Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘royalism’

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.

Snapshot: Aristocracy

Saturday, November 12th, 2016

aristocracy

Most modern people have no idea how aristocracy works because we have been indoctrinated with the idea that only a “meritocracy” is fair.

Meritocracies are, in theory, systems where those who demonstrate ability get given greater power than those who do not. Somewhat obviously, this occurs in gradients, not a pure binary. But the principle is the same: sort the population by ability.

In reality, because we are an egalitarian society, this consists of setting up hoops for people to jump through: education, certifications, internships, entry level jobs, public relations exercises.

What this does effectively is choose people who are good at playing the game of the System, but simultaneously, it drives away those who are concerned with direct effect. They are disenfranchised and driven from power by the flood of people who want to be good at the system.

Correspondingly, these game-players do not care about whether they are effective. For them, the goal is to attain the position and to maximize the utility of it toward making themselves wealthy and socially powerful. By its nature, this displaces any concern they have for the consequences of their actions.

If you wonder why so much of the modern world is incompetent, think of it this way: a person who wants to do good tries to gain power so they can do good; a person who wants only power seeks the power, and is more efficient at doing so by eliminating the concern over doing good.

For this reason, meritocracies are a failure like any other kind of System. They produce “false elites” who are more concerned with doing what is necessary to advance than being effective. This is why our leaders often can be observed to be making the right noises after an event, but never changing the course which produced it.

If the modern norm is to select whoever is best at the working the system for power on the basis that they “deserve” it, aristocracy is a direct opposite.

Aristocracy measures inner traits like intelligence, moral goodness and character. It selects people based on their ability to uphold principles, and then surmises (correctly) that they will be able to use that generalized and elevated ability in any specific decision to make better quality decisions.

The most important trait of aristocrats is a tendency toward excellence and beauty. They improve life by making the experience of life better, which creates a soothing existential state for their citizens even when faced with horrible dark and difficult times. This makes people aspire to improve themselves and their civilization in quality.

To modern people, this seems hopelessly indirect: “We want solutions!,” they cry. For most people, cause and effect are not understood. They see a problem, and they want a direct fix, like curing poverty by giving the poor money. An aristocrat looks to what produced the condition and then ameliorates it gradually and indirectly.

This creates a society where citizens must be self-reliant but do not suffer the high externalized costs of social chaos. They have social order instead, which allows them easier socialization, marriage and family in addition to giving them better options for less painful employment and more free time.

No system is perfect and there can be no Utopia. Once we dispense with the illusion that there should be, it is clear that aristocracy is superior to democracy. Unlike democracy, it allows for decisive leadership and nurtures its citizens. However it requires us to give up the pretense of equality.

Why I do not aspire to be King

Thursday, August 6th, 2015

queen_elizabeth_wwii_service

The cheap shot argument has become familiar to us all. If it were not for its use in political speeches and sitcoms, the constant backscatter of smarter-than-thou internet posturing would familiarize us all with this unfortunate vein of human discourse.

In such situations, the lone antagonist hopes to seem smarter enough for a moment to woo the crowd and dispatch with the person making a sensible argument, which in turn endears him to the crowd further, as they love the tearing down of the higher and its replacement with something more like their own insatiable egos.

On the topic of monarchy, there are several opening gambits by the smarter-than-thou crowd. Here is the single most typical one:

You: I think we need monarchy because democracy is basically lynch mob rule by committee and witch hunt, and we need to get someone smarter in there with real power to override the herd.
Poseur idiot: Oh, you think we should have kings, yeh? And the first one is you, am I right?

Here is my answer to any person dishonest and vapid enough to make that comment: No, a thousand times no. He obviously has no idea what it is to be a sovereign, so let me enlighten him quickly. A king gets exactly zero days off; even on vacation, he is the leader of his people and must not only be aware but must maintain the appearance, dignity and stance necessary to rule a nation. Imagine getting to go on vacation, but you must bring a laptop and you are on webcam to your boss the whole time. That is what it is to be king: you are never unobserved, and never off duty. You will die in office. From the moment you take the crown, you will always be maintaining the role of a monarch, which requires a command presence at every breath. Everything you do is under scrutiny; it is paparazzi times a thousand.

Queen Elizabeth outlined her view of monarchy with one succinct paragraph:

The ceremonies you have seen today are ancient, and some of their origins are veiled in the mists of the past. But their spirit and their meaning shine through the ages never, perhaps, more brightly than now. I have in sincerity pledged myself to your service, as so many of you are pledged to mine. Throughout all my life and with all my heart I shall strive to be worthy of your trust.

In prole-view, kings are rich people who get to be important. From the view of kings, they are the lowliest servants in the land. They never get to go home at the end of their shift, every error is noticed, and every action analyzed. They do not have weekends, and every holiday is a public occasion when they are even more in the spotlight. Further, unlike celebrities and ordinary people, they are not “themselves” when in public; they are symbols of the nation and its power, and must comport themselves accurately. Kings never have truly casual conversation because every word has meaning; they never can toss a few back at the pub and idly poke fun at or criticize some aspect of society. For a king, awareness is the trigger to action, and so there is no point in chatter; they are either able to fix the problem or not, and if not, it will vex them until they can. A king has no excuses, which is what makes the role so crushing. Outside of the vastness of nature and God, nothing stands in his way. What he notices, he must fix.

Where a democratic leader can look forward to four or eight years in office and then a long easy life of making a few speeches a year to pay for the mansion and servants, a king is granted his wealth only so that he might serve and all of it is tied up in his role. His palaces are also institutions and government buildings; his clothes and appearance are for public consumption. The king is first and foremost a servant, but he is a servant who is a guardian of power, meaning that he keeps it away from the undeserving and wields it well. Most people cannot handle power; a king must, like a man with lightning running through him, find some way to internalize and redirect his power in helpful ways. Part of that “serve for a lifetime” thing means that, unlike a democratic leader, a king does not get to run away from his decisions. They will haunt him or help him in the coming decades.

A king does not even get to enjoy celebrity as you or I might. The role submerges the man. On top of that, a king aims to be forgotten by history. The best kings were often able to gain quick victories or avoid difficult situations, and thus were forgotten by history. A king looks ahead toward threats and addresses them before they happen, because he does not need to show voters for approval. Voters require something bigger than a detail, but if you want to act before the disaster, details are all you get. A king must always be looking forward, and finds himself victorious by seeing the problem in advance of its becoming manifest and steering it off. For this reason, the best rulers appear to do nothing, because all that they do is behind the scenes.

The internet poseur idiots will ask, again thinking themselves intelligent and proving the opposite, “But what about a bad king?” And so… what about it? There are means for removal of a bad king, mostly — because someone unsuited to be king will want freedom from the stress — farming them out to be Duke of some obscure province where they can enjoy some luxury with no risk. This is done by a council of aristocrats, not by a vote but by the much more difficult method of reasoning to a conclusion with Socratic dialogues. You can have bad kings and remove them, but with democracy, you get an endless stream of leaders who use every disaster as an opportunity to advance themselves, and since they are all the same you would need to remove democracy to get the equivalent of a new king.

No, I would not aspire to be king. First because to do so is not only a mortal sin but an antisocial act, as it is above my station. Second, because I like life and a king never gets a life separate from being king. The role takes over the man. A king has to be clear enough in his relationship to life to not mind giving it up, for the most part, years in advance of death. Then again, he is the most fundamental servant of his land, someone dedicated to the act of ruling and not, like everyone else, to being himself. The keyboard pundits of the world may think every monarchist wants to be king, but monarchists know that a king gives his life in service and keeps nothing back. It takes a uniquely powerful, confident, secure and intelligent person to want that role. For the rest of us, we hope only to find such a person before democracy further destroys our nations, our peoples, our histories and our selves.

Economists against democracy

Tuesday, August 4th, 2015

peaceful_mountain_view

From Hans-Hermann Hoppe via the always-interesting Outside In:

A king owned the territory and could hand it on to his son, and thus tried to preserve its value. A democratic ruler was and is a temporary caretaker and thus tries to maximize current government income of all sorts at the expense of capital values, and thus wastes. […] Here are some of the consequences: during the monarchical age before World War I, government expenditure as a percent of GNP was rarely higher than 5%. Since then it has typically risen to around 50%. Prior to World War I, government employment was typically less than 3% of total employment. Since then it has increased to between 15 and 20%. The monarchical age was characterized by a commodity money (gold) and the purchasing power of money gradually increased. In contrast, the democratic age is the age of paper money whose purchasing power has permanently decreased. […] Kings went deeper and deeper into debt, but at least during peacetime they typically reduced their debt load. During the democratic era government debt has increased in war and in peace to incredible heights. Real interest rates during the monarchical age had gradually fallen to somewhere around 2½%. Since then, real interest rates (nominal rates adjusted for inflation) have risen to somewhere around 5% — equal to 15th-century rates. Legislation virtually did not exist until the end of the 19th century. Today, in a single year, tens of thousands of laws and regulations are passed. Savings rates are declining instead of increasing with increasing incomes, and indicators of family disintegration and crime are moving constantly upward.

Nothing here will be a shocker to people familiar with the issue: kings, by viewing themselves as curators of a population and responsible for its maintenance but not fundamental alteration, did not succumb to the mania for expanding government that is a hallmark of democracy. Under democracy, any expansion of government must be justified to the voters, and this creates a cycle where government finds ways to justify expansion of power. The voters remain oblivious, both individually and because in groups, humans make poor decisions by choosing that which is most cognizable and can be shared among the group, replacing “truth” with ease of understanding/communication. This prioritizes oversimplifications if not outright lies but ensures that the election can appear to be functional.

The aristocracy concentrated wealth in the hands of people with extreme subtle, sensitive and aggressive leadership behavior. These were people who did not merely “fix” problems, but found their root and removed it or contained it. Where modern governments will declare “war” on a problem and then create a permanent franchise to do so, kings had a tendency to go deeper and look as to why the problem appeared. They were also unwilling to sacrifice health, comfort and safety for their productive citizens in the name of small discontented groups and their unhappiness. These were more Darwinian and yet more enjoyable times: there were fewer details, less of an authority presence, and an absence of constant regulatory state restrictions making everyone cuck by the nature of having to submit to this mindless stuff to succeed.

Even more, it was a time where power was accepted, which led to less abuse of it. The great EnlightenmentTM idea is that individuals need no order above the individual itself, but kings violate that. As a result, democracy fans found themselves fearing power and inventing increasingly Byzantine mazes of rules to try to contain it. Absolutely none of these have worked, both in the instance and on the whole, since democracy kills nations with a “death of a thousand cuts” or every aspect of society slowly declining generation after generation. Our fear of power forces us into the hands of those who are utter sociopaths who lie about what they are doing, and by avoiding direct power become expert in indirect power, sometimes referred to as “corruption.” The arbitrary nature of a king’s power is what keeps it transparent and honest. Further, it allows the king to be able to act without justifying himself in terms of the poor, the budget or the ideological objective; he simply finds a way that is more beautiful, realistic, honest or accurate, and goes with that. No committees, no meetings, no formalities. No burying society under mountains of paper and boring, soul-destroying jobs. And apparently, lower interest rates as well.

Nobility

Sunday, August 2nd, 2015

knight

The world of aristocrats, knights and nobles seems so far removed from our current experience. It seems hopelessly ancient, from a time with almost nothing in common with our own, although we have the same surnames and often live in the same towns. While it seems as obvious that this time had higher standards of art and learning as that our present time has better technology, few seem to ask whether there is much we can learn from the past.

Nobility provides both a useful lesson, and something that few understand. It is a type of root intelligence and basis of character that occurs among very few people, and while it correlates with high general intelligence, the two are not the same. We have many people with “talents” in our society, showing expertise at finance or computer programming, even neurosurgery, but that is a localized and specific ability of a narrow range. Nobility is — whether instinct or intelligence or both — a generalized skill with a high level of aptitude in correlating many details simultaneously. It provides approximate knowledge at first, which then becomes a heuristic or exploratory understanding, and by its ability to keep focus on the many parts of the bigger picture as well as the small, can refine itself quite readily. Nobility has no job title and earns no one any money; it simply produces better results over the long-term, usually also of a transcendental nature that increases beauty and existential enjoyment.

Democracy operates through image and not substance, and for that reason, no one of nobility will ever succeed at it. For someone of noble inclination, questions of policy do not isolate well as they always have consequences outside of the immediate “issue.” Further, these rarely boil down to simple and satisfying-sounding solutions like making laws or setting up agencies to enforce. We have tried for centuries to pick leaders by popular vote, which relies on their platform and record, but perhaps we should look deeper …into character and natural abilities. We have nothing to lose but the awkward chains of electing sycophantic sociopaths every two years and then watching them leap on board the kleptocracy bandwagon.

The normal life

Tuesday, July 14th, 2015

a_normal_life

Normal people are beginning to awaken to the travesty of diversity. More than travesty, it is failure: a policy upon which we based our future that has turned out to have originated in lies, deceptions and a long history of not working. We were fooled, it turns out. Voices even in the media shout for its reconsideration. How did we get here?

For decades, normal people in the West have put up with the impositions of government. They have done so because ultimately it did not impact their lives that much. They could still do the normal things that people do, like having careers, falling in love, creating families, shopping and socializing with friends. Prices kept rising to subsidized failed policies, but they shrugged it off with practiced world-weariness. Government always wastes our money. It almost became a joke.

Now people are seeing it differently. Instead of a “post-racial” society, we have constant race riots and violence against white people. SJWs show up everywhere to remind us of the latest microaggressions. Government supports gay marriage despite any actual need to do so. But now, the tide has turned, and government is pushing its will on us. It will relocate the poor to middle-class suburbs and prosecute anyone who does not obey the ideological agenda, even in bakeries. It will force us to accept the doctrine of absolute equality or it will destroy us.

Now the ability to have a normal life is threatened. Some have realized that, as conservatives have said for centuries, once you go to a State it justifies itself with an ideological agenda and enforces that on everyone. You will be afraid to say no because they might call you a racist, and then all your friends, coworkers, family members and clients will abandon you and you will die alone in a ghetto. All of these policies that we considered little inconveniences, while busy working on job #1 which is creating a normal life, have become the basis for a totalitarian state as moribund and absolute as those in the Soviet Union and the last days of Rome.

Government got away with it for a simple reason: most people supported it. They were afraid to say no because no one likes racial cruelty, unpunished rape, pogroms against homosexuals or other persecutions. But the forces united in media and government created a big category for anything which not pro-equality and equated it with racism, sexism and homophobia. That meant that instead of eliminating those who engaged in aberrant behavior it hunted down anyone who was not in agreement with it. The writing is on the wall at that point.

As the mass wake-up begins, we have to ask ourselves: what do we do to replace this? People like myself long ago awakened to the obvious truth, which is that “systems” like democracy and the managerial state, designed to eliminate power in individuals, do not fix the problem and only create nexuses of control which can be seized by those who seek to rule and abused. You either put good people in power, like we did with the kings, or you spend your entire life struggling with a State that ultimately is a parasite that wants to increase its power at your expense.

Humanity now enters a new age. We have to decide whether we keep up with the moldly old 1789 democracy jive that has failed us so many times, or whether we strike out for a function social order and leadership that can avoid the nonsense we see now. Kings have more power, but they also consider things that voters cannot understand and constantly botch. The proof is in the pudding, or the near history at least. We did not get this government imposed upon us; we chose it, through the magic of voting for the lesser evil so long as it did not endanger our normal lives. Now our normal lives are impossible and that era is over, and we need to be brave about our choices for the future.

No one cares about your fair cause

Monday, March 9th, 2015

dialogue_with_the_crowd

If you thought that your cause was fair, that in actuality you were fighting “for your rights,” that you have rights like anyone else, and, in the wake of the fairness of your cause, you were going to receive popular support, you should know that you were damn wrong.

Unfortunately, your cause being a fair cause doesn’t mean that your cause is necessarily a “supportable” cause. What you think about your cause and what you’re willing to do is actually what you think and what you are willing to do. Only you, no one else. Or perhaps your neighbor, if the problem affects them both.

You should know that your fair cause is among a myriad of just causes, all of them far more supportable than yours, simply because there is a global agenda of the supportable causes by the general public. Furthermore, when the supportable causes by the masses are direct or indirectly convenient to central governments, just at that moment those causes become workable causes.

Looking at the situation objectively, fair causes that are too general — res public — are of broad concern in public opinion, but virtually no real interest. Thus, we can see the fact that global warming, pollution, impacts of ecosystem destruction, poor disposal of rubbish, etc. are problems of public concern, and everyone would like that all those problems were finally solved, although nobody will try to any deployment of resources or effort to solve them. People always choose evading responsibilities, attributing these to society, to the Government, to the world and any scapegoat you can imagine.

And what about the fair but specific causes? Here is the point where the despair is reality.

Fair but specific causes are only of exclusive concern of the direct stakeholder, even though the consequences may affect many more. The picture is bleak enough to say that the rest-who-are-not-directly-affected do not worry about the problem because it does not directly affect their bank accounts. We can attest that although abusive charges for basic services and taxes increase without stopping, the common crowd perfectly accepts any measure, being an example of civilized population. Meanwhile, in other parts of the globe, where there is “uncivilized” populations, we can see through news reports how to trigger the beast inside of man when the uncivilized masses are pissed off.

Well, getting back to your fair cause. What kind of support do you get? Canvases, tweets, marches, facebook statuses, shared images in virtual social networks where your fight is shown so everyone can see it. How much of all that moral support is really useful to your fair cause? How many, after seeing you defending your cause, left behind their normal lives to support you in your fight?

But don’t blame the press: If you are watching reports about shallow things is because that’s the journalists’ job, so if the market, namely consumer society of which you are part, wants to consume the vilest things you can imagine, the press will produce the garbage which society wants.

Blaming the press because it fills the masses with distractions to divert their sight of what is really important, not only is a fallacy, but a vulgar deception to satisfy the minds of the comfortable ones: if the press decide to do reports about fair causes, Would someone die for them?

Popular uprisings? Revolutions? Riots? Popular militias unleashing hell? Common crowds destroying anything they touch? For years, lots of fair causes warriors have been waiting for the people to join the ultimate revolution… which one it never will take place. What about the people? Today, those same people makes rows to buy the latest models of smartphones. Why should the people move for you? No matter how fair your cause is, no one cares.

Why the American Revolution was a mistake

Monday, July 7th, 2014

american_flag-inverted

I love America. That statement says nothing about America the political entity. The America I know is a network of good people who through hard work and sacrifice changed a lawless wilderness into a first-rate nation. Very few of them thought about politics much.

They fled instability in Europe where troubled regimes enforced ideological loyalty upon their populations. Americans took a different course: government would not control citizens but would instead provide a stable place for them to live while culture and individual moral choices ensured social order.

With the rise of America as a political entity, this process reversed itself. In 1781 the colonies won independence from England. But without a level of leadership above that of the colonies themselves, the confederacy of states rapidly fell into chaos. In 1789 the US Constitution went into effect and created a new nation-state to organize the unruly colonies

The new government quickly turned toward political control. During an undeclared naval war with France, the new nation-state passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which allowed imprisonment of people for speech critical of the Federal Government. The new government gained increasing powers with the Civil War and later the Great Depression, where it used crises to justify an ideological agenda and new powers.

As I write this, the news overflows with the beginnings of what will become the next American Revolution or Civil War. Much like the English colonial government taxed its people to death for purposes of political control, the new American regime rewards only those who follow its ideology and taxes the majority to pay for it. People are tired of this experiment.

This makes it clear to history, even if people now do not yet recognize it, that the American Revolution was a mistake. I can identify three major areas in which it has failed.

First, we have re-created what our original people were fleeing from. In the process, we have converted a prosperous superpower into a third world nation funded by an overtaxed majority ridden with guilt thanks to the ideological agenda of government. We are every bit as under the thumb of control as the citizens of Europe who first got into tiny boats and made the dangerous journey here.

Most of American law since the Revolution focuses on how to restrain government from becoming abusive. The unstated truth behind these attempts is that government has been trying to expand its power for two centuries. Expanding the vote has only accelerated the process because humans in groups make faddish decisions while as individuals they can make clearer decisions.

Second, the American Revolution caused the loss of our identity as a group. Before the Revolution, we were people from Western Europe who came to live together as British subjects in the New World. Now we are only people who make our residence in a place, obey its ideological agenda, buy its products and work as fodder in its jobs.

With the loss of identity came a refusal to have any social standards. We are no longer all from the same group, so we do not share values. Thus to impose standards on all is to favor one group over another. As a result, people became selfish. From this came both crass consumerism and the welfare state, culminating in a form of socialism which increases government power further.

Third, we have committed ourselves to controlling a beast that cannot be controlled. Elections do not work; in groups people follow social pressures and elect salesmen like Obama to the highest office in the land. No number of laws can stop government power, nor can rules make foolish people into good leaders.

We need quality leadership instead. While the English aristocracy provided an imperfect model at the time, it derived its power from a clear principle: put the most capable people in charge instead of the most popular ones. We, the people, are our own worst enemy. As the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said:

The only solution…is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy, a genuine nobility, achieved by mating the most magnanimous men with the cleverest and most gifted women. This proposal constitutes my Utopia and my Platonic Republic.

When we rebelled against the King, we thought we would set ourselves free. However, in doing so we threw out the principles of leadership established over centuries and the notion of group identity. This sent us down the path to an ideological agenda. As history now shows us, our liberation made us servants instead.

Recommended Reading