Democratic sentiments are an artificial construct which did not ever manifest itself prior to the 18th century in anything greater than a localized area, the wish for order, safety and competency however is a natural yearning of any man who wishes to live a proper diligent and dignified life, it is no wonder then, that monarchies lasted millennia while republics are on their way out.
Brilliant essay, I must admit I've begun to consider Monarchism as the only solution to the current global managerial mess we're all in. A monarch is by nature forced to look to those beneath him for aid, support, clerks, warriors and so on.
I must admit I've been looking at Chivalry & Bushido this past year and must agree that Kingship and Chevalerie feels more natural and feels more pragmatic by nature.
Chivalric traditions are naturally emergent in states where maintaining ones honor becomes of paramount importance. One of the reasons I look at a hybridized representative monarchy as an ideal governance system... it requires that the children of the king/nobility portray themselves as the most honorable and best leaders out of their siblings. Social taboos against fratricide would definitely be required though.
Egyptian ruling families. Raised from birth and trained to believe they were gods; the well being of the kingdom was a direct reflection of themselves. Good idea - three thousand years of success. I like your ideas, but how to implement it? Boy oh boy....
Three thousand years of civilization sounds nice. Implementation will be tricky, that'll be in a future substack along with specific recommendations for structure. So subscribe and stay tuned for that post.
I absolutely agree with you that we need an alternative to democracy but, with all due respect to this post’s author, I think there’s a system that does a better job at aligning self-interests than monarchism...
I honestly think it’s a fallacy to think not initiating force implies materialism or selfishness (no offense). Also, nothing could be more community minded than a system based on voluntary consent, which is the very fabric of a community. At the end of the day though, why not put both systems to the test? People who agree with you can try your way. People who agree with me can try my way.
If you want an exploration of the moral principles of a free society rather than just an appeal to pragmatism, you might like this…
A King is supposed to be a father to a community, the liberalist system is all about ensuring a strange does indeed rule over you. He will do so through democracy and centralized banks that tear what wealth you have from you.
Do read the history of centralized banking, it’s very enlightening about how Liberalism truly worked and the problems with it and why it is the worst ideology to ever come into force in human history.
As a fellow anti-liberal, my point about strangers was that both liberalism AND monarchism involve being ruled over by a stranger. I do think there’s a case to be made that the problem is mitigated under monarchism (as opposed to liberalism) but that’s a fairly low bar don’t you think?
I’m not arguing for liberalism or central banking, both of which are only possible by the state, an institution I reject. I’m not sure what I’ve said that implies I’m for central banking. If you watch the video in my second link, you’ll actually find a sustained critique of central banking within it.
Anyway, I actually agree with you that both are bad.
My argument there is monarchism works consistently for extended durations while liberalism produced systems inherently fiscalized and used to disguise the true powers that rule... thereby making them unacountable.
This is a brilliant article. I have four questions for the article and one on the topic of the author:
Firstly: as the grounding of the monarchic system's legitimacy relying on a higher power, does that mean culturally a religious revival and unification is required? I don't know much about how this justification works in oriental contexts like Thailand or China's mandate of heaven, but in the Abrahamic context I'd imagine it requires a strong religious unity - even with a "king of bishops" to support the monarch.
Secondly: you have a line talking about how outsiders would have to be integrated into the culture. It's placement in the article makes me think there is reasoning to this, but would it be alright to clarify? I'd imagine currently it's something like how the outsider must enter into the social fabric and position relative to the local noble, but I may be mistaken.
Thirdly: the ultimate goal with intranational warfare and revolution you describe is akin to the war of 60 or so English and French knights over the rulership of Brittany. What about war with foreign powers, some of which may still subscribe to mass armies of modern warfare?
Fourthly: an idea I have heard bandied about (I couldn't give you a source) is that governmental systems can be heavily influenced or even better a product of the technology present in a society. Do you think there is adequate pushing for nobles to decentralise to counteract the increased ease of centralising power offered by technology compared to in history?
As for the personal question: have you read the Tao Te Ching? It seems interesting as a guide for a king or emperor when ruling a territory, and came across to me as quite minimalist in use of executive power - the foreword of the Addiss and Lombardo edition explains how the Tao Te Ching arose contemporarily to emerging alternatives like Legalism and Confucianism as competing philosophies for how China should be governed.
Please feel free to answer any, all, or none of these - thank you for your time and this article.
These responses are from my own semi-formal education on the topic, so I may well not be correct in some areas. With that said;
Monarchies derive legitimacy from the perception that there exist a higher hierarchy and moral order. Laws above the law of man. There are right now, however, effective monarchies in various parts of the world, not the West but other regions. It is therefore a question of which comes first, the hierarchy that requires a higher power for legitimacy or a cultural revolution that defines a higher moral authority than man. Realistically, I don't think it matters. If a monarch is placed into a Western nation, within a generation you'll see a christian resurgence and appeals to governance-by-God. You don't need a cultural revolution, the imposition of a Monarchy will induce the required shift in its citizenry over a generation or so.
Outsiders always have to be integrated into the culture. Democracies are easiest to tyrannize when foreign peoples make up a significant percentage of the population. The population at odds with itself cannot seek improved governance. For a monarchy, a unified population is preferred because foreigners can be a threat to the hierarchy of the monarch. Therefore, significantly more effort will be placed on proper cultural acclimation of foreigners and cultural isolationism. It aligns the interests of the rulers and the citizens.
In internecine war, the nobility and the other-nobility will engage in skirmishes. In proper international war the nation unifies around the King for combined-arms warfare. While this is less efficient than the modern military-industrial complex, it doesn't need to be as efficient. A kingdom doesn't need to drop bombs of democratic liberation on children on the other side of the planet to maintain the budgets of national megacorporations. The reduced efficiency will result in more limited global trade and the localization of resources... If the states of the USA converted to monarchies, the nation would no longer be the single military global hegemon, but easily be capable of rallying for mutual defense in the event of invasion. In terms of military excursion it would be much weaker, in terms of military defense it would be as strong as the nation ever was. Oddly enough there would be a strong imposition to train the majority of the population in various forms of warfare for this reason in the form of localized militias.
I think that high technology pushes to a dangerous degree of centralization. That's why the proposed model looks specifically at a feudal monarchy where the nobility are tied to land area. With that type of monarchy, what you see is a strong counter-push against centralization. You'll still have megacorporations, but they don't have the ability to impose their will directly, instead they'll exist across dozens of slightly-different legal codes in numerous baronies and duchies. These systems add friction to trade, governance, and technology. When a corporate head screws up and pisses off a local count, the count can just seize the corporations property in his county. It'll create a tit-for-tat relationship where corporations can be held to account at the local level. I do think that high technology may end up overbearing, but the added friction will hopefully be enough to prevent that.
I am familiar with legalism and Confucianism, but have't yet read Tao Te Ching. I do think that, and similar books will be required reading for future kings. Kings tend to restrict their use of direct power far more than legislators or especially bureaucrats. It's because a king must take responsibility for mistakes that are made while legislators and bureaucrats have built entire industries around passing-the-blame. A managerial bureaucracy turns out to be the most intrusive and least escape-able form of tyranny... Kafka saw that one coming.
Monarchy is best solution to compare on living today on democracy even Socrates hated Democracy .All Monarchs take care for their own people My parents use to lived time of Monarchy and they told me monarchy was the best time ever
A kingdom makes the King. A king who destroys his own kingdom has nothing. A public official who destroys his own nation? Usually a comfortable payout is what he gets.
Aristotle covered this with the constitutional republic that restrains the power of the state and you need to make sure it is small and can't create the bureaucracies we see in the west, then you need to eviscerate media which is the propaganda arm of the elite and the thing that destroyed the west.
This is a terrific and far-reaching piece. It is insightful of you to classify fascism as humanist despite its pretensions to the contrary. The subset of humanity that is a nation is still orders of magnitude greater than Dunbar’s number and thus submerges accountability of a state ruling in the name of the nation in a bureaucracy comparable to that of liberal nation-states.
Fantastic essay. Interest in the concept and technicalities of modern monarchies will only grow over the next decade as the decadence of liberalism continues to hit new lows. Really looking forward to the next installment of this series.
I would argue that monarchy was better BEFORE the divine right of kings, which removed the accountability of monarchs to their local population, and instead towards an ephemeral philosophy of the divine (which as we know changes throughout the centuries). I am not squeamish about authoritarianism, but the mandate needs to come from the local populous not some lofty philosophical vision.
I am very strongly sympathetic to monarchy but there are a few implementation concerns.
The biggest and most obvious one is "how do you implement this system when large numbers of the citizens say "how about no" and point their guns at you? Things get very very authoritarian (in the negative connotative sense) very quickly to solve that problem
If the King and Nobles of Britain are any indication of how it would turn out. I'd like to opt-out. King Charles doesn't care about his citizens, nor do any of the Lords who sit in the house. Keir Starmer is even in favor of arresting British citizens for trying to defend their children from foreign invaders.
I'd hate to think of how it would work in America. Would the current Governors become kings and never be able to be replaced? How would we choose who would be nobility? Half the governors proved they couldn't be trusted during the COVID lockdowns, as they destroyed their states' economies and threatened to jail citizens.
The same in Canada. Can you imagine King Trudeau for eternity? Can you imagine what he'd do with that kind of power? He'd arrest protestors and throw them under the dungeon, even as he sold out his country to foreign invaders.
Britain is a kingdom in name only. The nobility of Britain are just figureheads (as I stated in the article above) they don't actually wield political power. Likewise, the liberal parliamentary democracy of the UK is not a feudal system at all where the kings enact their will through territorial nobility. One of the important aspects of a kingdom is the king has to actually be responsible for the major political decisions made. States like Thailand, Oman and Saudi Arabia have done an excellent job navigating international affairs because they are actual real monarchies.
I'm going to write a future article (maybe a paid subscriber article? Haven't decided yet) about how to actually set up kingdoms in the United States so that they're effective. I absolutely agree that our current ruling political class CANNOT be trusted. That's because they need the approval of voters and... voters are retarded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE
The issue is that the presidential/parliamentary leaders we get via democracy are by-definition the least competent and most ideologically driven individuals. You do need to start your kingdom with a good king, once you've done that though, it'll be easier to maintain than the decaying democracies we see ourselves living in now. Again, future article that will answer your questions is going to come out in the next few months, so subscribe for that if you aren't already.
What makes you think fascists are purely materialistic? In the reading I’ve done, I have found that in those inspired by Nietzsche, but that seems to be a minority view. Evola wanted to bring back Roman paganism and was a platonist. National Socialism was indeed tribal nordicist and had pagan leanings too, but also supported the Christian worldview (the Lutheran/Catholic view as it was then). I’ve read R W Darre’s “A New Nobility of Blood a Soil” and find a lot of overlap with what you have written here.
I enjoyed reading this vision of Monarchy in America, but I don’t think Monarchy can work if the people are not of the same nation. The tribes are too distinct to stay united under Monarchy. I think a post-Rome world is more likely with separate Kingdoms constantly at war with one another, broken down by racial lines. Essentially the monarch should serve as the head of the body, but it cannot be the head of a body to which it does not belong. This is why corporatism (this is not crony capitalism) is a key aspect of fascist thought.
We could have a monarchy, but to work it must be connected to the BLOOD and the soil (which you have already addressed). The line about keeping foreigners at arms reach until assimilated had me scratch my head. In current America there are enough foreigners to fill an entire country by themselves. You cannot assimilate aliens into a monarchy at the scale required and have the monarchy last. Yes, the nobles want the infrastructure to work for their progeny, but they should also want the blood of their people preserved to enable a shared history and hardwire as the people they rule. Otherwise you have Caligula, Nero, or other would-be tyrants ruling as aliens over the people to whom the Monarch’s are meant to be servant leaders (if you’re Christian).
I partially agree. Bloodlines will be of critical value, but I think you overestimate their political footprint in medieval Europe. Lineage was often a proxy for locality.
To begin with, fascism is a Darwinian form of materialism. It places the tribe and the bloodline above all else, with the ascribed bloodline taking front-and-center position in terms of political thought. "It is the will of the blood and the survival of the blood at the expense of all else. Our blood and soil." While fascism often took on the trappings of more traditional pagan ideals, it is structured around a materialist/Darwinian position. Both communism and fascism become methods of worshiping the body-politic. Communism places the highest value on the bureaucratic state as "the will of the workers," while fascism places the highest value on the dictatorial state as "the will of the folk."
Liberalism doesn't ascribe a cohesive worldview and did find riding on the coattails of Christian universalism for a long time, but it too is decaying as liberalism is inherently materialist.
Effectively, for a governance method not-to-be-materalist it must ascribe a truth higher than the self, higher than the state, and higher than the folk. Which is to say, that it acknowledges that the folk, the state, and the individual self can all behave in an immoral fashion. The laws of the state can be wrong. The will of the folk can be wrong. The desires of the self can be wrong.
Monarchism becomes a chicken-and-egg situation. The monarch derives his power from a greater spiritual authority... not from the governed. Thus monarchies inherently must acknowledge a higher authority than the state. In a neo-feudal system, a reduction in travel creates localization which creates bloodline association to specific regions. Warring kingdoms are a feature and not a bug. The nobility of blood and soil becomes a nobility built generationally; emergent from the society. It isn't possible to institute a top-down conceptualization of blood-and-soil that isn't inherently flawed. A bottom-up cultural production, on the other hand, has kept societies running for thousands of years.
The goal behind a monarchic system is to create social incentives rather than hard dictatorial rules or laws. Social incentives only need to be brought into existence, and then they must be permitted to run their course over a few generations. Attempting to institute a top-down form of cultural tribalism has been woefully unsuccessful in the past and likely will continue to be unsuccessful in the future. Even the Romans couldn't pull it off in foreign cultures very effectively despite several hundred years of trying.
To get people to submit to a higher authority from outside, this world would require a totalitarian state and complete rewriting of history, such as in North Korea. If the prerequisite for monarchy is authority from on high, then you need a religion that people actually submit to.
Because most people’s spiritual and metaphysical orientation today are divergent and disparate I see the enforcement of a monarchy the way you have defined it a major challenge.
However, most people, despite their differences in beliefs in God or gods can agree they want a future for their children. Therefore, it makes sense that a folkish nobility and aristocracy would make much more sense.
Lastly, many have argued successfully the Romans saw their downfall in part because they abandoned their exclusive aristocratic individualism in Roman nationality to become a multi ethnic empire. Once foreigners, such as Caligula and Nero gained power, the rules were changed foreigners were granted citizenship, and the currency began tobe debased.
Of course, we'll need new terminology methinks. And as another commenter correctly pointed out this reliance on a cultural conception of a "higher moral standard" implies as a prerequisite that such a standard is ingrained in the culture.
Part of what made Europe work was the Clergy. I don't think giving the clergy as much power as the Pope had is a good idea really, but you need to give them some real institutional power. At least have the coronations and all that be performed by the clergy.
Tanzanite trvthnvke. So annoying to be monarchist these days, most of the arguments are "erm bud in 1448 president george lincoln johnson flew 2 constipations into the communist burger king's white house or something like that yeah" or "Listen up chudcel, the only king is Jesus because he said he was king even though he was mentioning the fact that he was GOD and his kingdom is the church & it's followers but monarchism is LE HERESY because... IT JUST IS BIGOT! STOP WORSHIPPING 👑🤴🏰⚔️!!!"
Monarchs are a product of the state of war. Politics is the continuation of war by other means. There can be a state of peace but it only obtains when there is a dead zone separating it from cultures that do not kill outright men that cower from a challenge to a mutual hunt in nature as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing.
Not only history but of pre-history going back the Chimpanzee Human Last Common Ancestor 6M years BP. See EO Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth". My point is that the social organization you think of as "civilization" has more in common with the specialization found in social insects than it does with the prior 600M year of speciation dependent on individual male combat. North Eurasian Hunters provided a unique event in hominin "history", by dispersing population so much that individuality emerged on the strength of hunting packs primarily populated by canid symbionts with every man a king of his simple household. Such "war" would then be between such hunting packs when winter calories became the limiting resource. Failure to recognize this is what is killing Western Man as he permits others, not so evolved for individuality, to infiltrate with their group coherence.
Democratic sentiments are an artificial construct which did not ever manifest itself prior to the 18th century in anything greater than a localized area, the wish for order, safety and competency however is a natural yearning of any man who wishes to live a proper diligent and dignified life, it is no wonder then, that monarchies lasted millennia while republics are on their way out.
To kill a monarchy, you need 3 bad kings in a row. To kill a democracy, you just wait 250 years.
Brilliant essay, I must admit I've begun to consider Monarchism as the only solution to the current global managerial mess we're all in. A monarch is by nature forced to look to those beneath him for aid, support, clerks, warriors and so on.
I must admit I've been looking at Chivalry & Bushido this past year and must agree that Kingship and Chevalerie feels more natural and feels more pragmatic by nature.
Chivalric traditions are naturally emergent in states where maintaining ones honor becomes of paramount importance. One of the reasons I look at a hybridized representative monarchy as an ideal governance system... it requires that the children of the king/nobility portray themselves as the most honorable and best leaders out of their siblings. Social taboos against fratricide would definitely be required though.
Agreed
Egyptian ruling families. Raised from birth and trained to believe they were gods; the well being of the kingdom was a direct reflection of themselves. Good idea - three thousand years of success. I like your ideas, but how to implement it? Boy oh boy....
Three thousand years of civilization sounds nice. Implementation will be tricky, that'll be in a future substack along with specific recommendations for structure. So subscribe and stay tuned for that post.
I absolutely agree with you that we need an alternative to democracy but, with all due respect to this post’s author, I think there’s a system that does a better job at aligning self-interests than monarchism...
https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o?si=szZjAnvjawZemIeu
We need less self-interest less materialism, and more community-minded societies.
Hi,
I honestly think it’s a fallacy to think not initiating force implies materialism or selfishness (no offense). Also, nothing could be more community minded than a system based on voluntary consent, which is the very fabric of a community. At the end of the day though, why not put both systems to the test? People who agree with you can try your way. People who agree with me can try my way.
If you want an exploration of the moral principles of a free society rather than just an appeal to pragmatism, you might like this…
https://youtu.be/XWAEKQjN-yM?si=eWechYQbHawy41xy
P.S.
I don’t want my life to be ruled by some stranger and neither should you. If you still do though, be my guest. It’s your life after all…
A King is supposed to be a father to a community, the liberalist system is all about ensuring a strange does indeed rule over you. He will do so through democracy and centralized banks that tear what wealth you have from you.
Do read the history of centralized banking, it’s very enlightening about how Liberalism truly worked and the problems with it and why it is the worst ideology to ever come into force in human history.
Hi,
As a fellow anti-liberal, my point about strangers was that both liberalism AND monarchism involve being ruled over by a stranger. I do think there’s a case to be made that the problem is mitigated under monarchism (as opposed to liberalism) but that’s a fairly low bar don’t you think?
I’m not arguing for liberalism or central banking, both of which are only possible by the state, an institution I reject. I’m not sure what I’ve said that implies I’m for central banking. If you watch the video in my second link, you’ll actually find a sustained critique of central banking within it.
Anyway, I actually agree with you that both are bad.
My argument there is monarchism works consistently for extended durations while liberalism produced systems inherently fiscalized and used to disguise the true powers that rule... thereby making them unacountable.
This is a brilliant article. I have four questions for the article and one on the topic of the author:
Firstly: as the grounding of the monarchic system's legitimacy relying on a higher power, does that mean culturally a religious revival and unification is required? I don't know much about how this justification works in oriental contexts like Thailand or China's mandate of heaven, but in the Abrahamic context I'd imagine it requires a strong religious unity - even with a "king of bishops" to support the monarch.
Secondly: you have a line talking about how outsiders would have to be integrated into the culture. It's placement in the article makes me think there is reasoning to this, but would it be alright to clarify? I'd imagine currently it's something like how the outsider must enter into the social fabric and position relative to the local noble, but I may be mistaken.
Thirdly: the ultimate goal with intranational warfare and revolution you describe is akin to the war of 60 or so English and French knights over the rulership of Brittany. What about war with foreign powers, some of which may still subscribe to mass armies of modern warfare?
Fourthly: an idea I have heard bandied about (I couldn't give you a source) is that governmental systems can be heavily influenced or even better a product of the technology present in a society. Do you think there is adequate pushing for nobles to decentralise to counteract the increased ease of centralising power offered by technology compared to in history?
As for the personal question: have you read the Tao Te Ching? It seems interesting as a guide for a king or emperor when ruling a territory, and came across to me as quite minimalist in use of executive power - the foreword of the Addiss and Lombardo edition explains how the Tao Te Ching arose contemporarily to emerging alternatives like Legalism and Confucianism as competing philosophies for how China should be governed.
Please feel free to answer any, all, or none of these - thank you for your time and this article.
These responses are from my own semi-formal education on the topic, so I may well not be correct in some areas. With that said;
Monarchies derive legitimacy from the perception that there exist a higher hierarchy and moral order. Laws above the law of man. There are right now, however, effective monarchies in various parts of the world, not the West but other regions. It is therefore a question of which comes first, the hierarchy that requires a higher power for legitimacy or a cultural revolution that defines a higher moral authority than man. Realistically, I don't think it matters. If a monarch is placed into a Western nation, within a generation you'll see a christian resurgence and appeals to governance-by-God. You don't need a cultural revolution, the imposition of a Monarchy will induce the required shift in its citizenry over a generation or so.
Outsiders always have to be integrated into the culture. Democracies are easiest to tyrannize when foreign peoples make up a significant percentage of the population. The population at odds with itself cannot seek improved governance. For a monarchy, a unified population is preferred because foreigners can be a threat to the hierarchy of the monarch. Therefore, significantly more effort will be placed on proper cultural acclimation of foreigners and cultural isolationism. It aligns the interests of the rulers and the citizens.
In internecine war, the nobility and the other-nobility will engage in skirmishes. In proper international war the nation unifies around the King for combined-arms warfare. While this is less efficient than the modern military-industrial complex, it doesn't need to be as efficient. A kingdom doesn't need to drop bombs of democratic liberation on children on the other side of the planet to maintain the budgets of national megacorporations. The reduced efficiency will result in more limited global trade and the localization of resources... If the states of the USA converted to monarchies, the nation would no longer be the single military global hegemon, but easily be capable of rallying for mutual defense in the event of invasion. In terms of military excursion it would be much weaker, in terms of military defense it would be as strong as the nation ever was. Oddly enough there would be a strong imposition to train the majority of the population in various forms of warfare for this reason in the form of localized militias.
I think that high technology pushes to a dangerous degree of centralization. That's why the proposed model looks specifically at a feudal monarchy where the nobility are tied to land area. With that type of monarchy, what you see is a strong counter-push against centralization. You'll still have megacorporations, but they don't have the ability to impose their will directly, instead they'll exist across dozens of slightly-different legal codes in numerous baronies and duchies. These systems add friction to trade, governance, and technology. When a corporate head screws up and pisses off a local count, the count can just seize the corporations property in his county. It'll create a tit-for-tat relationship where corporations can be held to account at the local level. I do think that high technology may end up overbearing, but the added friction will hopefully be enough to prevent that.
I am familiar with legalism and Confucianism, but have't yet read Tao Te Ching. I do think that, and similar books will be required reading for future kings. Kings tend to restrict their use of direct power far more than legislators or especially bureaucrats. It's because a king must take responsibility for mistakes that are made while legislators and bureaucrats have built entire industries around passing-the-blame. A managerial bureaucracy turns out to be the most intrusive and least escape-able form of tyranny... Kafka saw that one coming.
Monarchy is best solution to compare on living today on democracy even Socrates hated Democracy .All Monarchs take care for their own people My parents use to lived time of Monarchy and they told me monarchy was the best time ever
A kingdom makes the King. A king who destroys his own kingdom has nothing. A public official who destroys his own nation? Usually a comfortable payout is what he gets.
Aristotle covered this with the constitutional republic that restrains the power of the state and you need to make sure it is small and can't create the bureaucracies we see in the west, then you need to eviscerate media which is the propaganda arm of the elite and the thing that destroyed the west.
This is a terrific and far-reaching piece. It is insightful of you to classify fascism as humanist despite its pretensions to the contrary. The subset of humanity that is a nation is still orders of magnitude greater than Dunbar’s number and thus submerges accountability of a state ruling in the name of the nation in a bureaucracy comparable to that of liberal nation-states.
Fantastic essay. Interest in the concept and technicalities of modern monarchies will only grow over the next decade as the decadence of liberalism continues to hit new lows. Really looking forward to the next installment of this series.
I am looking forward to writing it!
I'd try fiction instead of political theory.
I would argue that monarchy was better BEFORE the divine right of kings, which removed the accountability of monarchs to their local population, and instead towards an ephemeral philosophy of the divine (which as we know changes throughout the centuries). I am not squeamish about authoritarianism, but the mandate needs to come from the local populous not some lofty philosophical vision.
A future like the Dune series of noble houses?
I am very strongly sympathetic to monarchy but there are a few implementation concerns.
The biggest and most obvious one is "how do you implement this system when large numbers of the citizens say "how about no" and point their guns at you? Things get very very authoritarian (in the negative connotative sense) very quickly to solve that problem
If the King and Nobles of Britain are any indication of how it would turn out. I'd like to opt-out. King Charles doesn't care about his citizens, nor do any of the Lords who sit in the house. Keir Starmer is even in favor of arresting British citizens for trying to defend their children from foreign invaders.
I'd hate to think of how it would work in America. Would the current Governors become kings and never be able to be replaced? How would we choose who would be nobility? Half the governors proved they couldn't be trusted during the COVID lockdowns, as they destroyed their states' economies and threatened to jail citizens.
The same in Canada. Can you imagine King Trudeau for eternity? Can you imagine what he'd do with that kind of power? He'd arrest protestors and throw them under the dungeon, even as he sold out his country to foreign invaders.
Britain is a kingdom in name only. The nobility of Britain are just figureheads (as I stated in the article above) they don't actually wield political power. Likewise, the liberal parliamentary democracy of the UK is not a feudal system at all where the kings enact their will through territorial nobility. One of the important aspects of a kingdom is the king has to actually be responsible for the major political decisions made. States like Thailand, Oman and Saudi Arabia have done an excellent job navigating international affairs because they are actual real monarchies.
I'm going to write a future article (maybe a paid subscriber article? Haven't decided yet) about how to actually set up kingdoms in the United States so that they're effective. I absolutely agree that our current ruling political class CANNOT be trusted. That's because they need the approval of voters and... voters are retarded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE
The issue is that the presidential/parliamentary leaders we get via democracy are by-definition the least competent and most ideologically driven individuals. You do need to start your kingdom with a good king, once you've done that though, it'll be easier to maintain than the decaying democracies we see ourselves living in now. Again, future article that will answer your questions is going to come out in the next few months, so subscribe for that if you aren't already.
What makes you think fascists are purely materialistic? In the reading I’ve done, I have found that in those inspired by Nietzsche, but that seems to be a minority view. Evola wanted to bring back Roman paganism and was a platonist. National Socialism was indeed tribal nordicist and had pagan leanings too, but also supported the Christian worldview (the Lutheran/Catholic view as it was then). I’ve read R W Darre’s “A New Nobility of Blood a Soil” and find a lot of overlap with what you have written here.
I enjoyed reading this vision of Monarchy in America, but I don’t think Monarchy can work if the people are not of the same nation. The tribes are too distinct to stay united under Monarchy. I think a post-Rome world is more likely with separate Kingdoms constantly at war with one another, broken down by racial lines. Essentially the monarch should serve as the head of the body, but it cannot be the head of a body to which it does not belong. This is why corporatism (this is not crony capitalism) is a key aspect of fascist thought.
We could have a monarchy, but to work it must be connected to the BLOOD and the soil (which you have already addressed). The line about keeping foreigners at arms reach until assimilated had me scratch my head. In current America there are enough foreigners to fill an entire country by themselves. You cannot assimilate aliens into a monarchy at the scale required and have the monarchy last. Yes, the nobles want the infrastructure to work for their progeny, but they should also want the blood of their people preserved to enable a shared history and hardwire as the people they rule. Otherwise you have Caligula, Nero, or other would-be tyrants ruling as aliens over the people to whom the Monarch’s are meant to be servant leaders (if you’re Christian).
I partially agree. Bloodlines will be of critical value, but I think you overestimate their political footprint in medieval Europe. Lineage was often a proxy for locality.
To begin with, fascism is a Darwinian form of materialism. It places the tribe and the bloodline above all else, with the ascribed bloodline taking front-and-center position in terms of political thought. "It is the will of the blood and the survival of the blood at the expense of all else. Our blood and soil." While fascism often took on the trappings of more traditional pagan ideals, it is structured around a materialist/Darwinian position. Both communism and fascism become methods of worshiping the body-politic. Communism places the highest value on the bureaucratic state as "the will of the workers," while fascism places the highest value on the dictatorial state as "the will of the folk."
Liberalism doesn't ascribe a cohesive worldview and did find riding on the coattails of Christian universalism for a long time, but it too is decaying as liberalism is inherently materialist.
Effectively, for a governance method not-to-be-materalist it must ascribe a truth higher than the self, higher than the state, and higher than the folk. Which is to say, that it acknowledges that the folk, the state, and the individual self can all behave in an immoral fashion. The laws of the state can be wrong. The will of the folk can be wrong. The desires of the self can be wrong.
Monarchism becomes a chicken-and-egg situation. The monarch derives his power from a greater spiritual authority... not from the governed. Thus monarchies inherently must acknowledge a higher authority than the state. In a neo-feudal system, a reduction in travel creates localization which creates bloodline association to specific regions. Warring kingdoms are a feature and not a bug. The nobility of blood and soil becomes a nobility built generationally; emergent from the society. It isn't possible to institute a top-down conceptualization of blood-and-soil that isn't inherently flawed. A bottom-up cultural production, on the other hand, has kept societies running for thousands of years.
The goal behind a monarchic system is to create social incentives rather than hard dictatorial rules or laws. Social incentives only need to be brought into existence, and then they must be permitted to run their course over a few generations. Attempting to institute a top-down form of cultural tribalism has been woefully unsuccessful in the past and likely will continue to be unsuccessful in the future. Even the Romans couldn't pull it off in foreign cultures very effectively despite several hundred years of trying.
Why is it you think fascism failed?
To get people to submit to a higher authority from outside, this world would require a totalitarian state and complete rewriting of history, such as in North Korea. If the prerequisite for monarchy is authority from on high, then you need a religion that people actually submit to.
Because most people’s spiritual and metaphysical orientation today are divergent and disparate I see the enforcement of a monarchy the way you have defined it a major challenge.
However, most people, despite their differences in beliefs in God or gods can agree they want a future for their children. Therefore, it makes sense that a folkish nobility and aristocracy would make much more sense.
Lastly, many have argued successfully the Romans saw their downfall in part because they abandoned their exclusive aristocratic individualism in Roman nationality to become a multi ethnic empire. Once foreigners, such as Caligula and Nero gained power, the rules were changed foreigners were granted citizenship, and the currency began tobe debased.
Quite Yarvin pilled indeed.
Of course, we'll need new terminology methinks. And as another commenter correctly pointed out this reliance on a cultural conception of a "higher moral standard" implies as a prerequisite that such a standard is ingrained in the culture.
Part of what made Europe work was the Clergy. I don't think giving the clergy as much power as the Pope had is a good idea really, but you need to give them some real institutional power. At least have the coronations and all that be performed by the clergy.
Tanzanite trvthnvke. So annoying to be monarchist these days, most of the arguments are "erm bud in 1448 president george lincoln johnson flew 2 constipations into the communist burger king's white house or something like that yeah" or "Listen up chudcel, the only king is Jesus because he said he was king even though he was mentioning the fact that he was GOD and his kingdom is the church & it's followers but monarchism is LE HERESY because... IT JUST IS BIGOT! STOP WORSHIPPING 👑🤴🏰⚔️!!!"
Well, a good response to "the only king is jesus" is "Jesus is the King of Kings... there are other kings that he reigns over."
Trve
Monarchs are a product of the state of war. Politics is the continuation of war by other means. There can be a state of peace but it only obtains when there is a dead zone separating it from cultures that do not kill outright men that cower from a challenge to a mutual hunt in nature as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing.
Most of human history consisted of monarchs. I suspect peace includes them as well either formalized or informal.
Not only history but of pre-history going back the Chimpanzee Human Last Common Ancestor 6M years BP. See EO Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth". My point is that the social organization you think of as "civilization" has more in common with the specialization found in social insects than it does with the prior 600M year of speciation dependent on individual male combat. North Eurasian Hunters provided a unique event in hominin "history", by dispersing population so much that individuality emerged on the strength of hunting packs primarily populated by canid symbionts with every man a king of his simple household. Such "war" would then be between such hunting packs when winter calories became the limiting resource. Failure to recognize this is what is killing Western Man as he permits others, not so evolved for individuality, to infiltrate with their group coherence.