Absolute Monarchy

Greetings to those sparse few who read my ramblings! I'm here to do another one of my sporadic posts, this time on the tune of monarchy, though perhaps not just Absolute monarchy, but the entire foundation itself. Bear with me, for I'm not as clear of mind as I should be.

I've seen many a user, not just on facebook, but also youtube and other outlets, that happen to believe Absolute monarchy is the way "forward". What this precisely means is up to debate, but I'll not put words in their mouth; while I ultimately have a disdain for absolute monarchists the same way one has for a child that refuses to accept beef roast is superiour to cake, one must also realise the limitations some of us humans have.

Regardless, many an absolute monarchist would admit that capitalism is part of the problem, as I've highlighted in basically every one of my posts, but very few unfortunately recognize absolute monarchy is the very thing that led us to this crapshoot system we call modernity.

Again, I've tried to stress the importance of the Aristocracy but I've not gone into much detail regarding why - this is where I change that. Quite simply, when one has an absolute monarch, one is inviting the bourgeoisie into government, for it's all the monarch has left in the way of allies.


Frankly, as I've said in my previous post, the Aristocracy and Serfs have more in common than either side would like to admit, mostly in the way they do actual work that's not related to various dubious monetary schemes, which ironically the Capitalists of today would like the construe as the only form of "work". Growing food and other VITAL means of production or defending these same activities as the nobility did is somehow inferior to spending a life working with useless paper, in today's system..

I'm distracting myself, At any rate, the absolute monarch must rely on the money lender, the merchant and the general city dweller as a means of support - afterall, he neutered his Aristocracy, the very people defending him.

And why? Simply because he wants more power. I seek not to demonize the monarchs of the late middle ages and on, but to put it simply, they did far more to harm society as we know it today than your so called "modernists" ever did, precisely because they ushered in modernity as a means of convenience.

I not just ask of you, but beg of you all to read why supporting an Aristocracy is vital. To support a monarchy simply for the sake of monarchy is absolutely pathetic; there needs to be substance and meaning behind it.

Socialism: A Means to an End?

Socialism is often a dirty word for many (proud) reactionaries, myself included in the not so distant past, conjuring images of revolution and destruction of various old regimes, or simply rewarding the lazy. For the most part, this is an accurate (perhaps slightly misguided) view of socialism; a system that at its core tends and needs to promote the common, collective good versus the individual good. The past couple of months, I've struggled quite often on how to tackle socialism, at times almost being drawn into its hypnotic gaze, though never understanding exactly why - until I figured it out via discussions with various friends.


Quite frankly, socialism (and communism) shares much more with the old regimes than capitalism ever can, due to the focus generally speaking on agrarian lifestyles and the ultimate goal of small, decentralized government (rarely achieved if ever, unfortunately). For the sake of this post, I'll use a rather strong socialist government as my example, one we don't often see in the world, in order to draw comparisons between "feudalism" and socialism.

1. The state provides housing for the citizen.
2. The state provides work for the citizen.
3. The state expects loyalty and taxes from the citizen as a result.

These three points are simplifying what the state provides the individual, but lets look at what feudalism provided the average serf, shall we?

1. The lord provides land for the subject
2. The lord provides work in the way of farming for the subject, which the subject uses to grow his own food.
3. The lord in return expects service (militarily when needed) and taxes for compensation, as well as a share of the subjects crops.

In effect, the "state", aka the lord, provides these with the assumption that in return he will receive something in return later, depending on the individual lord/state. The difference between these two however is in the principle and what it seeks to achieve and I need not explain that part. A difference most will overlook however, is the feudal side is focused on its military and the socialist side economics.

Or is it that simple? Quite frankly, we've seen many militarized "socialist" states, to such an extent that one dares wonder if they can even be called false socialists as the USSR is often accused of! The most "guilty" offender for this is none other than a state that fascinates me to no end: The Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea.

This is the face of modern feudalism apparently, or at least a step towards.


The comparisons may seem rather slim at first, but this is mostly due to even the most reactionary of peoples misunderstanding of what the politics of the middle ages consisted of: a military. Nothing more, nothing less. The "state" in the middle ages didn't even consist of the monarch, but his nobles, his aristocracy. I've already covered (at least I think so; it's been so long) the damage Absolute Monarchy did despite how monarchists often herald it as a "golden age", so I won't get into specifics on the middle ages and the "fragility" of their position, but I will say that bar none, North Korea is exactly what I refer to when I speak of states that show perhaps an odd transition to an "older" system.


Being a state run by the military and a hereditary dynasty (thus far, at least), with the sons and daughters of important individuals being forced to serve in the nations military, it really does sound as if North Korea has its own, albeit dysfunctional, military aristocracy, the classical Aristocracy and the only legitimate Aristocracy, despite what today's Plutocrats would like to believe.


While all of this may seem appealing on paper to Aristocrats, the reality is obviously North Korea is a sad state, its isolation and poverty serving to tarnish what little prestige it could have. At some point, the North made critical errors in judgment, especially given the states success in the 1960's and 70's, when it was, for the last time, a legitimate threat to the bourgeoisie South Koreans. This has little to do with the pseudo Aristocracy it created and more to do with its peculiar isolation, nationalism and xenophobia to the rest of the world.


One would think that there's no hope for the sort of "socialist counter-revolution" if we use North Korea as an example, but thanks to one David Starkey , I stumbled upon a fascinating "conspiracy". At the end of his rather interesting but unfortunately populist series called "Monarchy", Starkey discusses the future of the monarchy. He argues that an institution that has only survived because of its willingness to adapt to various periods and crisis's of history, the only way it can survive into the future is again, more change.


Starkey, rather than allude to the monarchy being stubborn, instead states the monarchy is in this stage right now, in the guise of the Prince of Wales and his sons, William and Harry. The "new" role of the monarchy, he argues, is one of charity and goodwill, the end goal being the unification of the people via their various charities and borderline socialist policies.


One not need look far to see examples of Charles and his sons engaging in what we may refer to as socialism - providing houses, jobs and education for under-privileged youth, the monarchy is showing an interest in perhaps garnering loyalty amongst the youth - based on providing services.

Is this the future of the monarchy? To provide what the state wont and in turn, perhaps garner loyalty? To have the impoverished rely on them for aid and support where no one else will help? If so, then this easily could be a transition that I wholeheartedly applaud - one I wish I didn't write on partly due to the fact that if it's true, so many would take it as a negative rather than a positive. Could it be the beginning of a resurgence of the "old ways"?


This blogger hopes so and infact, for once, is anticipating this eagerly. It almost seems too good to be true to imagine the modern royal family actually doing what it should be doing - recognizing its true, legitimate role and that of its people.

Nationhood: The Gift and the Curse

If there's one subject that's not so controversial amongst most people, that meaning moderates, conservatives and even those who label themselves reactionaries such as myself, it's the defense of nationalism or at least patriotism. I've yet to meet anyone who can agree with me on this subject, primarily because nationalism is so ingrained in our minds, in our culture and now in our histories. However; I must admit something, dear reader.. This reactionary is against the concept of the nation, not out of a love for the "world at large", but out of pure individualism and love for western history.

There's too many examples of western history being bastardized; corrupted for the sake of nationalism. Many perfect examples exist, perhaps some of the most famous being the various conflicts grouped into one monolithic war (though this is incorrect, it was rather a series of conflicts throughout multiple points of the middle ages), the Hundred Years Wars between "England" and "France", a history of stunning bravery by both sides, patriots fighting for their nations glory or freedom, and finally a heroine who delivers on all accounts, and saves her nation from some sort of amusing tyrannical grasp.

The reality is vastly different. The hundred years wars is often actually grouped into a category of wars labeled as dynastic wars, that obviously meaning a war between two (or more) families, for the control of a throne or anything else really. Thus, the hundred years war is really about the Valois in France fighting to keep their throne from the Plantagenet's in England. There were many French nobles who sided with the Plantagenet's, both out of realpolitik and a genuine support for their claim.

Conversely, some continental "English" nobility would often find themselves supporting a Valois cause. Both of these sides wouldn't have been traitors, but rather men fighting for either way they believed in or to better their own position.

The latter is likely seen as a disgusting position to hold; why should one care more about themselves than the country (or Kingdom) at large? Why not just set aside your personal wants for the good of the majority? The issue with this train of thought is that it's a collectivist one in nature.

Many of our more moderate conservative friends are big on patriotism. We should sacrifice ourselves and our family for the nation, but again, I must firmly state, this is the very collectivism they argue against with Socialism and Communism. I owe no more to a random family in Massachusetts than they owe to my family in Texas, and all too often they'd find themselves perhaps despising me and my views, or me them.

This is the issue with nationalism, the nation: we're all individuals, a nation can't possibly sum up millions of people in such a broad context, and to say otherwise is ignorance, as much as I hate throwing that word around. You can't arbitrarily label all Frenchman as cowardly, feminine, smelly people anymore than you could sum up all British people as ugly with terrible teeth and holding a sort of worship for their Queen, though in the authors view a greater admiration for their monarchy would be quite appreciated.

Ah, but I fall into the traps of "broad" thinking right there.. How can I possibly say for sure what the average British person thinks of their Queen? I can't, I can only go by personal experience or studies conducted by people I don't even know, all of which is subject.

In defense of the nation, the concept isn't one that's inherently bad. It seeks to bring people together due to a common culture and language, or even sometimes political beliefs. However; it's almost always a rather "petty" sort of ordeal, where the citizens of the said nation begin massive amounts of in-fighting, with multiple parties claiming to represent the common good of each individual, or these days most disturbingly, the collective good.

The reality often is however these people merely represent themselves and those they would ally with behind the scenes, and possibly some of their key voters. Anyone else, as far as this system is concerned, is unimportant.

This isn't fair at all. Everyone should be given a chance to be happy. People should be able to escape the trappings of this monolithic ant-mimicking society that we call "nations", referring to them and our lifestyles today as if it's the only way.

Again, as I usually do, I must point middle ages as an example of how decentralized societies can get on just as well as we do today under the collective nation. The struggles these men and women faced during those times were mostly relating to sketchy medical knowledge (in comparison to today I must note, the weren't ignorant simpleton savages) and the poor conditions of cities, though most people didn't live in cities in the middle ages like we do today.

What mattered most to these people therefore was normally the family and the individual self; concepts that are "encouraged" in modern society, but we must be reminded of the nations importance before all else. I feel as if I'm saying alot without truly saying anything at this point, so I'll pose a question to myself, assuming perhaps the reader is asking it: "What sort of society do you propose then? An absolute return to the middle ages?"

Well, yes and no. While I enjoy the idea of caste based societies, though not based on wealth and trade (I've covered this) but instead something that truly will make us immortal: our families. When we produce children, we do more than spread our genetics. We leave apart of ourselves on this planet, something to give back to not just your family at large hopefully, but rather your community (something I actually do stress even if I don't stress the nation).

Therefore; my ideal society is one based on the middle ages, but I'd like to see everyone having a special surname, a special coat of arms, large, decorated beautiful family tree's, pride and family motto upon households, all of these things. I'd like to see the *family* become the central unit of society.

This would be a highly hereditary society of course, monarchist and aristocratic in nature, but again I would have nothing but disdain for a "bastard feudalism" aristocracy, though I realise this is likely to develop.

Enough with my pessimism though, I will end this post with a quote from one of my personal hero's, a genius of his time certainly that sums up my beliefs in a nutshell. From Wikipedia:

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy."

The Corruption of Tradition

I must admit; anyone who has known me long enough knows I can be quite irritable, perhaps hostile would be a decent word. This isn't out of a dislike for people, but rather my expectations of people, especially those I'd like to consider friends or allies. To be fair, I'm rarely angry with them, but again the most accurate word would be irritation. Among these are so called "conservatives", whom claim to be traditionalists upholding an ideal long since dead. In America, many of these faux-traditionalists have a sort of decent view of things, more than an entirely modernised liberal perhaps would be - but they're often unwittingly defending the very things that began our corruption, that allowed western society to become the soulless shell it has become.

These are often people who decry socialism and communism, liberalism and degenerate behaviour. However; then they would defend capitalism as the only system worth noting, that we all must put profits before people, that we should be as efficient and profitable as possible. Our only goal in life to many of these people is to work to earn not just yourself money, but your nation. These same people would then proceed to claim themselves religious or Christian, when as far as I've read, Christ never advocated capitalism or anything remotely like it, or even flat out criticized some ideals we'd consider capitalist in nature, such as his disdain for usury.

The common traditionalist in America would have you believe that the 1950's (in America) was one of the greatest times in mankind's history - the woman stays home, cooks and cleans all day, and makes children (sex only for procreation mind you) at night, the children play outside most of the day and are respectful to their parents, and the father, firm as he may be, works most of the day and returns home to an already prepared, warm delicious meal.

As with any corruption, there are legitimate good things contained within. Children playing outside and remaining active, a firm but loving figure who provides for his family, a loving matriarch to watch and maintain the household.. It's not so bad sounding at all, even if corny and idealist.

However; that's the issue with this. This is all idealism. Being only twenty, I would be the first to admit I wasn't alive during 1950's America, and thus I can't possibly hope to say what is (or isn't) true about the decade that sums up ideal Americana - but I can say that most of it is nonsensical deceptions by what I've read and heard from the very people who lived during the time.

The reality often was a highly stressed out wife yearning for liberation brought on by various progressive movements, a stressed husband who may or may not have wanted to do more with his family, or may have even loved his work more, and unruly children who would go on to raise the various generations and counter-cultures we "embrace" today.

There's a reason all of the corruption and nonsense we see today isn't so long after the 1950's, most of what we see is a reaction against a highly hypocritical decade. The key point for the 1950's is the structure of the family - this is the last true tradition we can hold onto.

I'm going to make a controversial statement I imagine, amongst traditionalists of the "common" sort and the sort of traditionalists I'd sooner associate with - that to begin my dissection of this decade, I'll criticize the role of the woman in society.

Women aren't objects for us men to control - I'm not saying this to be progressive or popular with such people, but as a reality. What I was defending about this earlier was that *someone* was playing this structured role, to care for the house, to watch and guide the children. For a healthy household, somebody, be it the mother or father, should be filling this role.

While the decade (and a few before it) were wrong for assigning women to this role and looking down on any man or woman who wanted to do otherwise, it was right to actually encourage this role. In today's world, both parents often work, with a babysitter or in some cases a sibling helping to watch the younger children or to take care of the house. While this isn't terribly bad, it's the beginning of a trend; the emphasis on working and making money versus *actually* providing for your family.

Your family is something that, when structured properly, will stick with you for your entire life. Pre-modern civilization, in just about every culture, stressed the importance of ones family and/or clan, versus that of a "nation", "job", etc. While there were certainly issues the past relating to lackluster medical knowledge and in some cases, sub par hygiene, people weren't working backbreaking labour, and didn't spend all day beating their spouses or children as we like to portray (on another note, please visit this link for some facts on the middle ages and their society).

Money meanwhile is usually passed onto family, be it your sons and daughters, siblings and their children, etc. Only in very rare cases would one forfeit all he or she had earned in their lives for random strangers or charities, and this is the natural order of things, again, family first.

In the 1950's, society was all about money and consumerism, buying the latest trend because a man in a nicely tailored suit (at least then, not the rubbish people pass off today as fine tailoring) told them to purchase the next big thing, just as we are today. It's the fascination with these two concepts that only led to further corruption, bringing us into the terrible 1960's and later 90's, the betrayal of earth and blood for metal and paper.

This brings me to the provider, the father. This is a man who may or may not truly care for his family. He may work as hard as he does and ignore his family because he wants them to live a better life, or he may be so miserable with his at-home situation that work is a release from the mundane and stressful setting of the home.

If the person falls into the first, he's often a kind hearted soul obviously, one who is legitimately a hope, somebody I could sympathies for. If he's the latter, depending on his wife and children, I'd normally label him as scum.

The latter unfortunately, at least from my pessimistic view, is that of the common man today, and even then. Either wittingly or unwittingly, both good and corrupt man alike have been trapped into the confines of modern society, but this isn't anything recent, and that's the point of this entry.

To move onto children, I'd be a hypocrite to judge my generation and the next coming after mine. I spent most of my childhood indoors, playing video games and browsing the internet. This is still true to a very large extent, though it's not something I'm proud of or would defend. But I want it to change. I want to see future generations have a more genuine childhood than mine. I want to see much more loyalty and value in friendship than the lack of which I encountered in my own childhood. It's the only optimistic thing I could hope to have left, as children deserve to live a happy and near-burden free life. We brought them into this world, and it's not fair we give them all of our problems and thus make them into the people we are today.

To end this, I want to say I don't want to offend any reader whom has admiration of the 1950's. While I have nothing but disdain for capitalism and the consumerist lifestyle of the 1950's, I would admit it's a (sparse) improvement upon today's society, but such a lifestyle cannot hope to exist and be called traditional. It cannot hope to last; it will always collapse and degrade into the cesspit we call modern society.

My much influenced views on the castes: Merchants

In a rash and impatient way that defines my soul as I know it, I have decided to post my very first "article", only minutes after creating this blog and designing its colour schemes. Needless to say, this is a subject I have much to say on, but so little of it comes from myself and my own observations, but rather influenced by Evola's own words. While I certainly have my own spin to put on this issue, I by no means feel obligated at all to take full credit. My views are not unique in my own opinion, but I do admit that much of these were my observations even before committing to reading Evola, though I by no means consider myself fully learned on him or his subjects.

Enough rambling on myself, which this blog is only partially about. Instead I will be writing about the castes as I understand them. I won't speak of the spiritual caste Evola mentioned fondly, as I have no idea how much of that may or may not be true, though I'm certain he believed in it for an absolutely justified reason.

As I understand it, and definitely as it is today, there are two remaining, and we'll be dealing with the one in power today, the one I have the most to say about.

The caste of the merchants. These are men of industry and profit, trade and the extension of worldly matters brought on by the previous order, the warrior aristocracy. In the broadest sense, these are the people who run the world as it is today, the people who have brought much of what we both praise (such as, in my opinion, their nice sense of fashion) but also that we loathe, the decadence and idleness that corrupted the old aristocracy.

You may be wondering what I mean by corruption. Many confuse the "feudalism" of the 17th and 18th century with the feudalism of the middle ages, the system that embodied the beautiful spirit that was Europe. For example, we imagine starving, ragged masses slaving for their masters who dance, play card games and live luxuriously in their grand palaces; the image of Louis XIV and his Kingdom embodies this.

This is in stark contrast to "true" feudalism (admittedly, this is a hard position to argue as scholars debate what is true feudalism), where the nobles actually did owe some service to their subjects, and the King had limited power due to his reliance on his nobility.

It was in the medieval elite's best interests to serve their subjects enough so that they themselves may eat and have status of their own. By no means was this system one of people working for a greater good, but this produces a symbiotic relationship.

Legally, of course, a noble owed little to serfs, but it just so happened that his duties often benefited his direct subjects more than the King himself. I'm losing track here however, this isn't about the nobility of the middle ages, but the merchant families that corrupted the feudal aristocracy.

The Kings of France needed their nobility to perform many actions, especially militarily. France under Charles VI and his son Charles VII was a Kingdom struggling to remain in control by the Valois dynasty. Beginning with Louis XI, in France at least (A King I have come to love and loathe at different points), the power began to shift from the nobility to the monarch itself. This is seen as logical evolution to many, and the Kings of France thereafter excepting a few such as Louis' own son, operated under the principle that the King was the source of power and thus all obligations fell to him. Louis XI therefore lays the foundations for the first absolute monarchy, and he was no popular man with his nobles. So how did he survive?

Louis was known to have dressed in the fashion of merchants, and to even mingle amongst them. Louis infact had nothing but admiration for the merchants of Europe, and had protected many families against the Catholic Church (though he was apparently quite zealous in his private life), and not just to dress as them and protect them, but actually mingle amongst them, though in secrecy. As such, it's no surprise that Louis turned to the merchants, the "middle class" so to speak, to keep his authority in check. Although the greatest threat to his power was the practically independent Duc de Bourgogne, Charles the Rash was also quite absorbed by merchants, though this was due to family history.

The merchant families were ones of great wealth often, and Louis XI used this to his advantage. He allowed them to buy titles rather than keep the nobility "of the blood", certainly a progressive innovation by most peoples standards. However; this is absolutely the first seeds of corruptions, done with what can certainly be seen as intention. The merchants often were people of great idle pleasures when not selling goods. Most of the extravagant and outlandish fashions that came out of Europe have tracings from these families and people, and believe me, I'm not complaining in every sense, I love 18th century fashion in particular.

However; when culture becomes dominant from this one class, this means new introduced behaviours. As the nobility had lost all of their "true power", in the sense of actually having obligations and the power that came with it, they adopted meaningless pass-times. Gone were the days when a son took up his fathers arms and defended the name and honour of his family; the era of games and folly had begun. It was charming in its own right, but when one recognises the corruption and how its impacted society today, one must oppose it.

The "merchants" became capitalists, and were instrumental in both the American Revolution and French Revolution, especially in the latter may I say. The myth of the people revolting for the most part is untrue. The "peasants" in Paris (peasants didn't truly exist in cities in reality) have always been an unhappy bunch, and when a certain man of such depravity and filth incited them into rioting, the rest was history. Rather than explain this cretin, I'd rather just give a link lazily via wikipeda, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Philippe_II,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans.

In particular, pay heed to the section "Role in the French Revolution". Even Wikipedia must admit he may, in fact, have orchestrated some of the food shortages due to his hatred of the establishment. This character wasn't really a champion of the people (and they certainly were ungrateful enough to murder him at any rate), but rather an opportunist who saw his own chance at the throne. It's no coincidence that his son eventually became King, something I could easily cite as a conspiracy.

To keep things short from here on, this is the culture that has killed what was beautiful about the world beyond our clothes and luxuries. The diversity of Europe is a thing of the past. People only want to be the same, especially those in support of a disgusting concept such as the "European Union", a superstate dedicated to making the continent into some bastard off-shoot of the United States of America.

Trade and industry dominates the world today. We no longer should care for our families and friends, but that of a collective nation. Our role in life is to make them money, and lots of it. In short, this is the class I despise more than any other, for it's the class that has killed what it truly means to be an individual, despite their supposed championing of individualism.

This is a topic I will surely speak of again, but I am done for now. The next article on this subject will cover the "lowest" order, serfs. The commoner. I wish you a pleasant day, whomever reads this.