Masonic Revolution. The Masonists convinced the French king to leverage France dangerously to sponsor their revolution, a move that only fed the revolutionary elements in France. In return, France, besides being able to stab long time foe England, would also get exclusive trade rights with the Americans, which would more than repay their leverage.

The American colonies, which were out of ammunition, supplies, uniforms, canon, rifles and hope, were replenished with everything they needed, including fighting men and a real navy, ala France.

In exchange for their aid, the French were backstabbing by the American Masons, more concern with profit and revolution rather than honor, when they ran to the British and singed a separate piece from their allies, giving the English exclusive trading rights.

This, of course, led to the bankruptcy of the French government and the French Revolution, also on Masonic lines, which descended into immorality and tyranny, under the liberal Robespierre. Surely, this was seen as a great victory to Washington's Masons and a profit to boot, as Washington than refused to pay back any of its French loans that were made by the king. See Phony War, which was a raiding war that lasted for quite a while after this.

As a matter of fact, most monarchies were based upon mercantialistic economic models, placing the well being of their peoples and nation as well as assuring value producing employment for their people, as their primary priorities. Even Masonic Americans followed this policy initially, a lingering left over from their days under the reign of English kings. Unfortunately, the further they got away from this, the more liberal they became as newer generations no longer had a cultural memory of the monarchist days and Masonic "creative" destruction drove them to the Christless ideology of profit at all and any cost.

Look at the Weimer Republic, for a prime example Removing the conservative kaiser and his crrcle, the new liberals in a hyper rush to liberalization and blaming everything conservative and thus evil on the Kaiser, in turn devalued and debased German culture into a nihilistic, superficial society, with almost the same speed as they devalued the Deutsch mark from a leading world currency into an international joke, fit only for heating ovens, in large stacks. Of course the end result of all this neo-liberal debasement is the coming of a vegetarian, animal rightest, anti-smoking, anti drinking tyrant, surrounded by homosexuals, drug addicts and child molesters, in the name of Adolf Hitler and his campaign of "HOPE and CHANGE!".

It is with a saddened heart that I must remember that we Russians even beat the Germans with the speed of our own debasement as led first by Alexander Kerensky and his Labour Party and their Cadet Party allies and than by Lenin and his Marxists, all sponsored by the masonic American elites, through Wall Street and the American State Department, coincidentally, the same types who than brought Hitler to power and other neo-liberal fascists, throughout Europe. Interestingly, Kerensky's father was also Vladimir Lenin's school teacher and the two families were close.

Monarchies provide stability to both economic and social aspects of their societies, by their very nature. As a patriarchal society, based on a furling family, they elevate the nuclear family to the center point of all that is culturally good and holy. The evils of abortion, immorality, homosexuality, crimes of perversion and even out of wed lock births as well as the present sky rocketing social violence, only began to appear in societies as the monarch was removed and society moved away from its roots, in the direction of liberalism, retaining only the dim memory that things were once better before, but not of the reasons why.

Another key of this is tradition, a cultural norm that binds the actions of the king, the elites and the peasantry and everyone between and thus lends a societal norm in which a person can prosper without the paranoia and insecurity of the modern man and his dieing state built upon humanism.

Traditional societies also function better in business, requiring fewer lawyers, as agreements verbal or written are expected to be honoured in spirit as well as word and a man's word is worth his weight in gold. There is also less back stabbing and covering one's back as lines of command and responsibility are direct, established and clear, everyone knowing upon whom responsibility will land.

Of course, religion always played a very dominant roll, specifically the Christian faith that reminded the monarch that his actions and that of his people were and are always answerable before the Supreme Judge and His Judgment, something all together missing in the Liberal Dieing West built upon Humanism or Man Is God theology. Thus, God is a mediating effect gone from modern politics even if the politicians occasionally visit churches for photo ops. Prime Minister Putin seems to be the rare exception, a man of actual strong faith in Christ.

The Church provides a frame work of morality, controlling the excesses of human nature. God being the King of the Kingdom of Heaven provides a frame work and justification to the government, other than the whims of the masses or the power elites. The Church also provides the people a purpose in life, greater than the self or mere survival, while assuring the people of their place in the after life.

Liberal humanism, that was meant to replace God, by the Liberals, who ousted the marches, has done none of this. Instead, the more "humane" the goals, the more "liberating" its philosophy, the more barbaric, animalistic and Luciderian its results and products, leaving humanity not masters of their own destiny but as little more than sadistic, paranoid and self loathing intelligent apes, slaves to their animal desires and the whims of the moralless top 2%.

Under a monarch, societies also had a strong, historic and optimistic self view. Some of the greatest architectural and scientific achievements came fro these societies. Societies that were not ripped apart by multiculturalism, even when other cultures and races inhabited the state, there was always one dominant culture everyone aspired to.

Even in the post colonial Africa, the locals adhere as strongly to the old Imperial culture and languages, as their own organic. The educated masses (or rather the thin layer) even more so. I have had several educated Negro Africans tell me flatly, that they wished the old imperial powers would return. But those old cultures are dead or dieing in their own homelands, what can they possibly return to?

While a monarchy is not the cure all for a society's ills, it does provide the critical stability and frame work to achieve the needed cures.

So, Monarchists, carpi deum, as liberalism falls all around us, dieing and dragging humanity into the grave, with it. It is time for us to step forward and bring that old time, but sound and true idea back into the world's norm.


Looney said...

Do you have any candidates in mind for America's new Monarch? Oprah?

Just an FYI: Polybius (~200BC) writes of a cycle where a Monarchy degenerates and is overthrown to produce an Oligarchy. The Oligarchy degenerates over time and is overthrown to produce a Democracy. This degenerates into bestiality, thievery in the name of charity and anarchy, resulting in an inevitable overthrow and return to Monarchy. The translated quotation is here.

john said...

Interesting, but. If one had the time and inclination, many cases could be made that many monarchs have done nearly infinitely more damage to their brethren than they could or would have had they not been elevated to the crown. What is a monarch, but a dictator with a nurtured family tree? Whather that tree is natural, bought, or transplanted is not relevant. A man is just a man. A crown does not make him better, it just magnifies the impact of his error. And we know the only King devoid of error. Be well.

Stanislav said...


Unlike a politician, a monarch is in for the long run, he does not spend the first year of his reign destroying or supplementing everything his predecessor did, nor does he waste time campeighning. Furthermore, a monarch is much harder to corrupt, he does not run for office, so he does not need campeign sponsors to owe favors to. His drive, for the most part, is the nation, for which he is bred to lead, not the next election and making his name in the short 3 or 4 or 5 years he has, while blaming everything on his previous.

Further, unlike dictators, who usually arise from liberal and neo-liberal institutions and have no control over them, a monarch is often bound not only by tradition, but by Church, and nobility as well as religious belief.

Stanislav said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gray Falcon said...

Stanislav, I read a similar (and equally compelling) argument several years ago, in the book "Democracy, the God that Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I'm partial to monarchism myself, not the least due to the catastrophic record of "democracy" in the 20th century alone.

lupoleboucher said...

I wouldn't argue too much; I think European monarchies were largely good institutions, but Monarchies did have their share of economic catastrophes (the banking crisis of 1873 overtook both Austria Hungary and Germany). Also, modern European monarchies are often even more decadent than their citizens. For example, Norway, whose crown prince married a drug dealing slut who already had a child by another man.

Unfortunately, the only way I can see to restoring any monarchies is how they got there in the first place: by shedding rivers of blood. It will probably happen, because humans prefer to live in Monarchies, but it's not something I'd look forward to. It will probably be an Emirate in any case.

vonbach said...

I'd rather have a monarch in charge of a country than a president elected for a 4 year term. He has something invested in the country. Yes there were bad
monarchs but our "democracy" (an oligarchy) is much worse. At least in a monarchy you have one man who is ultimately responsible for his country. Rather than a bunch of politicians who only care about themselves
and are accountable to no one.

Filip said...

In Russia, from Peter the Great onward (the period I've studied most intensly) Monarchy was a hit or miss affair. Typically, outstanding monarchs were ones that seized power (Peter I, Catherine). And while Catherine tried making many enlightened reforms, her reign also saw mass peasant uprisings. Peter clamped down on the serfs, opressing them even more than before. Catherine's predecessor actually spied on the Russian army for the Prussians. The army had its revenge on him. The last Tsar, was apparently a thorough going mediocrity. If there's one man who is at fault for the october revolution, I'd blame him. Not only did his poor leadership facilitate the revolution, he also failed to take adequate profilactic measures. Failure upon failure. Got into a disastrous war, got defeated by Japanese, Allowed the capital to go hungry, failed to maintain loyalty of the army or at least a few praetorian regiments. Embarassed himself by taking advice from dirty looking siberian monk with ravenous sexual appetites. And the list could go on.

So as good as monarchy sounds in your article, it is just as vulnerable to being bad as democracy. The problem with any human form of government is that its run by humans. That's why the solution is not so much what form the government takes, but how much of it there is. The smaller, and more localized, the less opportunity for abuse and the easier to correct. If it's a beheamoth that sits a continent away from you, commands 40% of your earnings, and wields a sophisticated arsenal of physical and information weapons and enforcement apparatus, then you're screwed wether it's a monarchy, democracy, or whatever.

Stanislav said...


I would suggest you do quite a bit more reading, if you think the only two good tsars were Catherin and Peter. You can start with Micheal Romanov himself, who rebuilt a Russia almost destroyed by the Smuta.

Elizabeth was a very strong ruler. As was Nicholas I, Alexander II, Alexander III and yes, Nicholas II who industrialized Russia at an incredible clip, and under whom over 70% of the population could read, as was attested to by the 1920 Soviet census.

Western propaganda, of course pays little head to any of it.

Catherin II's husband, Peter III was insane, which is why he was effectively removed from power and she had it.

As for her son, Paul, he instroduced very many reforms, however, being unpopular with the nobility he was assassinated, which hardly makes him a weak leader.

Again, I would say, go back to the studies on th subject.

Further, the level of corruption in the West, the level of hatred for one's own culture, the level of betrayal of what is best for one's own people can and will only be found in Western Liberal Fascist states, all of which are dieing.

Filip said...

@ Stanislav

I don't think those are the only two good ones. They are two of the more outstanding ones, I didn't wish to lengthen my post further by going into a discourse on the merits of each Tsar in the Romanov line. Thus I mentioned two good ones that nevertheless had problems, and two absolutely terrible ones. One insane, one merely not up to the job. My point is that monarchy has to take extreme measures to remove a bad sovereign. These are coup (Peter and Catherine took power in this way) or Revolution. Democracies or Republics have built in mechanisms like elections and impeachment. You say that monarchies are more stable, but the back and fourth coups in Peter's reign (Streltsy uprisings) for example are anything but.

And even if a monarch is hard to corrupt, he does not do everything himself. His ministers and officials certainly can be corrupted. And that is the level of government that normal people would interact with. For instance, if Russia was a monarchy under Tsar Putin, I'm sure you'd still have to give bribes to traffic cops.

Gregor said...

'Further, the level of corruption in the West, the level of hatred for one's own culture, the level of betrayal of what is best for one's own people can and will only be found in Western Liberal Fascist states, all of which are dieing.'

Very true Stas, I reckon here in Britain we are seeing very dark days. The other day my spiritual father was driving me to the bus station and this huge jeep pulled up in front of us pumping out jungle music.

I noticed that there was a CCTV camera on the wall of a bank and oddly enough, in 1984, George Orwell predicted both that the state would spy on everyone and that 'culture' would consist of cut and pasted jingles. And ironically enough, whilst the state can spy on anyone, a Brit can be imprisoned for ten years for taking a photo that COULD be of use to a terrorist.

As for the monarchy, I think Britain will see a rapid change. The Windsors will not last much longer. Whilst the majority of Brits support the monarchy, overall they care more about celeb culture (our top news stories are about 'Jedward'; and we have the nerve to criticise the Russian media) and will not stand up to the forces of opposition.