Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Mad Rant: Yes I Do!
I am a (mad) monarchist. I am a monarchist by principle and believe in monarchy in general as the right form of government. It is not even so pertinent to me that I believe monarchy is “better” in as much as I believe it to be “right” whether it is better or not. For example, even if one could point to a monarchy in which the people had to live very modest lives compared to a republic in which they live much more comfortably, I would still say the monarchy is better because it is not the duty of the sovereign or state to make your life easier (in my view) and because even in the poor monarchy as opposed to the prosperous republic, things are in the proper order. It is a little hard for me to put into words but the land is in harmony with Heaven, things are as they should be, as both God and nature intended. It is also a fact that my measuring rods for judging what constitutes success or failure are not the same as those used by most, thoroughly modern, people. The willingness of the State to pay people not to work, to require facilities for transvestites or the availability of free birth control pills are not my standards for what constitutes “greatness” or a government truly serving the needs of the people.
In the same way that most republicans view monarchy as inherently bad, even if it is an extremely successful monarchy or even if the monarch has virtually no power at all, I view republics as inherently bad no matter how good their economy is or seems to be, no matter how licentious they allow their populations to be. Even under the best of circumstances, any republic, by its very nature, suffers in my view from lacking a monarch, lacking that vital link to history, tradition and religion. Even in those republics and under such non-royal leaders that I view as being comparatively better than others (Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal or Moreno’s Ecuador), I would still view a monarchy as being better and consider their lack of a monarch to be their primary detriment. I would support them as being superior to other republican alternatives but always as incomplete in their success until the monarchy was fully restored. I do not want to see any monarch lose their throne and especially these days when republicanism is so rampant, I view any loss of a monarchy as critical no matter how unpopular it may be. There have been and certainly still are monarchs and monarchies I consider less than perfect, but I still would never, ever want to see them torn down and replaced with another republic. And, yes, before you even ask, that includes monarchies like Brunei, Saudi Arabia and Swaziland. These are all criticized for being absolute monarchies and, yes, I support them all rather than any republic. In the same way, even the most nominal, ceremonial monarchies (Sweden being the usual example), I still support as well as preferable to an outright republic. Why? Because, to quote Tran Cao Van, “The sky is still there! So is the earth and the dynasty!”
The post-Soviet regime in Russia, and certainly that of Vladimir Putin, may be a great improvement over the USSR but, like the bandit government that sits in Peking and calls itself the People’s Republic of China, it is an illegitimate government that has no right to continue usurping the lawful authority of the legitimate sovereign. I cannot be sure how much of this comes down to plain and simple trolling when you boil it down or if some well meaning people are simply taking their eyes off the prize but just because some world leader defies popular trends or defies the United Nations, it does not make them automatically good and I say that as someone who opposes most popular trends and at this point positively despises the UN. Yet, I see this quite regularly. I saw similar support for Saddam Hussein in Iraq, mostly I think by people who just hated America or George W. Bush so much that they just turned their brain off to the fact that the regime of Saddam Hussein is simply a republican successor state of a gang of regicidal maniacs who slaughtered their King and their whole Royal Family. How on earth anyone claiming to be a monarchist could ever voice support for such an individual, I will never know. Oppose the war and march with Code Pink if you feel like it but Saddam Hussein was a bad guy whose entire regime was illegitimate from start to finish. The same sentiments were displayed again concerning Colonel Gaddafi. I can understand foreigners not wanting their countries to be involved in Libya and I can understand concern that a Libya without Gaddafi in charge might not be an improvement but this was a man who came to power by overthrowing his monarch, King Idris -not the sort of man this monarchist could ever support or feel any sympathy for.