Funny- that topic sort of resonates with that of the post I was just trying, in vain, to write on Marie-Amelie, Queen of the French. She was brought up in the tradition of 'sacred monarchy' but had to deal with the emerging 'modern secular state,' not least by the fact of being married to the liberal Louis-Philippe (whom, by a further irony, she deeply loved).
A nice piece. It wouldn't be hard to extend it to Catholic monarchism either; the alliance of Throne and Alter is of supreme importance in the West as well, and arguably, our rot began with the Holy Roman Empire's dissolution in 1806.Still, the interregnum may end. Europe politicians have asked the population to trust them again and again, and yet they have betrayed that trust, and the rhetoric of their revolutions. In time, the trust will be lost, and monarchs will be demanded, to arbitrate and to ensure the unity and peace of the Realm.
I wish you the best of luck Matterhorn -that is something more people need to hear I think considering the habit of many to paint the Orleans with such a broad brush. Her faith must have been strong as it was passed on for quite a while. Carlota (or pardon moi, 'Charlotte') very much had the idea of the monarchy as a sacred trust and that they would be accountable to God for the care of their people.To Mr Wells, there are still a fair number of Catholics who would echo the words of the East Orthodox on the matter. Such sentiments were out of vogue for a while but I think may be on the way back. Hopefully it is something that can draw the east and west closer together. As for politics, it is often said that the embrace of totalitarianism before WW2 was the result of disillusionment with democracy after WW1. Of course I don't think it's that simple, but perhaps this next time the public will think twice about trusting the 'politician class' in general.
www.tumblarhouse.com/ultra-realism.php this explains the metaphysics of sacred monarchy further
The Biggest problem with the Modern, Secular State is not that it lacks a sense of the Sacred, but that it holds as Sacred the Ideals of the Enlightenment, which Emphasis Human Reason, but Identifies Reason with Materialism and a Focus on oneself and ones own Desires.The Utopian Vision of the Revolutionaries was an is intrinsically based upon the idea that the Human Animal Is growing into a higher state of Consciousness, and that this Results in greater Human Rights being given where before they had been Denied. They elevate the principles of Human Rights to the highest of Sacred Tenets, and base as the Supreme Arbiter of Human Rights Human Society, rather than Divine Justice, and assume now that every passing whim, every impulse, ever desire to make oneself feel Pleasure, which they mistake for happiness, is a Basic Human Right. The Obsession with Human Rights today stems from the fact that Human Rights are themselves a Sacred and Inviolable tenet, and that these must emerge from Human Desire, and be granted by Human Society.Today’s world also holds Sacred the belief that Democracy is supreme. It is such an Ideological belief tat even if a Society exists that isn’t Democratic, but works and has happy people who like it, that system must be overthrown in the name of “Human Rights And Democracy”, because Democracy is the ONLY Legitimate form f Government.Hence why Sarkian Feudalism fell. It wasn’t Democratic, and Democracy is Sacred.The Focus of all this is on Man himself, and worse, on the most base of Impulses of he Human Animal. Most of the Philosophers who follow in the Enlightenment Tradition thought that the Human Animal was restrained by the Morality of “Religion”, and that most Moral compunctions given by the Church had been assigned either by Primitives who weren’t aware of the true Human Nature, or else by those who sought to exercise control over us. It didn’t matter, as they saw Religious Moral Tenets to be based around a hatred of Human passion and the Human Body and intrinsically unhealthy, causing untold sorrow, and adverse reactions.To them, Liberation from Religion (Really just Christianity at the time) meant that the human Animal could be free from the Superstitions of the past that blinded Reason and Progress, and free of the Moral Constraints based around Control and fear, and explore the natural urges in Humanity.
As they believed Humanity was intrinsically good, and that Nature was supreme over our lives, they felt that Human passions were themselves good too, and that exploration of those passions and desires rather than repression of them would lead to a happier, more contented people, who could advance farther than any in History for their uninhibited ways. They even linked a lack of Constraint to a lack of Hindrance to reason and creativity, and saw the Human Animal, free of the Constraints of an Artificial Morality, capable of anything.So it’s not quiet true that they lack a sense of the Sacred, they venerate Nature, or rather their view of it, Human reason, so long as it arrives at the conclusions they wish it to and rests on the premises they demand, and Human Passion, so long as it is passion that occurs separate form the sentiments of the past.They also hold as Sacred the creed that al Power is vested in the People, and Democracy is supreme.Of course this ideology is intrinsically self focused, and in the end leads to selfish, short sighted people who demand what why want now, rather than looking towards a long term good, and who have no real sense of Civic Duty, as this doesn’t occur out of those much vaunted “Natural Passions”. it’s a society of restless souls looking for their next thrill and working only to get the money or power to get their next proverbial fix. To get laid, to get drunk, to eat for the day, and to play Video Games or watch movies.Rather than the Utopia, it created a world were men never become truly men but remain Children, and in which the only thing that matters is personal self interest, and seeking ones own pleasures.And they wonder why Crime, the Dissolution of Family, and economic collapse occurs regularly.
If I might build again on what you have said Zarove, the focus on rights has meant that we have ignored our responsibilities. We have the right to the pursuit of happiness; but we still have to catch it ourselves, for that is our responsibility. And yet, the right to be happy sees many turn to the State to provide it, because they aren't aware of their responsibility.It is this duality that has become unbalanced. Without a sense of duty and responsibility, our society has devolved and decayed, as everyone focuses on right as opposed to responsibilities.When one does not focus on the right to vote, but instead focuses on the duty to serve, then monarchy not only becomes viable, but even preferable to democracy (which gets reinforced further by the article in the original post). And that is why rights are always pushed - to encourage one in responsibility is to encourage heirarchy and community, which are two things that ultimately lead one to monarchy (for community and heirarchy are but extensions of one's family), as illustrated in the article.
I quiet Agree. The whole "Rights" issue has become rahe rout of control, and even the NEoCons cmplain about it. They of coruse can't grasp the cutre, for it woudl be unthinkable. STillyou can't just asusme peopel demanding rights endlessly with no sense of Responcibility will lead to anythign but DIssolution of community, and eventually Family.