Sunday, June 14, 2009

Monarchy and traditions

Over the past 2 years or so, I have done some serious reflecting on the nature of the Republican and Democratic forms of government, and contrasted them in my mind with other forms of government; such as Communism and Socialism. I have found all these systems wanting in a greater or lesser degree, because in spite of the varied ideologies they have they all suffer from a diseased concept concerning the nature and purpose of the State, and its proper relations to the people. In regards to Republicanism and Democracy, these are based on the illusory concept of "Popular Suffrage," which in fact means nothing in that the masses have neither the capability or know-how to determine or understand the workings of the State in relation to the economy, so purely economic interests seize the opportunity of this vacuum to co-opt the State to insure their control over the economy and the socio-political system. Thus under the guise and fraud of the "will of the people," the most banal aspects of the mass culture enshrine themselves as an oligarchy and plutocracy, and through finance easily control the political class as well as the political process of so-called "elections."
It is common knowledge that all political candidates and parties are controlled by monied interests, just as the political system and its laws are in turn controlled by lobbyists who are also controlled by monied interests. Thus as Julius Evola has pointed out, in this way the purpose and nobility of the State is destroyed through its subordination to the principles of the economy. No matter what system you look at in the modern world, these same subversive processes hold sway and engage in a process of dialectical disintegration with one another. The machinations of high finance and distribution of currency in excess of the GNP of Nations, causes them to fall into patterns of debt in the public and private sectors. This is true no matter what the ideology, as the principles of economy are the same. Similarly the creation of surplus value through wage/profit coefficients, creates an inductive disparity between wages and prices which relocates all wealth to the Capitalist class through the draining of the purchasing power of the wage earners, distributing profit to themselves and scarcity to the workers respectively.
The perversion of Democracy is that it gives power to the plutocrats in light of the incoherent "mass-will."
In spite of the fact that this is also true in Communist countries as the party-bosses raid the coffers of the State to obtain the profits of "State Capitalism," such processes in Capitalist countries do nothing but foment discontent and further the interests of those who would preach the gospel of totalitarianism and Marxism. The perversion of Democracy is that it gives power to the plutocrats in light of the incoherent "mass-will," by default, and through making the State a vehicle of avarice devoid of honor; thereby gives the State too much centralizing power over all aspects of human life. Thus in all collectivist systems based on identification with the masses, (which is every State-based system other than Monarchy) you paradoxically have a totalitarian system based on the tyranny of economic interests and a ruling elite that is unfit to rule, due to the fact that they are beholden only to Mammon and not to any higher principle of honor.
Now, this is the malaise of our times, no doubt. Being an American and citizen of the U.S., I was raised to believe in the myth of Democracy and to view Monarchy as some kind of system of tyranny. But is it really? I think not! Societies of egalitarianism are in fact the biggest tyrannies, for they reduce all aspects of life to that which resonates to the lowest common demominator, and the stolid aspects of mass-culture and values are made into Law and wielded over the population like a gigantic club. The lowest is made highest and thus regiments all aspects of life in machine-like and brutal manner, and loyalty to the State is compelled by force from the top-down, rather than being inspired from the bottom-up, which is the case in Monarchies. Democracy, Republicanism, Socialism, Communism, as well as the over-industrialized and technological artifacts of the world need to be done away with. All of these are but interrelated syndromes of the same disease, which does nothing but reduce Man to a level that is almost less than an animal, by dehumanizing him with the false values of objectivity and modernity at the expense of the subjective verities of truth and honor. A return to Monarchy is the sole hope of the world. Under Monarchy the State is relegated to its primary purpose, to hold the power of economic interests in check so they cannot despoil the people or the land. The mercantile classes are fit to trade but not fit to rule, and the communists I include in this group, due to their myopia about anything outside of "principles of economy." The modern world is the result of this situation, and its diseased condition is blatantly obvious. The Monarchy and Nobility should be the masters of the wealth of society and not the Capitalists, and their wealth should be bestowed by right and not by virtue of the fact that it was earned. Only in this way can the classes of the Nobility have an unbroken training and tradition in the proper uses of wealth, for their benefit and that of their domains.
Even more so, does this apply to the Monarchy. Because the wealth is already in the possession of Royalty and Nobility, the profit-motive and the motive to exploit society for mundane ends is removed . There is nothing to be gained by such economic mediocrity, and thus the Monarchy and Nobility can be concerned with matters of Politics and Sociology, as well as matters pertaining to the well-being of their domains . The moderns will cry: "What is to be gained by such a leisure-class that do not earn their wealth like we do?" A great deal. Only by having a leisure-class freed from material cares is it possible to have a truly educated class. Many captains of industry and Capitalists have conceeded that they have not had the time to become well-read and cultured people. And yet they are leading and controlling the world with only the most feeble an d superficial of educations. Even if they spent a good time in college, this cannot match a lifetime of education that can be obtained by people who are freed from the cares of earning a living. Thus the knowledge of the Royals and Nobility will be superior and more qualitative; and not based on the mundane ends of economy alone, but on higher things and values that alone can give the laws of economy a purpose. The Monarchist traditions of the State and Nobility exercises dominion but not tyranny. In this dominion the various peoples among the ruled manifest loyalty to the Crown, not because the Crown dictates their every choice through the contingencies of the laws of economy, but because the Crown gives them the right to flower as peoples that are fully human, only needing to labor solely to support their own station in life. As Evola pointed out, the feudal system is organic and allows for individual self-actualization for the peoples under it, and does not just regard them as economic units.
Monarchy allows for tremendous decentralization between the auspices of the Royal House, the Nobility, the Houses of Government, and the people. Even the life of a serf is something that a modern worker would envy. A serf labored only during planting and harvesting under the agrarian system, the rest of that time was free-time for the serf to pursue his own interests. You had festivals that went on for months among the serfs, and a noble could be imprisoned for letting his serfs starve if they were old or sick. The ruling classes were accountable not just to their superiors, but also to those lesser than them. They profited from the serfs, but the serfs also profited from the use of the land and worked far less than people do now under the plutocratic tyranny of industrialism. Who is the bigger slave, the serf or the wage-earner? I am certain the wage-earner of modern times would envy the serf. And if Monarchy would treat even the serfs in a more humane way than the poor are treated now, how much better would it be for everyone else! The serfs were valued, and not stigmatized for their spartan life, it was proper to their station and not a reason for criticism. The modern poor are psychologically stigmatized for their inability to make a fortune, as if everyone could just go and do that! The stability of social stations and the purposes innate to them makes for psychological health among human beings. A place from which you can neither rise nor fall, is a rock from which all endeavor can flower and work can exist for its own sake, not for the ulterior motive of either rising from or preventing a fall from where you are. The instability of human purpose and work and its subordination to purely economic ends is the primary cause of social and individual instability and psycho-pathology. A cause and result of modernism. Monarchism with its castes and roles frees humanity from the anxiety of striving to or falling from a particular station in life, each of which is valued in the context of community. Trade guilds, serfs, the ministers of state, Nobility and Monarchy, were an organic continuity that allowed for the flowering of human nature in its diverse forms, from the most humble to the most lofty. Is it any wonder that Monarchy is the most stable and humane from of government the world has ever known? And is it also any wonder that Democracy, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Republicanism, are decaying and crumbling away as we speak, from the entropy of their ignorant and mis-begotten valuations and constructs?

Monarchy And Tradition
By Archonis
a:link.nav {
text-decoration: none;
color: #CC6666;}
a:visited.nav {
color: #CC6666;
text-decoration: none}
a:hover.nav {
color: white}
body {
background-attachment: fixed;
background-image: url(../images/backgrounds/nouveau_side01a_background.gif);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-position: center top;
background-color: black
I recently finished reading "Riding The Tiger" by Julius Evola. It raised some interesting questions in respect to certain matters that I have been thinking about quite a bit, that relates to Evola's corpus of work, and not just this particular book. Evola has been labled a Fascist, Nazi, etc., but these definitions are wrong. If anything, Evola was a Monarchist, and I must confess I also have always had leanings in this direction too, even when I was a Left Wing Anarchist.
There is something about the institutions of Monarchy as they existed in ancient times, when you actually had warrior-kings, and priest-kings, that seem to me to resonate to a much higher level than anything that exists now. And it also can be argued that the peasants and serfs loved their King or their Queen, and would lay down their lives for them, even if they hated their feudal lords. It seems that Monarchy resonates strongly in the psyche of humanity, and this is even true in America, as we Americans cannot get enough of the Royal Family in the news, and many are fascinated with Monarchy and its institutions. In my view, in the early history of Europe there were great Sovereigns. I saw the movie "Elizabeth," not too long ago, and there can be no doubt that Queen Elizabeth transcended the normal human follies of a woman and reached a level of sacrifice and nobility in respect to England, that could only be compared to that of the greatest hero, or mystic. I would have been honored to have lived under Alexander The Great, who was a ruthless conquerer, but a benign ruler. If Alexander could see the suffering that exists now in our drab industrial world, he would surely be horrified. For the evil of these days since the death of the Monarchies and the advent of economic-based Nation States, is that the present epoch and its mediocre and brutal institutions just do not wear down the body with toil and the mind with vexation, but they kill the soul as well. Not just in people, but in everything. That is why the last 300 years have been the most evil in human history. Because even during the reign of the Clerical Holy Roman Empire, people in general still had a sense of basic humanity.
Now you have to discard it, in order to get anywhere in a world that is predicated on force, fraud, brutality, and exploitation of the worst kind, wrapped up in a panopoly of lies. It is true that by the 15th century and beyond, the Monarchies of Europe become degraded. You went from Kings that would get off their thrones to go into battle, to worthless dandyism and the parasitism of the leisure classes. But even these fops had a higher sense of culture, aesthetics, and interest in things that bore upon issues of nobility and honor, than the vile plutocrats that exist now; that are nothing more than slavish-minded savages and greedy swine only concerned with the crude material excesses that a slave would fantasize about, and the plutocrats being devoid of all honor, have the mindset of a slave, and were seen as part of the slave-class, in the ancient world. There is no principle that they would not betray for profit. No degradation that they would not commit to get ahead.
The monarchs lost because their principles of honor dictated that they accept defeat at the hands of the merchant classes, rather than sully themselves by fighting enemies that were beneath them. Marie Antoinette (sp?) apologized to the executioner for stepping on his foot, just before she got her head cut off. The point I am making is the degradation of the monarchies in later European history was in no wise the fault of the monarchies. It was the fault of the "culture aliens," that introduced by stealth the principles of the merchant-state and the bourgoise mentality in the 15th and 16th centuries, and thereby weakened the Monarchies and the principles of Empire; degrading and destroying them by forcing them to fight against nascent Capitalism, in the name of progress. Every effort was made to trick the monarchs into forgetting ancient principles and degrading themselves, and the "culture aliens" used every means at their disposal to turn the Royal Courts into dens of mediocrity and nests of vipers. Monarchs being human after all, succumbed. But the dishonor is not theirs, but rather they are the victims of those who were more inhuman, callous, and shrewd, and these conspirators managed to divorce the monarchies from the higher principles which gave them legitimacy.
The founding fathers of America took money from the same shylocks that were responsible throughout history for destroying the whole of European culture and traditions, including monarchy, and yet blamed the monarchs for this state of things; rather than those who were responsible and who were using the founding fathers to continue their subversive influence to further destroy the West, by fragmenting England from Her colonies, and thereby dividing the West (devoid of its Traditions) into fractious states of savagery and base materialism. The Founding Fathers were obtuse in this respect, not seeing those influences that were hellbent on perverting and subverting everything noble in the world, and turning it to evil channels.
It is clear, and not obscured, that the corporate state in all of its forms with its wage/profit shellgames, issuance of excess currency in excess of the GNP to create inflationary debt and bank profits, and intentional indebting of governments by similar means, is not something that would ever have arisen out of the traditions of Western Civilization, but were imposed through mass movements and conspirators manipulating them who's values were totally alien to anything Western. They stopped at nothing to make this happen, subverting within and attacking without until they won. But the dishonor is not with the dethroned monarchs, but with the victors, the corporate socialist, bolshevik capitalists who created a system of socialism for the rich, and corporate serfdom for everyone else. What irks me is how people on the far Right see Capitalism as Western, and think that this system was created by Europeans, rather than seeing that they are accepting the system that was created by the enemies of everything western, to destroy the West, which they did.
And the serfs of olden times would weep to see the industrial slaves of today, being worked and exploited to death, rather than just having to labor enough to sustain what was their proper station in life, and have the rest of the time to themselves. The monarchs had all of the wealth, and did not have to grind the serfs into dust to get more of it. The plutocrats have all the wealth now too, but it is never enough. They have to squeeze the blood and sweat out of everyone to get more and more. Technology and the technocratic state are a burdensome artifact that turns people into economic units, who's value as human beings is measured in dollars. I would take the WORST monarchy over leaders like this, who are totalitarians who want to micromanage your every breath, whose sole desire is to grind you under heel in a brutal Communist state, or do the same by crushing you with their golden Capitalist cudgel. A choice that is no choice.
There is nothing that remains now of the West as it is, and I look forward to its much deserved destruction. Most likely the technological and ecological substatum will bottom out before the "New World Order" of totalitarian statist communo-corporate fascism gets off the ground. It is too bad that what remains of the "Black Nobility" of Europe lacks the will or power to dethrone the "Third Estate" and bring back a European Empire based on the traditions of Monarchy and feudal nobility, like in ancient times. You could have a constitutional monarchy even, where the King and nobility must prove that they are indeed like the monarchs of yore: resplendent in higher principles and embodying in themselves the spiritual life of the Western world. Then the whole of Europe could be reunited, and all European peoples joined as one in a global "Imperium Europa," spanning Eurasia, Europe, and the Americas.
The flame of Avalon burns as a torch in the sons and daughters of Europe throughout the world. Let it become a conflagration! Death to all imperialist states. Long Live Europe!


Magnetism of a unique monarch
Published on December 3, 2007
On the eve of his 80th birthday, King Bhumibol Adulyadej finds himself even more popular and respected than ever.

else if (google_ads[0].type=="text")

s += '
if (google_ads.length == 1)
* Partners should adjust text sizes
* so ads occupy the majority of ad space.
s += '
' +
google_ads[0].line1 + '
' +

'' + // text
google_ads[0].line2 + ' ' +
google_ads[0].line3 + '' +

'' +
google_ads[0].visible_url + '

else if (google_ads.length > 1)
* For text ads, append each ad to the string.
for(i=0; i ' +
google_ads[i].line1 + '
' +

'' + // text
google_ads[i].line2 + ' ' +
google_ads[i].line3 + '' +

'' +
google_ads[i].visible_url + '

if (google_ads[0].bidtype == "CPC") { /* insert this snippet for each ad call */
google_adnum = google_adnum + google_ads.length;


google_ad_client = 'pub-1044823792492543'; // This is your client_id
google_ad_channel = '4768931034'; //You may contact google to create more channel ids to track various site's performance.
google_ad_output = 'js';
google_max_num_ads = '3';
google_ad_type = 'image,text,html';
google_image_size = '336x280';
google_feedback = 'on';
google_encoding = 'UTF-8';
google_language = 'en';
google_adtest = "off";
/*google_skip = google_adnum; insert this snippet for each ad call */
// -->
google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
Ads by Google
900% Gain on Penny Stocks
Penny Stocks that move up 900%. Join today for Free to profit.
In June last year, a sea of yellow - shirts, caps and scarves worn by almost a million Thais - greeted him during a public appearance on the 60th anniversary of his reign. The atmosphere was so electrifying that one could feel a shiver run through one's body.
The reserve power surrounding King Bhumibol is so awe-inspiring, beyond any worldly explanation, that any Thai is ready to fall on his or her knees to pay utmost respect to him. They love their King knowing full well that he is a good King; it's as simple as that.
Monarchs and heads of states from all over the world who were invited to bear witness to the grand celebrations of the King's 60th anniversary were amazed by his magnetic popularity among his people, a phenomenon that cannot be found elsewhere.
"My Thai girlfriend keeps on talking about the popularity of the King," said a foreign analyst working in Bangkok. "I am sure if a poll were to be held, his popularity would be almost 100 per cent."
About month ago, Thais gasped with worry over the health of His Majesty. The King was hospitalised at Siriraj Hospital, where incidentally HRH Princess Galayani Vadhana, his elder sister, had also been undergoing treatment. The people were relieved when His Majesty was discharged in good health, able to walk by himself.
The King's emergence from the hospital in a smart pink jacket instantly became a fixed and powerful image. There followed a public frenzy for pink T-shirts, which were quickly snapped up and declared out of stock.
The King has since returned to Siriraj Hospital to visit Princess Galayani, alternately wearing green and blue jackets. Again, Thais have been following news of the King's visits every step of the way.
The Ninth King of the Chakri Dynasty is the world's longest-reigning monarch. He has also broken all the records of his predecessors in the Chakri Dynasty. He has outlived all the previous Chakri kings. King Rama I, who founded Bangkok as the new capital in 1782, lived the second longest until 72 years of age.
King Bhumibol has also reigned on the throne longer than any previous Chakri king. King Chulalongkorn, the King's grandfather, reigned for 42 years before passing away, leaving behind a legacy of sweeping legal and administrative reforms that set the stage for Siam to emerge as a modern state.
Prince Chula Chakrabongse's, author of "Lords of Life: The Paternal Monarchy of Bangkok, 1782-1932", characterised the first seven Chakri kings in the first 150 years of the dynasty as the Founder, the Artist, the Ruler, the Enlightened, the Revolutionary, the Liberal and the Philosopher.
The prince did not expand his excellent history book to characterise Rama the Eighth, who passed away prematurely, and did not live long enough to witness the greatness of the reign of Rama the Ninth. He certainly would have ranked King Bhumibol as the greatest of all the Chakri kings.
King Chulalongkorn faced a dilemma from Western colonialism. If he did not open up Siam to the outside world, the Kingdom would, like its neighbours, be devoured by colonial powers. If he were to open up Siam fully, the colonial powers would also win it all. It was not easy, yet King Chulalongkorn relied on a middle-ground policy of avoiding confrontation and agreeing to huge monetary and territorial settlements to prevent Siam from being colonised.
The reign of King Bhumibol has faced a similar dilemma, first from the Cold War and second from globalisation. While Thailand emerged unscathed from the domino effect of communism, if it had failed to open up in the age of globalisation, it would have been left behind in terms of social and economic development. If it were to open up too much, it would have been taken over by outside interests at the expense of the poor. The little trick was to walk the middle path, or gradualism, which has been the hallmark policy of Siamese kings of the past.
King Bhumibol has advocated sufficiency, a theory that has been gravely misunderstood by outsiders, as a way to maintain Thailand's integrity amid the forces of globalisation. Sufficiency is to have enough and not to take risks beyond one's ability to survive. Should there be any global shock, Thailand must survive by being able to stand on its own feet.
The King has initiated several thousand projects to help the poor. Although he may be trapped by his office, his mind and his focus are always on the rural people. His 60-year reign can be characterised as a reign of justice and happiness for the rural people.
There are two aspects, which are most of the time intertwined, to the Thais' respect for the King. First, they respect the King as an individual. Second, they respect the institution of monarchy.
In a recent address to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand, former prime minister Anand Panyarachun clarified these two points succinctly.
"I have often said that the status that our King has risen to after 60 years' reign is something that he has earned. It is not a hereditary thing. When he was made a King at the young age of 17 or 18, nobody knew what kind of King he was going to make. But I think that by his diligence and by his determination and dedication, he has developed into a very good King," Anand said.
"When you talk about our King, he is not only a great King, but he is a good King. I make this distinction, for you can be great man with so many shortcomings and so many faults, but when you say he is a good man, to me it means more. So to me, the fact that he is a good King personally means to me much more than that he is a great King. To be a good King, to be a good man, is something you have to earn. You do not inherit [it].
"So if you try to separate the person from the institution, yes, there is a big gap. Be that as it may, the institution of monarchy is very much ingrained into Thailand and into [the] Thai character. I have no doubt that the institution will remain intact and will go on," he said.
Thanong Khanthong
The Nation

No comments:

Post a Comment