Posts Tagged ‘aristocracy’

Eurasia Does Not Hold Answers For The West

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

It is often said on the Right that places like Poland, Russia and Hungary offer the Alt Right an example of how to resist Cultural Marxism. There is truth to this, but the truth is only partial.

Although these countries are safer places to live because of their defiance of globalist interests, specifically its mania for multiculturalism, they also show us that the way to resist Cultural Marxism is clear to them in ways it cannot be clear to us. We have gone down a different path, and the solution we need is different from what Eurasia needs.

Eastern Europe has not experienced the caste revolt that makes our problem in the West so intractable. Eurasian nations are not in a revolutionary state. They are in a disordered state, but their proles do not have the privilege and financial backing that they do here. Nor do the financial interests benefit as much from riling them up as they would in the West. Their plebs are not weaponized and driven by the possibility of success as ours are. In this sense, they are not so much Right-wing as not infected with the Leftism that comes with wealth and the inevitably ensuing caste revolt.

We suffer from the intersection of low caste, high wealth, and influence. Our plebs have deceived us into giving them the crumbs from underneath our tables, and we have deceived ourselves into believing that they can be just as wise and capable as our naturally higher caste people. They have proclaimed: “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” and they have cut off our heads for buying it. With our success came new challenges, the most radical of which is the caste revolt sponsored by Leftism, individualism and solipsism.

Eurasia has never really ever been first world, and thus has not grown wary of success. They have not suffered the tragedy of the commons, caused by too few leaders of distinction or too many followers of indistinction. The comforts of a thriving civilization have not brought them too much zeal and too much distraction. Eurasia, just like Asia, has only become wealthy because they had close alliance with European nations, which even though they are in decline, are still living off of the advancements of their technological inventions, which is why most people do not realize that we are in decline. When it comes to technological advancement of civilization Eurasians contributed almost nothing compared to Europeans. Particularly German- and English-speaking Europeans created all of this stuff, but then it came to rule them.

Eurasia has not been plagued by diversity hysteria the way Europe has. We have grown comfortable with our powers, but we have transferred that comfort to those who cannot control their appetites for greater comforts or luxuries. We gave our people equal rights and they spent those rights on porn, cigarettes, beer and donuts, so to speak. These are the problems encountered only by successful civilizations, and since we are more successful than Eurasia, we encounter problems that are baffling to them.

The West suffers because they have peaked and allowed themselves to grow soft. They have also forgotten how they became successful. It suffers under the dual burden of being wealthy, and therefore attracting parasites, and the intense labor required to keep a complex society functioning. We have exhausted ourselves by making a paradise that ultimately our proles and foreigners will get to enjoy, and this sickens the Western soul and makes people despairing, since there is no future that they can believe in. The good news is that the West can save itself because it has only itself to blame for its predicament.

To reverse our corruption by success, we can fix ourselves by mentally ejecting the notion of equality from our lives. This requires noticing that all people have a degree of ability; this includes both responsibility and comforts. Some can have many comforts available, but not give into them, and still perform their responsibilities. Recognizing what one can and should have is necessary for proper order to be achieved and maintained. Each of us has a nature, and we should endeavor to know our nature in order to know our place in the order. This is the essence of natural law: there is a hierarchy which is not inherent in the sense of being forced upon us like gravity, but innate in that if we can perceive it, we can gain efficiency and quality by adhering to it, much like noticing any opportunity or threat that is not immediately visible.

We also must know the nature of those less able to make wise long term decisions. This is why libertarianism is not a solution: when we give liberty to those who will make poor decisions, their resentment only grows when their decisions impact them. Libertarianism would only make sense if genetics were a myth. Libertarians are natural liberals who deny genetics, and deny Darwinism. We should instead have authority over those who are incapable of making wise decisions, and place them in positions where their decisions have less of an impact on society. Without hierarchy, the lower echelons dominate the others, but these levels of society are the least aware, insightful and competent, and so our fortunes fall, where the meaner social climate of Eurasia allows the stronger to dominate the weak.

The West will restore itself by cleansing the bad and restoring good people into positions of absolute authority. To do this democracy needs to be abolished and Leftists need to be exiled to the failing civilizations that are the ultimate end results of their ideas. Groups with recognizable distinctions need to be peaceably separated. We need to seek out leadership types who have minds open to these ideas, and to convince them that these ideas are the best way forward.

This requires us facing full-on what it means to do away with equality. Different groups create different types of order, and different castes within those groups have different degrees of understanding to those ends as well. We must have Monarchs, Dukes, Marqueses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons composed of our wisest and most competent people. Distinctions where they exist, must be recognized and people sorted according to them, because this is the only way that we can restore beauty, truth and goodness to complement the nature that surrounds us.

Civilization is an order within the greater order that is nature, thus it should also include Darwinism and other important aspects of the natural world. This means we also need to end socialism, which only serves to dumb us down, and make us less capable of providing for our own needs. All people will be placed in positions in society, if there is no position for them, they get to be with nature, or another place that might accept them.

Right now, many on the Right look to Eastern Europe and see that it does not share our problems, and figure that the West should emulate it, or that disaffected Westerners should flee to Eurasia. In reality, this is comparing apples to oranges, and will lead only to failure. The path to our success is clear, and awaits only the time where we summon enough intestinal fortitude to own our problems and make the changes that banish them.


Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

The modern era is defined by the focus on the human individual which is its core. That perspective inverts, or changes into its opposite, every value of the past, because those values were not focused on the self but on the order outside of the self. We must re-learn everything that was common sense in the past because we have not forgotten it; it was altered.

Such is the case with aristocracy, which modern people do not understand at all. To them, aristocracy means “rule by rich people.” This is typical of the modern materialist view which judges people as economic and political actors only, and is blind to the actual question of humanity, which is individual quality by wisdom, intelligence, spirit, moral character and talents.

Aristocracy recognizes that most humans are low in ability and motivation to do anything more than serve a relatively limited role in a local area. It also sees that, in emulation of nature, humans are pack animals who need strict hierarchy so that each individual knows what to do at any given time. If that is not present, humans revert to their monkey nature and become destructive.

The order of the pack can be achieved several ways. The simplest is combat; the strongest and best fighter wins. The problem with this is that it excludes wisdom, so humans sometimes choose instead those who make the best leaders, which is a combination of fighting and intellectual skill. This produces leaders who are able to manage others and understand long-term goals, and under that, we prosper.

In this way, aristocracy rises naturally. Any group of two or more people requires a leader, much as every home has a Man and Wife in complementary roles. The leader is not chosen by a vote, but by natural ability, judged by those who are most likely to be his peers; in other words, a hierarchy forms from the top down, and choices pass this way as well. This process emerges from human behavior.

To the dismay of moderns, this means that not only is there no voting about who should be the aristocrats, but there is also not universality. That is, if you are on the bottom of the pyramid, it is not expected that you would understand the choice per Dunning-Kruger and therefore, your opinion is not sought or wanted. Those of the highest ability, as demonstrated and perceived by others of high ability, make these choices.

Even more to their surprise, this means that aristocracy is the exact opposite of what they think it is. They think it means that we give power to the wealthy; what it actually means is that we find our best people, and give them wealth and power. This way, they will use that wealth and power toward good ends, and have no need for more so are uncorruptible.

The point of aristocracy is to conserve the good in our society by placing it on top of the hierarchy as an example and so that the rest of us benefit from its abilities. These good people then own most of the land, and tend to keep a good deal of it natural, as the “green belt” in Britain was before it was torn down to make housing for immigrants.

In turn, aristocrats are permanently bound to duty. Rarely do any quit their positions, and they know that they and their descendants will be held responsible for whatever they do. Further, they are not politicians who view their roles as a job, and society as something contracting with them, but representatives and part of that society, inseparable from it.

It is not surprising that aristocrats in the past and present tended to be hard-working and diligent about getting the details right, something none of our politicians seem to care about.

Aristocracy includes a hierarchy and caste system. The hierarchy expresses itself in different levels of aristocrats — kings, dukes, counts, lords — who form a cascading power structure from the king downward (empires are generally a religious construction, and violate the principle of nationalism, so will not be discussed here).

Power is strongest when it is most local. The lord of a certain parish or county will have more direct power over his citizens than the king, who has no limits on his power, but tends to administrate at a higher level. This means that instead of bureaucracy, case-by-case decisions by those actually in power are used to regulate society, making law and red tape less important than anticipate consequences of any action. A law says that pollution from a plant must be below a certain level; a lord may order the plant to cease any action that pollutes at all, or any other action that in the view of that lord, disrupts the local community.

As a result of its cascading structure, aristocracy creates a society around it that follows a mesh pattern as seen in agrarian societies. Instead of huge cities as hubs, there are many smaller cities surrounded by towns and outward from that, villages. These overlap to some degree such that while the individual is never that far from civilization, human habitation is also dispersed so that its negative effects are lessened and no one is anonymous. Instead of a binary hierarchy, where there are those in control and those who are subject masses, there is a tiered hierarchy where everyone has a place and, unless they prove grossly incompetent, will retain that place on the basis of its local connections. This spreads stability and security, and ends the competition that has incompetents aggressively campaigning to become wealthy.

In addition, under aristocracy civilization is liberated from herd opinion. There are no thronging masses waiting to be inspired by the political trope of the day spoken from on high. Instead, there are leaders who are directly accountable for their actions, and who can filter out troublemakers by exiling them. Aristocracy inherently recognizes that whatever is popular is wrong, and that what requires someone of intelligence, moral character and experience to see is what will work best in the long-term, which is the only time scale that counts because only when people can rely on their surroundings to be consistent throughout the ages can they trust that their work and efforts are worth doing.

Aristocracy also implicates a caste system, which generally fits the form of 1% Brahmins, 9% Kshatriya, and 90% Vaisyas and Sudras. Brahmins are the leaders, priests and wise men; Kshatriya are the warriors and artisans, and make up today’s middle classes; the Vaisyas are the merchants, and while they can be quite wealthy, are not accorded respect as leaders, and Sudras are the working class with several levels within it. This caste system ensures that each person can compete at a level where they can do well, and that they are not given power they do not understand how to use.

This caste system arises from an understanding that traits are heritable, as Charles Darwin taught us in the West. Someone who is good at leadership, if he marries a woman of similar ability, will have children with that ability unless they are abused or have some mutation so grotesque that it damages them. In the same way, the other castes perpetuate their traits as well, and the only way for people to rise in status is through multiple generations of actions which are above and beyond what others at their level do.

Such as it is, this outlook is cynical about wealth. Those who are good at making money are bad leaders because the two are entirely different skills; someone who is good at making money aims only toward a narrow end, profit, while someone who is a good leader aims for good results in reality, which means something that benefits civilization as an organic whole, or an entity in which each of us serves unequal roles apportioned to our abilities. Aristocracy is based in duty and excellence, and the ability to make money easily implies an opposite of that, which is why aristocrats do not behave like our rich people now.

Inherently nationalistic, aristocracy recognizes each nation as a tribe of its own and the interests of that nation as inseparable from those of the tribe. There can be no separate entity, like government, which manages society for its own ends; aristocracy manages society to thrive because only that grants the aristocrat success, and since they already have money and power, only success at real-world tasks will allow them to advance in stature in their society. Since humans are social animals, and status competition is a hard-wired behavior, this redirects an otherwise abusive human behavior into a constructive one.

Those who criticize aristocracy generally mention its downfall, but few mention that it avoided the worst of the wars which we unleashed on ourselves later, drove off the worst of the threats, and made our society prosperous enough that mass revolt was even possible. As we have seen through the last few centuries of conflict, corruption, social decay and a failure of our cultures to produce the same abundant art, learning, architecture and literature that they did under the monarchy, we were better off in the long-term with aristocracy.

Making The Transition To Monarchy

Saturday, August 12th, 2017

The Alt Right has suggested that monarchies are better than current Western democracies. In an attempt to understand this in the real world as it is today, we can look at some statistics.

The Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) ranks more than a 100 countries on a scale depicting economic productiveness. What is interesting is the following group of countries:

  • Netherlands
  • Finland
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Norway

They have been consistently ranked within the top twenty-two productive countries from 1999 to 2015. Viewed as a group, however, it can be said that there is a slight downward movement of their rankings over time, most likely due to the “two-speed world” where economic growth in emerging countries (like BRICS) are offset by stagnation in the erstwhile developed world.

However, there is another characteristic of these countries: they are monarchical in some form or other.

These monarchies have exerted tremendous influence on the rest of the world for a long time, where for them the economic imperative of growth or stagnation is not particularly interesting, because they are mainly interested in stability and not growth, which is like a treadmill in that when the economy comes to depend on it, it must constantly increase or the economy suffers. Monarchies are notorious for preferring stability, which also avoids the overpopulation, land overuse, and proliferation of cities that is common to growth-based economies.

They have made mistakes of course, but that doesn’t mean the alternative right is wrong with its assessment. The point is that monarchies have in some form or other been stable for a very long time. If anything, what these monarchies suffer from is paying too much attention to the will of the people, which always results in conjectural thinking.

The latest experiment implemented by the West is bringing democracy to the third world, which was rolled out after colonialism was systematically withdrawn. They do this because monarchs are now limited to enforcing democracy in their own nations because they are forced to coexist with this, and to fail to enforce it in the third world is a rejection of the notion that it is good.

Consider Nelson Mandela’s organization the African National Congress (ANC) which was classified as a terrorist organization by America at the same time it was funded by the European countries listed above. The people wanted equality; the monarchs did not want mass revolt and the horrors of the French Revolution or Bolshevik uprising in their countries, so they went along with it.

In the grips of democracy, these first world countries do not realize the productive decline they are suffering because they persist in supporting democracy, despite strong indicators that democracy in South Africa is literally failing by the numbers. Worse, they are doubling down like good SJWs by sponsoring the destruction of monarchies in Mandela-land.

The first world monarchies wants to destroy the concept of their own existence in the emerging world, while they themselves get destroyed back in the first world by the same democracy they are supporting. Where initially they sponsored terror, now they have become the terrorists aiming to destroy other monarchies. This is clearly not stable.

While we may be critical of colonialism in practical terms, our real assault on it comes from democratic notions of the equality of all people and therefore, a need to dedicate ourselves to questing for egalitarianism everywhere. This eliminates self-interest by the first world while encouraging the third world to assert its self-interest at our expense.

This shows us that monarchism and democracy cannot coexist. Democracy forms a mentally addictive pathology that then drives our countries to destroy ourselves at the same time they destroy third world monarchies in the same nations where democracy is entering its death-phase. Democracy has become our obsession, and it is working for neither first nor third world nations.

One way forward would be to do what every scenario planner has refused to do since 1992: implement a monarchy in South Africa. They fear this because traditionalism is viewed as anti-“reform,” but the Alt Right’s view is that the opposite is true. Reform has been proven to lower competitiveness down where traditional societies have been proven as stable.

Perhaps we are, like most groups of people afraid for the future, relying on what seemed to work in the past as crutches. Democracy seemed to win the world wars, and growth-based economies provide the way of life that seemed to make our people happy. As its instability threatens both third and first worlds, however, it makes sense to consider monarchy and stability instead of growth and democracy.

Why We Need Aristocracy Always

Monday, August 7th, 2017

Most people are afraid to admit that we need aristocracy. They realize that if hierarchy is needed, they as individuals are no longer little autonomous kings who can do whatever they want and have the rest of the monkey troop defend them… that in turn means that they will have to pay attention to external order like social standards, nature, logic, history and the question of whether or not what they are doing is actually good, or merely self-serving.

Those of us who have been around for some time see a simple pattern: whatever is created will quickly be brought to destruction by the Herd, which invades and demands that the matter in question fit its own convenience, instead of whatever form is most effective for reaching the goal. The individual replaces the goal. That is why we call it individualism.

Unless there is a hierarchy, where the wiser are bumped to the top so that they can intervene before the infinite stupid ideas of humanity are acted out, stupidity wins. This is affirmed by an unusual source:

We all know from reams of experience that if consumers are offered a cheaper, yet environmentally irresponsible option vs. a more expensive, yet environmentally conscious option: The vast majority of consumers will sadly choose the cheaper option. Better-for-me unfortunately trumps better-for-everyone just about every time.

Meditating on this phrase reveals its simple and profound truth: people choose what is more convenient for them, at the expense of civilization and nature, every time. This means that we need a force to intervene and force civilization at large to do what is right, because its impulse is to do otherwise unless such an intervention occurs.

Interview With The Mad Monarchist

Monday, July 24th, 2017

As our regular readers know, Amerika represents roots conservatism, which is the habit of preserving what works and then gradually improving it qualitatively that has guided humanity since the dawn of time. That basic philosophy takes many forms, which have their own principles and methods interpreting it, but is more radical than anything else in that it faces the basic patterns of reality instead of focusing on categorical, material and discrete symbols as replacements for that reality. Part of this realism is recognizing the importance of aristocracy, or a leadership based on quality of people and not inverted assessments like wealth or elections or even popularity, and to that end we are monarchists, or those who want an escape from democracy to the more stable times of kings, lords and honor. One of the most persuasive writers about monarchy, The Mad Monarchist has explored not just the reasoning behind monarchy, but the remaining royal houses and the slow but gradual increase of interest worldwide in a restoration. For a monarchist, one cannot restore Western Civilization without also bringing its ancient leadership caste back to life. We were lucky to get a chance to interview this creative and dynamic, if hardline traditionalist, thinker.

The big question: why monarchy? What does it offer that nothing else does, why is it the best option, and how do people get to the point of realizing that this is true?

That is usually the first question; I have been asked it many times and have given many different answers. For some, the answer is based on religion, in my case Christianity which commands it. Yet, there are also practical reasons. Monarchies today are more cost-effective than modern republics, their populations are more united, they are disproportionately more prosperous and so on. They tend to be more durable and resilient than republics. The United States is the oldest major republic in the world and yet it is as a child compared to the longevity of monarchies such as Japan, Denmark, Great Britain or even tiny Monaco. All of these would, I think, make a strong case for monarchy being the “best option” but it is also part of how monarchies tend to be organic. This is partly why they are so different from each other and so long lasting. They grow up along with a nation and so are a natural fit for their people and culture rather than being something which an elite group “invents” according to a particular ideology and then expects everyone to adapt to.

As to how people get to the point of realizing the truth of this, the open-minded can, of course, be persuaded by reasoned arguments but such individuals are few. People also do tend to adapt to their circumstances and, despite what they claim, usually do not want any radical changes. However, I think there does come a point when people or their republican rulers must face the fact that their system is not working. Republics, at least in modern times, post-revolutionary republics, tend to be very Utopian and ideological and this will inevitably end in disappointment as they promise something, a Utopia, which cannot be achieved. At that point, I would think, people would have no choice but to look back to more “ancient wisdom” for a viable alternative. Democracy does complicate this point as it can be either a help or a hindrance. In China, for example, after tens of millions of people died and the rest remained mired in poverty, the ruling Communist Party did finally admit to itself that communism had failed and they began to abandon it but this would not have been possible if China had been a democracy. At the same time, it also means that the form of government itself is almost impossible to change by any orderly process.

Do you prefer absolute hereditary monarchies, or constitutional monarchies?

I would prefer either to a revolutionary republic but, of the two, I tend to incline toward absolute hereditary monarchies though, it must be said, the same thing will not work for everyone in every part of the world. My general preference is a traditional monarchy in which the monarch rules and is, as Bishop Jacques Bossuet wrote, “absolute” but not “arbitrary.” The two are not always so opposed as they seem. The former Empire of Japan was technically a constitutional monarchy, yet the Emperor had, effectively, absolute power in the end. Monaco has been a constitutional monarchy since the reign of Prince Albert I and yet he and every successive Sovereign Prince until the current one has suspended the constitution at some point. I prefer a monarch that is absolute in that his (or her) position is inviolable and beyond dispute but not arbitrary in the sense that he can do whatever he pleases. The monarch should be absolute but I think everyone should be absolute in terms of what is their own.

How does monarchy relate to caste?

I would say it relates to it only in as much as the historical conditions which led to the development of caste systems usually led to monarchy as well, which is not saying much as almost every people on earth, left to their own devices, naturally developed into a monarchy, even if only of the primitive, tribal variety. However, as caste deals with people interacting with each other rather than the ruled interacting with their ruler (which most of the ruled never have and never will) it has meant that caste is not as easy to eradicate as monarchy. Caste systems continue in a number of republics in spite of efforts to stamp them out. Similarly, republics themselves tend to ape monarchy after being without it for a sufficient time or, in some cases, almost immediately out of force of habit. Monarchies have tended to simply embrace caste differences and make them more beneficial and less cruel. Though, much of that will depend on things like religious differences. For the same reason that getting rid of the aristocracy never resulted in equality, I find it hard to imagine a world in which no trace of caste remains.

Are monarchies nationalist by nature?

Many will doubtless be upset with this answer but I would have to say, “yes” though, as always, this is not invariably the case. Monarchs tend to be bound up with the history of their nation, some more so than others but ultimately this is usually the case. Certainly, in cases such as France, the history of the monarchs is the history of the nation. Monarchs have often represented the way nations viewed themselves as a unique and special people, which I think is a healthy thing and which has certainly been proven to aid in longevity for a people. For a nation such as Japan, this is quite obvious. In others, it is harder to see but, as I have often said, even in the past when nationalism was not the most important thing to western peoples, that still did not mean that it was unimportant.

Many, incorrectly I think, attribute nationalism to the revolutionary era but ultimately it was the revolution, the downfall of monarchs and the elevation of “equality” and the “brotherhood of man” that led to internationalism and globalism. I have also said more than once that it was hardly a leap to go from arguing that the bloodline of your ruler does not matter to arguing that the bloodline of the people themselves does not matter, which is where we have come to today. I also think it no coincidence that in surviving monarchies which have done away with male primogeniture, which technically means a change in dynasty every time a girl is born first, has come about at the same time that western countries have abandoned the nation-state in favor of the multi-cultural, come one, come all approach to the demography of their populace.

Do you think monarchism is more likely, or less likely, to have a revival now — 228 years after the Revolution™ — as opposed to a previous time?

This is the sort of question that tempts me to dishonesty. I tend to be very pessimistic yet am stubborn enough to carry on regardless of the chances of success. I was born within sight of the Alamo so it is not in me to give up a fight simply because there no possible way to win. Most, however, are not like that and so you must hold out some hope for them to be motivated. Thankfully, I do think there are legitimate grounds for hope that can be found in almost any historical era and recently I have seen some that such is the case today. We are seeing increasingly the vanguard of the liberal mindset eating its own tail. The flaws in their utopian ideology are becoming evident as they are forced to violate their own principles in order to keep the façade of their model state from collapsing. I do not see how people can fail to notice this.

In the United States, for example, we have seen, with the election of Trump, the revelation of the hypocrisy of our ruling class and our institutions on a scale that certainly took me by surprise. You now have leftists championing states’ rights, pledging absolute faith to the intelligence agencies they ridiculed under George W. Bush and former peaceniks now clamoring for war with Russia or Syria. Likewise, you see Republicans unwilling to embrace “free market” healthcare, dropping any pretense of opposition to the homosexual agenda and admitting that their system of classical liberalism means that Satanists must be treated exactly the same as Christians. Other countries have different situations but I think many are coming to a similar climax. In Europe, the backlash against multiculturism has been good to see, though not as successful as I would have wished. I do see some reason to hope that in the republics, a rejection of the current system and a desire to reassert national distinctiveness could result in the restoration of fallen monarchies. However, I do also worry that, in their unthinking fury, some surviving monarchies may fall victim to these same forces which seek to tear down what exists.

Many have said that democracy has fallen, and others like Samuel Huntington have intimated that the age of ideology is over. With democracy and ideology dead, what is left, and how does this lead to monarchism?

My only question concerning the death of democracy would be whether it was ever truly alive in the first place. Ideology does seem to be on the decline somewhat, mostly because of the failures I mentioned above. People see the system failing to deliver paradise, they see the hypocrisy of their rulers and they are becoming restless. What is left will be a vacuum and that can lead to monarchy but only if the new leadership that comes along can keep a cool head and if the people have truly abandoned their slave-like devotion to the old liberal god. My concern is that the people have still not realized that utopia is unobtainable and they simply want some other system or ideology to deliver it. Likewise, as mentioned, I worry that existing monarchies and other traditional institutions could be torn down by hotheads who blame them for simply adapting to their environment. I see many on the right rejecting existing monarchs because they go along with the current ruling class and often mouth the same platitudes. I see them rejecting Christianity and embracing a sort of Germanic neo-paganism because they see the major churches likewise going along with the ruling class and repeating the same mindless, liberal “social justice warrior” type talking points. This greatly concerns me.

It concerns me because it is clearly understandable, yet to my mind is extremely tragic because, by turning against these things, the leftists have effectively prompted the right to do their job for them. The revolutionary types overthrew everything traditional that they could but for those institutions that they could not overthrow, they infiltrated them, spread garbage all around them, indoctrinated their members until we have reached the point that the right views them as tainted and is ready to tear them down for them. Because, rest assured, no matter how much the Prince of Wales talks about global warming or how often the King of Norway talks about a borderless world, diversity and inclusivity, the left still does not view them as allies or trust them to be genuine about these things. If they did, they would not prevent these monarchs having any actual power, they would not constantly be holding the threat of a republic over their heads. Modern, reigning royals can repeat all the popular leftist lines but the leftists do not think they really mean it. Unfortunately, many on the right think they do. I would hope the right either learns to disregard what modern, effectively caged, royals say and do and focus on the institution, the legacy and the heritage they represent. At the same time, I would hope that these royals overcome their Stockholm syndrome and take care not to get on the wrong side of their people.

If that happens, I think traditional monarchy could be the ideal solution, perhaps the only solution as one of the things that makes it most appealing to me is that traditional monarchies had government without politics. They had no political parties, good government was not hampered by two feuding camps locked in perpetual ideological war and people could focus on their own lives.

How did you get started out writing, and is this something you have trained for or self-instructed?

It was something I always seemed to be drawn to, won some awards for in school more years ago than I’d like to say, though I do remember being extremely terrible at spelling as a boy. One teacher, I think in the third grade, even gave me a pocket dictionary because my spelling was so consistently bad. I have never had what I would call formal training for it, I did take at least one writing class in my university days as I recall but my focus there was on history and geography.

What first drew you to monarchism, and how hard was it to break out of the conventional thinking that progress is real, the present is the best human society, that democracy is the only functional form of government, and so on? Did you receive pushback from family, friends, romantic interests and business associates?

I was fortunate in that I come from a very conservative family. I had my usual round of youthful foolishness in high school but by the time I went to college I quickly came to be solidly monarchist. I was probably never more monarchist or religious than when I was in a university that did nothing but try to convince me to be the opposite every day. Breaking out of the conventional thinking was not difficult for me. Given how my father and one of my grandfathers were ardent Confederate sympathizers, the idea that the U.S. government was God’s gift to the world never occurred to me. My late mother, I can remember as a child, also kept up with the Windsors and the Grimaldis and older members of my family, even the most “American” of them, were never really opposed to monarchy on principle. Being very religious, very “Bible-thumping” types, simply relating the passages of the Bible commanding obedience to kings was enough to get them on side or at least to admit that they could not object to monarchy.

For the same reason, they never believed democracy was the last word in government as they knew from their Bible lessons that the majority usually do what is wrong and only a few will do what is right, so none of that was very difficult. One incident that did impact me which I will never forget, though it was a great many years ago, was reading a passage out of my Grandfather’s encyclopedia which demonstrated “spin” by showing two passages about Britain’s King George III, each relating basically the same information about the man but one making him seem very good and the other very bad. That one event really opened my eyes and after that it became almost a game for me to read through my history books and pick out the facts from the opinions. That had a tremendous impact on me, particularly concerning the American War for Independence. As for family, friends, girlfriends, there has been no serious pushback or opposition. Everyone I was around for any considerable period of time was, I am proud to say, either converted to being pro-monarchy or at least not anti-monarchy. That being said, most of my immediate family is gone now, I live 50 miles from the nearest thing that could be called a city and I don’t travel anymore so my only contact with friends is by internet or telephone. As far as romantic interests go, my personality was more “pushback” than my opinions ever could be.

As for business interests, that was never really a problem. I did teach for about five minutes, realized that job would require far, far more patience than I would ever possess and I did know that any higher academic career would go nowhere with my opinions and my inability to keep quiet about them. Thankfully, none of that was necessary. I worked for my father growing up, whose views are not radically different from my own and today I have reached the point of being independent and self-sustaining in economic terms so I have no business partners or anyone over me that I have to worry about upsetting.

How does monarchy relate to aristocracy and feudalism?

Much the same as with the question about the caste system, they tend to coincide though they do not necessarily always go together or one lead to the other. There have been aristocratic republics and some would say that republicanism itself could be viewed as an overly complicated sort of feudalism. Monarchy, I would say, sits naturally at the apex of the feudal pyramid and in terms of aristocracy, monarchy takes the natural and inevitable divisions of society and smooths out the rough edges, making it more beneficial. Even in a monarchy these things can get out of hand, no system being immune from human error, but monarchy does not deny human nature as a modern, “egalitarian” republic would. For example, many American Senators and Congressmen occupy seats that their fathers and grandfathers occupied in their turn. A monarchy recognizes this, codifies it and you get a House of Lords, which is more direct and honest. A monarchy also makes these things work better by using human nature to best benefit. Prior to the Revolution, the French aristocracy had fallen into a terrible state but had King Louis XVI, a very upright and moral man, remained on his throne for the rest of his natural life, I have no doubt that the aristocracy would have changed to follow his example. Monarchs have also been able to do a great deal of good by using the natural drive to “keep up with the Joneses” to benefit the whole of society.

How could a modern republic — let’s pick a hard one and say the USA, or at least Texas — transition to monarchy? Can this be done through democracy, ironic as it may seem?

Technically speaking, it can be done through the existing legal process. In the case of the USA it would simply require a number of constitutional amendments and, while very difficult, there is provision for that in the current system and unlike many younger republics there is nothing in the constitution to forbid it. Texas could become a monarchy by amending the U.S. Constitution to do away with the requirement that state governments be republican. Of course, the Texas constitution would also have to be amended but this is easier. The alternative would be more difficult which would be for Texas to secede from the Union and then write an entirely new constitution that would make Texas a monarchy. The problem there, of course, is one illustrative of the flaws in the U.S. system itself which is that secession has been ruled to be impossible by the Supreme Court, unless, perhaps, the other states agree. Even the most idealistic republics, when all else fails, revert to “might makes right” and such a thing could still be possible but would require the use of force to accomplish it. Many years ago I had a list of the constitutional amendments that would be required, at minimum, to make the USA a monarchy but I have long last track of it. It can be done and, unless one is willing to resort to illegal means, is the only way one has to proceed. However, I think history will support me in saying that no ruling elite which truly ruled ever gave up power simply because of a vote.

If people are interested in what you do, where should they go looking for your work and news about what you have been up to?

Simply punching in “The Mad Monarchist” to your Google machine would probably work, I am told that after nearly a decade at this, mine is the first to come up on such searches. However, to go the source directly, I can be found at where I have long been. My posts are less frequent but more substantial than they were in years past but, over this much time, there is much for new readers to peruse.

As The Era Of Formal Organization Ends, An Age Of Organic Systems Rises

Thursday, July 13th, 2017

The modern age has ended in failure: constant racial violence, debt dooming government and consumers, environmental pollution and dying ecosystems, ugly cities, first world populations failing to reproduce, and a rise in anxiety and depression among the young:

When you examine certain other data, though, there’s an interesting recent wrinkle to this trajectory. In a paper published in 2014 in Social Indicators Research, Twenge tracked the results of the Monitoring the Future (MtF) survey, “a nationally representative sample of U.S. 12th graders [administered] every year since 1976,” between 1982 and 2013. Like the MMPI, the MtF asks students about symptoms in a manner that should be generally resistant to cultural change: The somatic items Twenge examined asked about trouble sleeping, remembering things, thinking/concentrating, and learning, as well as shortness of breath. An interesting recent pattern emerged on these measures:

All the items end up significantly higher than where they started, but for many of them most of the increase happens over the first half of the time period in question. From the late 1990s or so until 2013, many of the items bounce around a bit but ultimately remain flat, or flat-ish.

Why have these symptoms appeared to plateau? “It’s hard to prove causation in over-time schedules, said Twenge, “but SSRIs came on the market in the early 1990s, and that’s exactly when these things started to plateau.” These drugs — Prozac and Lexapro, among others — have been prescribed to millions of people who experience these symptoms, many of whom presumably saw some improvement once the drugs kicked in, so this explanation at least makes intuitive sense.

It is the secret in plain sight: despite their wealth and technology, modern people are miserable. This indicates a non-material origin of their sadness, which seems to occur because of a lack of faith in the future, a failure by society to meet their existential needs, and the absence of any particularly compelling purpose to life. When our only goals are to attend jobs, buy stuff and try to escape the ongoing decline, people just do not feel like doing much, including reproducing. It is a hell from which they are only too glad to exit in death.

This, more than anything else, is what has doomed the Age of Ideology, which started with The Renaissance™ when humans proclaimed that the human form was more important than hierarchy, organization, natural order, tradition and even logic. Civilization gave up on having a purpose and decided to focus on individuals instead.

That in turn required mass manipulation, which means that an ideology must be created and enforced, and people will be treated as a fungible commodity like electric power which drives the wheels of government. This decision, made in the name of individualism, in fact penalizes individuality, and leaves people stranded in a society that recognizes their external traits only and ignores who they are inside.

With this misery, people are ready to destroy what we have. They know that it is a path that leads to nothing but death, so there is really no risk in bailing out on it; it is not like we can find something more fatal than sure death. Maybe it will kill us sooner, but if we are miserable, that is not a really disturbing thought.

The end of the Age of Ideology brings about what some are calling “the return of history,” in a nod to Samuel Huntington and his formative book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which he suggested that external human organizations like ideology were dying and being replaced by organic groupings that could be instantly visually discerned, like religion, race, culture, ethnicity and tribe.

The return of history is a scary time. All that we have known is dying; while daily life will probably remain similar, what we view as good has changed, and so people find themselves desiring an entirely different type of society:

Are the norms underpinning the liberal democratic governments of North America and Western Europe as fragile as the communist ideology of Russia and Eastern Europe in the decades preceding its sudden collapse? That’s the implication of a provocative essay by the political scientists Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk in the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy using World Values Survey data to highlight the broad-based erosion in support for democratic institutions across the Western world.

…The dark specter of illiberalism across the West is symptomatic of a deep and broad-based decline in confidence in democratic institutions and ideas that has been taking place for two decades.

The decline has been longer than that. In 1789, liberal democracy began takeover of the West, and launched us into Napoleonic Wars, a series of revolutions, and finally, two catastrophic world wars. When the postwar order ended with the falling of the Soviet Union, people began to realize that this was the final condition of this path: existential emptiness, shopping, diversity, vapid public figures, dead culture, graffiti-scarred and ugly cities, divorce and promiscuity, and every other aspect of a failed culture on its way toward third world status.

We were told that social hierarchy — especially aristocrats — was the source of our misery, and that if we ruled ourselves, we would do better. That turns out to be a lie; democracy has caused more death and disaster than any other system of government, and it is destroying us from within as well. For this reason, people are backing away from ideology; they see it as a type of black magic because it always sounds good, and just as consistently produces horrible results.

Even unusual sources are observing the death of democracy:

“Democracy is always presented as if it were incomplete, because democracy is not enough by itself,” says Macron, elaborating that there is always something missing in the democratic process; some sort of void.

“In French politics, this absence is the presence of a King, a King whom, fundamentally, I don’t think the French people wanted dead,” said Macron. “The Revolution dug a deep emotional abyss, one that was imaginary and shared: the King is no more!” According to Macron, since the Revolution France has tried to fill this void, most notably with Napoleon and then Charles de Gaulle, which was only partially successful. “The rest of the time,” said Macron, “French democracy does not manage to fill this void.”

Democracy is artificial; aristocracy is natural, since human beings have different abilities and these place us in a hierarchy of capacity. Democracy is external, since we are forced to think about how our actions look instead of their results in reality, while aristocracy is internal because it is focused only on results, which apparently most people do not understand and fail to predict, as the results of democracy show.

The old West has died in a surge of mob rule and egotistic individualism as advocated in The Renaissance™ but arising far before when the middle class wanted the aristocracy out of the way so it could enjoy an unfettered business environment. We now see how that gamble ends, and we want off the crazy train to doom.

Bastides: A Model For The Balkanized, Post-Collapse West

Wednesday, June 7th, 2017

“Nature abhors a vacuum,” goes the old saying. Nature is competition, which is how it ensures a lack of empty spaces. To avoid any one tendency from going too far, nature uses a system of balances, and it balances the anti-vacuum with a fierce territoriality. That way, it can avoid a tragedy of the commons by ensuring that all territory is owned, defended and to some degree managed by its territorial species.

If you wonder why the ancients spoke of natural order, this is what they had in mind, which avoided the opposite extremes of communism/inclusion and capitalism/consumption. Instead of giving way to once force alone, nature balanced them, and so became more violent but also more efficient and less destructive.

This is why we talk about the “4 Fs” of nature — feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproduction — instead of merely three. Fighting is part of nature and it is how territory is established, and through that, stewardship is established. A lion watches over his patch of the wild and punishes any who will exploit it. The birds, rodents and lizards do the same. Populations stay in balance; resources are not over-exploited; each area reaches an optimal carrying capacity and nothing more. Nature, more than humans, is logical.

That third F however means that war and conflict are not errors, but a necessary part of life. Each group defends itself and its territory so that it can survive as a species, sub-species or cultivar, and so that its territory does not fill up with humans who will then exploit its resources to the point of depletion.

Democracy, which like communism is based on the idea of universal inclusion as an antidote to naturally-occurring hierarchy, cannot defend itself against a tragedy of the commons. This is why democracy follows the pattern of a yeast bloom: the population rises to consume all of the resources and then dies out.

In the case of modern democracy, this exploitation mainly consists of our false elites in media, business and government and their support base of a permanent third world underclass. They divide up everything this society has created and abscond with it, converting it into landfill overflowing with disposable entertainment products and tiered sinecures of graft.

Now that the West has had 228 years of democracy and over a thousand of egalitarianism, or anti-hierarchical thought, it is nearing the collapse of those systems. They ate up everything good and left a rotted infrastructure, mentally and racially mixed-up population, and a total lack of unity on any point.

As Samuel Huntington wrote in The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order, the backlash to this over-extended period of history is occurring through a cultural wave of people wanting innate connections to others, instead of merely ideological or financial ones. Nationalism, tribalism and ethno-centricism are rising because those are innate, where ideology is imposed from outside.

This leads to an intermediate stage called balkanization where each group — tribe, cult, gang, subculture — will set up its own community and by necessity, exclude all others with force. After democracy comes tyranny, and as the tyrants this time turn out to be twerps of great incompetence, the first world will instead fragment into many smaller groups, shortly before being invaded by any strong powers that remain. Practice your Chinese!

But, before the great invasion takes over, it makes sense to look at what balkanization entails. William Gibson and Billy Roper offer competing views of this vision; in Gibson, people will form massive vertical structures or other specialized forms of the city, with enclaves of secessionists living in geographically-defensible regions like bridges and abandoned buildings. In Roper, the focus will be less on structures than areas which are self-sustaining and defended with military force.

Imagine a combination of the two, and you will see history rediscover itself as we rebirth the bastide, a type of fortified village used in the past and likely again in our future:

The Dordogne region is famous for its historic fortified towns, known as bastides. They were mostly built during the reigns of King Henry III of England and his son Edward I. They were founded by the English kings and by local feudal landlords…The bastides were defended towns planned on a straightforward rectangular grid.

The towns were typically defended by perimeter walls and centered around a market square, often with a covered section, known as les halles; a number of towns still retain these most attractive structures. Each bastide was founded on the basis of a charter. Land was generally provided by the founder, king or nobleman. Legal rights and subsidies were granted to those who contributed to the building of the towns. In return the founder could raise taxes to finance military campaigns and also levy troops.

While most in our society have been chasing scapegoats like The Rich™ and The Jew,™ the more far-sighted rulers have realized that human hubris drives democracy, and that me-first people in groups agitate for collectivism as it allows each individualist to be subsidized. This hubris and its recent manifestation democracy are actually what destroyed us.

For that reason, interest is rising in aristocracy, or replicating the natural hierarchy in human form. We take the best among us by leadership ability and place them in charge, then have them select a staff. This arrangement is hereditary as this ensures that the best women match with the best men, creating a self-perpetuating institution, at least until hubris attacks in mass delusion again.

We can get there easily through democracy. The first step is to remove all the laws that impede natural organization of human beings; the next is to patch our laws so that we can appoint an administrator or regent who will select the aristocrats and entrust them with ownership of land areas, which will then become localized bastides or something like them under the feudal system.

In the intermediate stage of balkanization, should we survive it by not getting invaded by hostile Asian powers as has been the pattern of history, bastides will be more organic: warlords will seize local areas, charge everyone rent, and use those rents to fund a strong army which can repel any regional threats. Life goes on as democracy fades away.

How Religion Shattered The Leadership Of The West And Let Leftism In

Monday, June 5th, 2017

It does not make sense to blame Christianity for the downfall of the West; the real story is more nuanced.

Christianity was taken up by the rising Left as a means of spreading individualism. Any religion where the choice of the individual to partake is considered a complete introduction to the depth of the faith will naturally become a vehicle for projection, which is why the Catholic church continued the Rabbinical tradition of isolating scholarship to those who had already demonstrated prowess.

This elitist viewpoint is called esotericism, meaning that it is based on mysteries and not memorization. Topics are seen through a qualitative lens that views them as having depth, such that their initial summary in language is a gateway to a series of cause-effect relationships and their implications. The more one learns, the more there is to learn.

Esotericism also relies on logical collisions to determine boundaries, instead of categories. The opposite of esotericism, exotericism, teaches through categories, where a single detail stands for the whole and is presumed to impart that characteristic uniformly to all objects within the category. This provides an easier method of thinking, thus a more popular one.

Logical boundaries on the other hand occur when the thinker looks into the depth of an idea through its extension to a logical extreme and the implications of that, in infinite cycle. This resembles the thinking of a chess player, looking ahead as many moves as possible by accounting for every potential move by the other player. In this view, objects have many details, and it is important to take the interaction of objects with other objects on a case-by-case basis, seeing how the details collide and coincide to determine the nature of those objects. This gives humans less perceived power through an easy method of thinking, but is more accurate.

Christianity suffered weakness because it was based on the Word. The Word first appears in the creation of the world, and then extends as a theme in the Bible through people accepting word tokens as literal truth, without having depth to work through, implying an equality of all people in understanding. This approach lends itself to propaganda.

At first this was an advantage to Christianity. It could induct and unite huge groups of people quickly, which is why the pagan faiths faded away; they simply could not compete. As a theology derived mostly from the Greeks, early Christianity conveyed a strong Indo-European philosophy. But its strengths were also its weaknesses, making it easy to take over from within.

Some claim the rise of Protestantism was part of this process, but it may have been resistance to the effect that having the Bible widely available in lay languages was having within Catholicism.

This upheaval resurrected an old conflict that had lain dormant throughout the middle ages. Before the preceding millennial turn, Throne and Alter had been in conflict as the monarchies of Europe found themselves needing allies during war, and in addition to domestic splintered politics, having to placate special interest groups. The Church too often played as a self-interested party.

With the middle ages, this condition was suspended as some parity was reached and Church and monarchy could work together. However, this was short-lived, as Christianity proliferated into different cults with the rise of mass distribution of the Bible, in part pre-dating the printing press as the supply of hand-copied Bibles accumulated over the years.

At that point, a new internal religious conflict began, one that would eventually give rise to the nascent Leftism of The Enlightenment™ and the Romantic period:

In Cavanaugh’s The Myth of Religious Violence, Cavanaugh presents a thesis which is radically at odds with received wisdom concerning the origin of the secular state. Citing the examples of Baruch Spinoza,Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who presented religious division[ii] as the cause of the conflicts of the period, he notes that this narrative provided:

…the backdrop for much of the Enlightenment’s critique of religion. There developed a grand narrative in Enlightenment historiography — typified by Edward Gibbon and Voltaire — that saw the wars of religion as the last gasp of medieval barbarism and fanaticism before the darkness was dispelled.

More modern liberal thinkers have subsequently traced the birth of liberalism to the so-called religious conflicts of this period, with Cavanaugh citing Quintin Skinner, Jeffrey Stout, Judith Shklar and John Rawls as exemplifying this narrative.

When a conflict of this sort arises, more likely what happens is that one party was neutralized, allowing some event to take place. The “fanaticism” of the medieval era was an attempt to retain balance between different power structures within civilization, because they remembered what happened to Athens, Rome and pre-medieval Europe.

If instead of viewing the religious wars as a conflict between religion and anti-religion, but a struggle for power within civilization, we see that an unnamed third force won: egalitarianism.

As Cavanaugh takes pains to point out, the institutional changes which were supposed to have been ushered in as a result of the religious conflicts actually presaged them. To bolster his argument he provides ample examples of conflict occurring between states with the same denominations, as well as collaboration between differing denominations. The most trenchant observation is provided by the example of Martin Luther:

As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1520s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories.

In other words, while the Church struggled against the kings, someone else took power. This became The Enlightenment,™ which had fortunate timing in that it caught the early years of the industrial revolution within a century and, because it perfectly justified unlimited growth and tragedy of the commons, replaced religion with the new mythos of the individual.

For this reason, “Christianity caused Leftism” is too simple of an analysis, just like “Christianity is the root of Western Civilization.” The root of Western Civilization is its people, but they depend on quality leadership from the aristocracy in order to be effective. We removed that, and now we are removing our own people so that it can never be reborn.

Only One Political System Will Support Western Restoration

Wednesday, May 24th, 2017

In a recent Q&A, Jared Taylor of American Renaissance wrote about an ideal form of government for European-descended people:

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, I hesitate to prescribe a form of government for white people. The Athenians did well with the city state and mass democracy. The Roman republics and empires were both effective forms of government. We have had good monarchies and good aristocracies. The United States of 1840,, with its limited government and local autonomy were not bad models. The Scandinavians were happy with cradle-to-grave socialism until their populations became increasingly non-white. I believe that the key to our success is in our nature, our culture, our asporations, and our will to transcend — not in our form of government.

As a longtime reader and admirer of Mr. Taylor, I commend his political acumen: he focuses on one thing and one thing only, and in doing so, fleshes out an issue whose relevance most people — brainwashed by the doctrine of equality — cannot understand.

However, to his mind and yours, dear readers, I submit an idea to amplify what he has said. Perhaps there is not an ideal form of government for European-descended people. However, we know that there are bad forms of government, because we are living through one.

Any government of the Left — that species of philosophy which begins with the idea that all men are equal, and ends in the idea that we must destroy society in order to save it — will naturally oppose a nationalist (or to use the PC term, “ethno-nationalist”) civilization. And yet we know that only nationalism works because every other approach culturally and genetically erases the people of that nation.

For this reason, it makes sense for us to escape the insane game of trying to make egalitarianism work, and recognize that only one method of organizing civilization works toward that end: aristocracy. It inherently rejects equality, ends mass culture, puts the good in charge and points society toward doing the good instead of the convenient.

This is especially relevant because a mixed-race, open air market of a society is much easier to create and live in than one where we try to do the right thing, except for the fact that this hybrid anti-culture will destroy us and leave only ruins behind with no hope of renewal.

Our civilization has fallen. It was once great, but rejected the understanding of reality necessary to maintain that greatness, and now remains out of control, in a death spiral, without an ability to even discuss these issues beyond halfway measures. Diversity was not the source of our downfall; lack of social order was, and it led to diversity, which will finish the job if we let it.

Democracies however have a bad record of pulling out of tailspins, and by “bad” I mean zero successes. We can try to work around democracy with an oligarchy, military rule or dictatorship, but these are unstable as well.

History shows us that for us, there is one working type of civilization, and it consists of a handful of things, of which aristocracy is one. Like nationalism, it is not a solution in itself, but a prerequisite toward having the cluster of things that comprise the solution. Until we accept that, we continue down the path to doom.

Biblical Support For Monarchy

Sunday, May 14th, 2017

From The Orthodox Life, an insight into the Biblical necessity of monarchy:

Lacking a monarchical form of government, every man in Israel “did that which was was right in his own eyes”. Instead of promoting peace and freedom, this state of affairs produced a nation full of people with hardened consciences:

The recognition and acknowledgment of God’s holy standard is a foundational necessity for repentance, and this fact is poignantly made in the book of Judges. This book spans several centuries, and covers numerous cases where Israelites raped and murdered one another, while committing flagrant forms of idolatry. Significantly, the book simultaneously repeats the refrain that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). We would be appalled just to read that Israelites were willingly committing acts of wickedness. But how much more shocking it is to hear that they committed these acts without even comprehending the gravity of their evil! It is ghastly to imagine that men can rape and murder in spite of their consciences. But it is even more mind-boggling to think that men can rape and murder in agreement with their consciences. Men’s consciences may become so seared that they don’t even feel guilt when committing such acts. People in such a state may express sorrow for getting caught, but they are not yet in a position to exercise true repentance. Before godly sorrow and meaningful confession can take place, the conscience itself must first be pricked. (Source: The Sacrament of Confession)

…The phrase is used again in the context of kidnapping, and also as a finale to the entire book of Judges:

Therefore they instructed the children of Benjamin, saying, “Go, lie in wait in the vineyards, and watch; and just when the daughters of Shiloh come out to perform their dances, then come out from the vineyards, and every man catch a wife for himself from the daughters of Shiloh; then go to the land of Benjamin. . . . And the children of Benjamin did so; they took enough wives for their number from those who danced, whom they caught. . . . In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:20-25)

In each case, notice that the phrase “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” is paired with the phrase, “In those days there was no king in Israel”. In other words, the lack of monarchy implies anarchy. The consciences of the populous were insufficient for bringing righteousness to the nation. A godly king was needed.

Morality and realism are parallels throughout history. Benevolent gods advise their population to do what is to their advantage in acquiring the best possible life, and this includes both earthly and metaphysical principles. Both are exhibited here: without leadership, people make stupid decisions and do what is immoral, because that is the nature of the human individual.

Without monarchy, society turns to anarchy. This does not happen like flipping a light switch, but gradually, as things do in nature. Like most paths to death, the path away from monarchy consists of many small details conspiring to make a miserable situation. If we heed the wisdom of the past, we too will turn from democracy and its subsequent anarchy and pursue aristocracy instead.

Recommended Reading