Bookmarks

You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

One of the key historical institutions we can see in our history is Monarchy. In the modern world, Monarchy is seen as a relic of the past, a so-called outdated way of governance that should stick to the dustbin of history now that we are “enlightened” and free from despots. This is a dialectical trap. This article will illustrate the strengths of Monarchy, and how the alternatives -mainly Democracy- fall flat against the superiority of Monarchism.

To establish a unified understanding on what we are talking about, when I use the word “Monarchy”, I am essentially talking about a Monos (Sole) Arkho (To Rule) and will be advocating for an absolute Monarchy. We will be talking about Absolutism and challenge the popular idea of “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

How Monarchy handles the shortcomings of Republican Democracy

To consider Monarchism as an option, we need to find a reason why we need to revert back to it in the first place. In my article against Democracy, I have mentioned the shortcomings that Democracy has in detail. It effectively turns into an Oligarchy at the first opportunity and it gestates a very powerful information class. 'Free' Media has become the enemy of the people, because the media has become a powerful outlet for the elite to exact their control upon the populace. This is how Democracy converts itself into an oligarchical structure, the rich elite has all the media influence that they can buy and spin news stories in their favor. The masses will not be able to do anything because the system you have in place (Democracy in this case) is inherently a divisive system. None of these are a problem in an Absolute Monarchy. There are countless historical examples of this: One of them is of Ivan the “Terrible” (who should be called 'Great'). Ivan considered abdicating the throne due to the constant political struggles of Russia and fighting between power blocks inside the nation. At one point the noble classes were even conspiring with foreign states to undermine the Russian state. As Ivan decided to leave the Russian throne, those very same Aristocrats came to him and asked him to reconsider. They confessed to Ivan that without him, these nobles were goners because the people didn’t like their oppressive ways.

Ivan listened to their advice and went back to his throne, but with a slight revision to policy: He decided to get rid of these nobles via the Oprichnina (Russian Secret Police) and thereafter reformed laws to better suit for the peasantry. What a “terrible” act by this Ivan! High school level Russian History nerds will object by stating that the Oprichnina was an outlet of “oppression”. Metropolitan Ioann of Petrograd writes otherwise, and there are a lot of questionable claims about Czar Ivan’s terribleness. The alleged slaughter of 200,000 people in Novgorod sounds fantastical when we learn that only 27,000 people lived there.

Another example of a Monarch fighting against the Aristocracy would be Basileios II Makedon of the Christian Roman Empire. Basil, who ruled the Roman Empire for 49 years, was one of the best Roman Emperors for various different reasons and one of them was his reforms for the peasantry. His first 10 years were spent wrestling power from the Anatolian Military Aristocracy to enable proper sole rule. Once he reformed the laws to accommodate to the peasantry and subdued the aristocracy, Basil II performed many great deeds for his empire, including bringing the Bulgarian Empire to total submission. If the Roman Empire had turned into a Democracy after the fall of the Western Imperium, we wouldn’t have seen rulers such as a Basil II, known as an inarticulate speaker. Neither would Justinian I have ascended, as he and his uncle Justin were peasants. Neither would the great restorer Alexios Komnenos be a Roman Leader. Rather we would see rulers such as slit-nosed Justinian II retaining power and having the military aristocracy force its own rule towards the Imperium as they would inevitably have a lot of power over the Democratic state. See also how the Hoplites ended up having democratic power in Ancient Athens and kept on voting for Demagogues. Democracy would have caused the second stage of the Roman Empire to fall way earlier than 1453.

Another shortcoming of Democracy would be that what the people want is not necessarily the right thing. I have covered in my article on Welfare and Social Security that despite these two being a civilization-destroying combination, the people will always be in favor of these two policies as they will vote for policies that benefit themselves. In a Monarchy, the king is most concerned with what the people need rather than what the people want. The people would rebel against the king when the king was truly a bad one (such as in the case of the slit-nosed Justinian II), however, in a democracy, a bad yet articulate leader would still be voted in. The Athenian demagogues and the elections of American leaders such as James Buchanan and Barack Obama shows this to be so.

Refutations of Anti-Monarchism

When I have advocated for Monarchism as the best available option, I have met with a flurry of counter-arguments that supposedly refutes Monarchism. A chief supposed counter argument that I see is that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” and that we need to have some sort of “representation for the people”. When it comes to representation, the Monarch, even if it’s a bad one, is an icon of the family. The values of family can only withstand under a Monarchist tradition as we can observe that as republicanism in Europe arose, the values of the family have diminished into absolute nothingness. The Monarch does represent the people because without the people the Monarch is nothing and without the Monarch, the people are also nothing. Family is absolutely essential to a nation and that goes for the Monarch as well. A Monarch that cares for his family, therefore, is incentivized to think not only short-term but also long-term, beyond their lives, so that their offspring and nation does not suffer even after their death. As I have previously shown, Monarchist leaders have represented the people in both internal and external affairs consistently.

Support-Republic-Standard---Shop

Another chief argument I hear is that since absolute power corrupts (a false interpretation), Kings have constantly abused their power and caused death and suffering to their own people. That is simply untrue. If we are to compare the deaths of innocents during Monarchies between the deaths of innocents in Republicanism, Republicanism, and Secularistic systems have accounted for mass deaths and genocide far greater than the totality of centuries of Religious Monarchistic systems! The French Revolution, the World Wars (particularly the second one) and even the modern world have done more evil against innocent people of this world than any Monarchy has ever done in its entire history (even African, slave-owning Monarchs couldn’t compete!). Republicanism caused more strife and wars than Monarchism ever potentially could, it is a clear projection to blame Monarchism on “evil genocidal leaders”. We can also observe the Miletan Genocide perpetrated by the Athenian Democratic Greeks.

As I have covered it in my critique of Democracy, the argument that Democracy gave us prosperity is fallacious. The Industrial Revolution didn’t start because of the rebirth of Republican Democracy (it started in a Constitutionally Parliamentary Monarchist Britain with colonies and resources). Technological advancements is what gave us the industrial revolution and the like. The reason why I am mentioning this is that we cannot equally compare the average US citizen to a serf 500 years ago, ignoring all the technological progress that inevitably shifted society.

Speaking of serfdom, it is quite interesting to compare the life of a serf with a wage slave, the serf enjoyed much more free time than the average wage slave today. When we are talking about how the serfs are oh so “oppressed”, we should not forget that their oppression is not too different from us (and in many ways, much lesser), not to mention that serfdom is a product of feudalism, not of Monarchy, but it is frequently brought up in these discussions and needs to be addressed.

Another argument is that Monarchism is pro-imperialism. The imperialism of Monarchy is less deadly than the imperialism of Republican Democracy. One of the first recorded victims of imperialism were Greek city-states and islands near Athens. All the men of Melos that refused to be ruled by Athenians were executed for no proper good reason. The people of Melos weren’t even against Athens; they were neutral. We can see the effects of modern American Imperialism which costs of countless innocent lives of Middle Easterners and then by extension, Europeans! We can talk about the atrocities that Spain, France, and England committed, but all of these nations combined didn’t even come close to what the US did after its formation.

What about the leaders and their greatness? There has not been a single great leader that was Democratically elected. Great leaders arose from Monarchies and always had absolute power. Democracies have bad leaders and not-so-bad leaders. The possibility of a great leader arising from Democracy, or any other system for that fact, is still unproven. However, Monarchies have consistently given rise to the great leaders that history is all about.

Lastly, I would like to address the “Crazy Heir” argument. One of the most popular -yet worst- arguments against Monarchism, the argument states that “what if the heir/monarch is crazy/goes crazy?”. My counter to that would simply be that we are already ruled by crazy sociopathic people. No one that is sane in their minds would push the number of lies that political democratic parties are pushing; to the point where shifting positions are seen as a normal occurrence rather than a weakness. The “craziness” argument is also countered by national reaction towards the “crazy” monarch. A very unpopular and poor Monarch will be betrayed by its subjects and have another Monarch in line be installed. Many great leaders have assumed power via this method, one of them is Alexios Komnenos. In a Democracy, as long as the crazy leader is charismatic, he will still be elected.

On Late-Stage Imperial Russia

This is a special section dedicated to the Left Wing Liberals and the Right Wing Liberals (two sides of the same coin) that would argue to me that Imperial Russia was a prime example of what a Monarchy is really about. A backwater shithole ridden with famine. The claim that Imperial Russia was a clear example of what a Monarchy is about, is indeed true. The claim that it was a shithole, however, is a very popular claim that is proven to be false. The left wingers claim that Russia was too capitalistic with rich people owning everything, and the right wingers would retaliate by claiming that it failed to industrialize. The first issue is that both of these people use Lenin’s false “research” as evidence. The modern educational system also uncritically accepts Soviet “research” about Imperial Russia. The second issue is that we need to analyze Imperial Russia compared to what other countries and cities were doing at the time.

Research shows that the Agrarian crises of late Imperial Russia -if they even existed-, were limited to the black earth region. When researched even further, Russia is shown to not only to not be a backwater nation, but an economic powerhouse. Russia was first place in industrial development during its late stages, employment had a sharp increase and real wages had a sharp growth. If Russia was truly a “backwater” then there wouldn’t be rising demand, yet the demand for Russian goods was also on a sharp rise.

1

When it comes to the availability of the minimum basket of goods to be able to feed yourself, Moscow was number one out of all European cities.

2

When it comes to being able to buy respectable goods, despite the unsavory class differences in Moscow, the unskilled workers in St. Petersburg on average could still afford a high-class basket of goods for its time. Combined with the rising industrialization of Russia, had Russia not been invaded by outside forces under the guise of a Communist “revolution”, we would most definitely see these numbers improving as post-war economies after political stability always improves. Instead we saw a great famine and deaths of millions of Russians. It took the Soviets decades to realize the gift they have been handed by Imperial Russia. Thanks, Communism!

The Christian Case for Monarchy

When looking at political ideologies, we also have to invoke metaphysics, religion, and ethics to legitimize our worldview. The secularist worldview is thus unjustified because of its glaring contradictions and its relativistic approach to life. In the Christian Worldview, I would go as far as to argue that having an anti-monarchist stance is grounds for heresy.

Scripturally speaking, the Old Testament is all about a Monarchist rule, including the periods where Democracy existed. Nowhere in the Bible can we see an endorsement of Republican Democracy. What we do see is a constant endorsement of Monarchy. God tells His followers both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament to obey the King. He doesn’t say “Obey the President” or “Obey the Consul”, but He says “King”, “Emperor”. Coupled with the fact that despite the Apostles lived in a very Hellenized world, they do not even mention Democracy as a possible governmental form. Surely God would choose not to ignore democracy if He considered it as a viable alternative!

Some Christians, especially Baptists -who are too libertarian for their own good- will come to me with 1 Samuel 8, where God supposedly rebuked Israel for wanting a king. There are a lot of issues with that, namely that in Deuteronomy 17:14-15 there is a presupposition of an Israelite King, and Moses himself is setting rules for these kings. Where is the rebuke then? The main reason Israel was rebuked for wanting a King was because they wanted to move to a secularistic administration, they wanted a king like all nations. In Judges 21:25, the lack of a proper authority by a king implied a state of Anarchy and relativism.

What about the Early Church Fathers, the students of the apostles? Early church fathers supported and important Christian figures all supported Monarchy. Eusebius of Caesarea claims that Monarchy is the superior form of government. St. Gregory the Theologian gives us an excellent quote regarding Monarchy:

“The three most ancient opinions about God are atheism (or anarchy), polytheism (or polyarchy), and monotheism (or monarchy). The children of Greece played with the first two; let us leave them to their games. For anarchy is disorder: and polyarchy implies factious division, and therefore anarchy and disorder. Both these lead in the same direction – to disorder; and disorder leads to disintegration; for disorder is the prelude to disintegration. What we honor is monarchy.”

What about the Ecumenical Councils, which are accepted by most Christians, who convoked them? It was the Roman Emperor’s that initiated the Ecumenical Councils. Without these Emperors, there would have been no Ecumenical Council. The Crown derives its power from the Altar (The Church would crown the kings), which allows the crown to initiate the Ecumenical Councils for the altar and the Christian Faith. This proves that kings and emperors are instrumental to the faith.

Roman-Empire-Flag

The Double Headed Eagle

Let us analyze the double-headed eagle, another symbol of importance in Christian history. The first point of analysis is that the double-headed eagle is not a Freemasonic symbol like some deranged protestants/conspiracy theorists would like you to believe. It is much older than that. The second point is to notice the sword and the orb, the ball represents the Church, and the sword represents the state -remember Romans 13:4- this flag represents the unity and Symphonia between the church and the state that has lasted for more than a thousand years, not only for the Roman Empire but also for the Russian Empire.

What do the Republicans and Revolutionaries that brought down traditional values think of Christians? Allow me to get several quotes from Revolutionary fathers:

Jean Jacques Rousseau: “Christ preached only servitude and dependence … True Christians are made to be slaves.”

Voltaire: “Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.”

Denis Diderot: “Man will only be free when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

These are the men that built the society you live in today. Believing that these men have the interests of Christians at heart is absurd, for they hate the very notion of an objective truth.

Symphonia, a Theo-Political doctrine of the Church and State being united, is a doctrine that is older than all Ecumenical Councils and their established dogma. To think that Monarchy, an institution that co-existed with Christian Empires both East and West for more than 1600 years is unrelated to Christianity is unwise.

Monarchism as a system, both theologically and secularly, is superior to the nonsense of Republican Democracy, that destroyed Monarchy not only in the west but also in the world at the cost of moral damage, countless lives, and worse governance. If we are to advocate for a European Revival, modernistic and post-modernist ideological solutions will not help us.

Going back to our roots and claiming back what made us truly great is going to allow a true revival!

Freebird-Political-Forum

Theódoros Trapezountos

by Theódoros Trapezountos

Ted Trebizond is an Orthodox Christian Reactionary with a deep distaste for the modern world.