Amerika

Trends rule the human herd. Someone does something, it looks cool to others, and so they emulate it. Others emulate them. Soon it becomes accepted wisdom, at least until someone discovers something better.

When a society becomes wealthy enough that it does not have to worry about whether or not its trends have practical value, the trends become signaling. You buy a BMW to let everyone in the neighborhood know that you have made it to the big leagues.

Unfortunately for humans, trends are not equal; they originate from different sources with different motivations. Some are organic, when something accidentally becomes cool, but many more are simply marketing or people trying to sell you stuff.

Others are outright hostile, perpetrated by groups who want you weakened and dead, so they seek to make weak and unhealthy things popular among your group. Most ideology is this way: parasites preach doom so that they can rule over the ashes and feast on the corpse.

The targets of these trends — ordinary people — are notable in one way: they do not think in cause-effect chains, therefore are oblivious to consequences. They do things because their friends did them, a magazine article inspired them, or to make themselves comfortable.

They do not think about the long-term future of what they are doing; they are oblivious to anything beyond their lifespan, and barely aware of anything beyond the next pay period. Their concern is how to socialize with others, get money, and “feel good” about their lot in life.

This means that the people making important decisions are not thinking about the impact of those choices. They are making choices to benefit them personally at the expense of others or intangibles like culture, civilization, and our notions of what is good.

They are also making choices with long-term consequences based on short-term personal adornments and the desire to regulate their own feelings. They do things that make them “feel good,” even if that harms others or civilization.

This is why all human civilizations are self-erasing over time. They struggle to survive, then get enough wealth to be free from worry over most consequences, and then the pretense and individualism of their citizens come out and lead to a series of terrible decisions.

Most people would find this notion unsettling and antisocial, therefore would suppress it. Monarchists are hard realists who embrace this and other aspects of reality, then aim to do something good with it, namely by impeaching the herd and replacing it with hierarchy.

Hierarchy arises whenever there is a goal. Some will help accomplish parts of it, and they rise above the rest. Since they were the few who noticed that those parts needed doing, and had the affirmative and positive impetus to make it happen, they are saner than the rest.

When you look at the average herd of humans, most exist in a mental muddle caused by making decisions in their personal lives the same way they do in politics. They rationalize bad things as good in order to “feel good,” and this leads them down a path to goal-less behavior.

People with goals act toward those goals; people without goals make decisions on impulse, rationalize them as good, and then double down on those in order to feel good about what they have already done. This pathology is similar to addiction and gambling.

We could rank humans by their degree of mental muddle. Those with the most muddle tend to end up being the lower classes because they cannot consistently apply themselves; those with less are the middle, and those who can think clearly, take risks, and apply goals are the top.

In your average human population, 90% are made for repetitive labor, 9% for independent thinking tasks, and less than 1% for deriving goals and methods from an ambiguous and complex reality. You want your leaders to be from the latter group.

What is a monarchist? Someone who takes the Bell Curve and DKE seriously, and recognizes that humans are not equal at all, but widely different, and most are unable to make leadership decisions.

Monarchists recognize the need for social hierarchy, where the more intelligent but more importantly leadership-oriented are the focus, and growing informally out of this, political hierarchy where the most capable have most of the money and power.

This system exists mostly to keep the mental muddle people from having control of things that they will use to chase trends in order to make themselves feel relevant, important, clever, and so on. Mental muddle people with power are entropy for civilization.

A monarchist desires us to go in the opposite direction: instead of being polite and tolerating everyone, we look for those who are super-achievers and let them take care of everyone else. Literally everyone has a better life for this.

However, it is offensive to the vast majority of people — until they experience it, at least — because it does not recognize them as “equal” or “equally important.” This offends their self-image, what we call the “ego” but is more accurately the rationalizing mind.

After all, it is very hard to rationalize having few duties, “rights,” privileges, and powers as good, unless one looks at results, which people who are prone to rationalization refuse to do. This is the psychology of the liberal and those who are fond of organized religion as well.

Sorting through our world, seeking to understand it and experience it, and then acting with that knowledge to adapt to the world is the process of living. Monarchists do the hard part up front and find good people and promote them.

This creates our traditional system of leadership in the West, where we have kings taken from a wider aristocracy of dukes and earls, each of whom rules over a local area, mostly by purchasing goods and services in the free market in a way that rewards excellence.

Those of aristocratic blood are elevated early in the life of a nation through great spontaneous deeds in battle, construction, the arts, and local volunteer leadership. “Manorial feudalism” is the order in which they have great houses that employ local people.

Throughout this order, excellence is rewarded and mediocrity pushed aside, which is how you make a small impoverished continent like Europe rise to be the wealthiest zone on Earth.

Social hierarchy also emphasizes quality of breeding, encouraging every level to find good partners and make healthy children.

It removes the constant political drama and instability, substituting for it a constant and even style of leadership that encourages aggressively and affirmatively setting things to right instead of waiting for crises to react to.

You know really good leaders by the paucity of mention in history. When a good king rules, there is almost no news and few big events because most of the underlying problems were anticipated and addressed before they became crises.

Monarchism grows society not in quantity, but in quality. It is not perfect but is less imperfect than all the other systems. It preserves culture and “keeps the faith” meaning orienting people away from despair and toward a world of beauty, goodness, and wisdom.

Could it change from the past? Clearly it needs to be more focused on industry, eugenics, and breeding lots of quality people to outpace the foreign competition that will inevitably war on us no matter how peaceful, nice, kind, decent, and sane we are.

Humanity is at war with itself and has been since its founding. Most humans, by their focus on individualistic feelings and not reality, are little wrecking balls. Monarchists seek to control that and breed it out over centuries while protecting good people through quality leadership.

Tags: aristocracy, aristocratism, bell curve, eugenics, monarchism, social hierarchy