Monday, January 23, 2017

Militant Monarchy

An age of great degeneration requires great action


If you are new to Monarchism and its philosophy, I highly recommend reading other entries on this blog and others before mine, unless you're familiar with ideologies such as Rexism.

Many of us consider ourselves as "reactionary", thereby the idea of a counter-revolution is rooted in convincing the elite to espouse the correct opinions and changing the method of government from the top. Opposed to revolution, its yield, its implications, and its basis; there are and will continue to be arguments for this position, but this will not be one of them. Simply speaking, those in power will always cling to what ensures it, and the majority will not appreciate anything other than democracy or, begrudgingly, republicanism. This is because the average person is not meant for politics or political theory, but instead to be a farmer, merchant, soldier, huntsman, or some other respectable profession -- one free from the divisive nature of ideology, and concerned with ones own family and country. This is natural, and they cannot be blamed.

Nevertheless; they will hold to their misplaced power, to the system of condoned sin (lying, treachery, adultery, etc) we have currently in place -- because they are, at their core, apprehensive at best towards the unknown. Regardless of if our sights are on carrying tradition into the future, or returning to better days of the past, both are most definitely of the unknown to the normal man. It then follows that, since the politicians in power will not surrender their comfortable positions, and the populace will back whatever form of democracy presently practised, that the systems needed to save our cultures, nations, people, and souls have to be installed through force. After this is done, steps must be made to ensure said structures stay in place.

Then enters monarchy.

While the new state busies itself rooting out leftism, there stands the King or Queen, representing the ideal (for example) Spaniard, and advising the Caudillo (or equivalent) on what he'd ought to do. Between him and the aforementioned Caudi-equivalent, one is bound to work as a conduit for the Church's teachings, which is the figurative lodestar for any moral society and government. In short:

  • The King worries himself with setting an example and mediating between the party's head (ie. the Caudillo) and population. He is the indirect guiding hand.
  • Said party head takes this and HM's advise into account, and then concerns himself with protecting the integrity of the nation and, thereby, the people. He is the direct guiding hand.
  • Finally, the Church concerns its self with the spiritual health of all her followers, and makes clearer God's will; standing as a bastion of morality, charity, and compassion. She is the guiding hands' guiding hand.

Of course, if during this installation an already-present royal family wilfully chooses the system that operates off sin and disunity, then would they really be what we want to represent us as the ideal? Surely not, because they'd have taken comfortability over the common good. I don't believe it's likely that, between decadence and degeneracy vs revival and proper restoration, many would choose the former (without coercion); but we've little reason to mourn a great deal the dynasties of those that do.That I can comfortably write this paragraph is not a beauty, but another ugliness of modern freedoms, and, were I a republican, another voice towards the eventual end for the monarchies.

Nevertheless; our generation, which would've bled to implement these institutions, will eventually die out. This is a good thing, so long as it happens naturally. Then these aforementioned forces (King, Caudillo, Church), now dealing entirely with a people raised within the system, become more as vigilant shepherds than constant enforcers of virtue. These children born without the taint of majoritarian and secular "values", instead raised with nation pride and a love for God's will, are who we would truly be fighting for. That that could be possible for our descendants is a gorgeous thought, but one that cannot be won through timidness and compromise with those that will us -- and the nation -- harm.

And when this time of comparative purity begins, the Crown will sit as its people's exemplary model into the ever-brighter future.

It is then for our descendants' sakes that these institutions remain at any cost; they have not suffered what we have without them. Truly, we need not look farther than our own Western societies to see what degeneration these safeguards' absence spawns. It's doubtful our grandparents' (or for many of us, great grandparents') then-decent societies would have gone so far downhill with them in place, since they'd have stopped the poisons that lead to the 60s early on. But they were not. Now the powerless crowns of Europe are restrained to watch the death of their nations come closer by the day, like a parent forced to witness the creeping demise of their own offspring.

But this demise has not yet come; our nations have not yet perished, our people's souls are not yet lost. Our age is one of great hardship and importance, one in such a state of urgency that it is all the more malicious not to save our countrymen from the Devil and his tools. Lust, greed, hedonism, sadism, these are among his obvious instruments of damnation; but apathy, secularism, and ultra-individualism are less clearly a part of his arsenal. They are, however, in his ranks nonetheless. It is better then that we suffer for a decade ridding ourselves of these plagues in life, than it is to sit depraved and suffer for eternity in death.

We must come then to rebuke him with a righteous ire; not gradually or by years of debate, but by swiftly crushing his head as a united heel.

No comments:

Post a Comment