Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Mad Rant: Yes I Do!

I am constantly amazed at how oblivious to obvious facts an average human being can be. I am constantly astounded at the number of people (not a majority to be sure, but a steady stream nonetheless) who come to the weblog or Facebook page titled “The Mad Monarchist” only to then feign outrage to find support for monarchy. Yes, it happens. Sometimes, just to make these really hilarious, these people do not even claim to be in the wrong place. These are the “I’m a monarchist, but…” people who never cease to be a source of amusement and frustration at their ridiculous questions. I want to scream at the computer screen, “YES I DO! Before you even ask, the answer is YES, I really do think that, I really do support -insert name of monarchy or monarch here- and yes I really do oppose -insert name of republic here- for all the reasons I have given!” I wonder if regular readers would believe how often yours truly has been confronted with this scenario. Do republicans have to endure this sort of thing? Somehow, I doubt it. Somehow, I doubt that websites that are Jacobin, socialist or Marxist in nature have people showing up saying, “I’m for liberty, equality and fraternity all the way but, Louis XIV was awesome wasn’t he?” I would be willing to bet no one has ever gone to the website of some group like the Sons or Daughters of the American Revolution and said, “I’m for General Washington and Yankee Doodle all the way but, you don’t really think King George was that bad do you?” Yet, for some reason, I seem to attract these people.

Why this is the case, I will never know. I take a look around here and consider that I have made the extent of my absolute belief in monarchy abundantly clear. Do they not see the prominently featured mascot or read the very prominent quotations from this rather mad monarchist at the top and bottom of every page? Do they think I put them there but do not really agree with them? Well, I do! And that is one of the most tiresome lines: “You don’t really believe that do you?” or “You don’t really agree with that do you?” Yes. I do. This exchange has happened far more often that I would prefer. Yes, I do think the Ottoman Empire was superior to modern-day Turkey. Yes, I do think Russia was better off under the Tsar than anything that has come since 1917. Yes, I do think China was a better place under the imperial dynasties than is the case with either of the Chinese republics existing today. Yes, I *really* do. I really do think Tibet was better off when the Dalai Lama was in charge, I really do think that Maximilian was the best leader Mexico has ever had and, yes, I really do think that there was not one, single, solitary good thing that came from the French Revolution. So, to anyone reading this site for the first time, before you even ask, yes I do, I really do, don’t waste your time and mine.

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.

Just as amazing to me is the “shock” (real or feigned, who can tell?) expressed by those when, in any conflict between a monarchy and a republic -I side with the monarchy. Astounding; isn’t it? I do not know how much more clear I can make this. I am a monarchist. I view monarchy as an absolute good, as the ideal way for things to be ordered. It is the polar opposite of those (and there are many) who say, “Well, the French Revolution was rather messy and the Reign of Terror was pretty horrible but, hey, at least they got rid of the monarchy so things were improving.” To these people, republicanism is an absolute good in and of itself. Regardless of all else, anything that gets rid of monarchy and advances republicanism they view as a good thing whereas yours truly believes that monarchism is an absolute good and regardless of all else, anything that gets rid of a republic and advances monarchy is a good thing. As I have stated before, I categorize revolutions as being comparatively better or worse depending on how the monarchy in question or monarchy in general was affected by it. So, while I regret Mexico breaking away from Spain, the Spanish King remained on his throne and was succeeded, in Mexico, by another monarch (albeit briefly), I do not view this as anywhere near as bad as, say, the French Revolution which saw the monarchy abolished and the Royal Family murdered. I view the Russian Revolution or the 1911 Revolution in China as being worse than the “Glorious Revolution” in Great Britain or even the American Revolution in which a monarch lost territory but did not lose his throne or his life.

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!”

Finally, just as I will support any legitimate monarch, on principle, so too will I oppose any illegitimate republican poser no matter how “cool” people in certain circles may think they are. I have been disgusted by the number of people, again claiming to be “monarchists”, who have actually voiced not only grudging support but praise and admiration for republican leaders such as the late Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or, more recently, Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Recently there have also been people, from what I have seen so far mostly self-hating types who love anyone who makes America look bad (which the American government can do just fine on its own thank you) who have adopted Vladimir Putin as their new poster boy. There are certainly things I applaud Putin on, there are even issues in which I think he is in the right and my own country is in the wrong -he may be the best republican leader Russia has ever had, however, the Russia of Putin is not the Russia of the Romanovs and I will not, so long as I draw breath, settle for anything less than that. It also does not help that no post-Soviet Russian government has totally denounced the USSR and, indeed, seems intent on continuing many of the same policies of the Soviets, particularly when it comes to foreign relations. The biggest change on that front, Russia being in drawn in ever closer to the embrace of Communist China, is not a good thing (for Russia or anyone else besides the CCP).

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.

Finally, since the issue has come up since I started writing this rant, allow me to make mention of the recently discussed issue of territorial disputes. These can be touchy since, for nationalistic reasons, regardless of their government, many people can be moved to great oratorical passion over the odd stretch of sand, barren ice fields or uninhabited rocks in the middle of the ocean. I am perfectly accepting of that given that I view nationalism as preferable to internationalism which I think there is far too much of these days. Personally, the most painful of these are the spats between two monarchies such as Great Britain and Spain or Thailand and Cambodia. However, again, I have been just a bit baffled at those who seem surprised that, in a dispute between a republic and a monarchy, this avowed and adamant monarchist would take the side of the monarchy in the dispute. Now, just to be clear, in each such case I have looked into, the monarchy was happily in the right and quite obviously so in my opinion, however, I again wonder if similar surprise or outrage would be expressed at an avowed communist siding with East Germany rather than West Germany or the Soviet Union rather than the United States. Somehow, I doubt it. It can be rather tedious for my frayed nerves but let me state, once again, very clearly, for the public record: I support monarchs over republican usurpers in any and all cases, I support any average monarchy over any average republic, even in the case of my own country there has never been one war waged against a monarchy I felt was justified or necessary and I hold monarchy in itself to be an absolute good. And I don’t think that should be shocking as I am … The Mad Monarchist.

9 comments:

  1. Once again, a very excellent article indeed! I too am baffled when people who know that I am a monarchist are still somehow surprised when they find out that I support ___________ monarch(y). I am an absolutist, personally, but just as you said I'd prefer any constitutional or ceremonial monarchy over any republic, any day. Stay strong, stand fast, and stay mad. God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Better a Mad Monarchist than a radical republican. I support you 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As I said, this is not so much a "mad rant" as it is a remarkably fair, reasonable and brutally truthful. Politics makes such strange bedfellows on topics such as Syria, Israel and whatnot. So why would anyone calling themselves monarchist identify with regimes that are not friends of Western civilisation and not friends of monarchy? It could only be because of people's prejudices clouding their ability to think objectively and thus sabotaging the very cause they claim to champion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I myself support Bashar al-Assad, for example, on the sole grounds that a) he is a good national leader who is standing himself on the forefront of a war against internationalist Mohammedanism, and b) he in doing so is protecting Christians from being slaughtered. If he were not doing this, I would have no particular support, but I think the fact that he is doing this matters.

      I am a traditionalist as well as a monarchist, so while I do not think that Putin is the best thing for Russia, I believe him to be better than the West on the sole grounds that he is a traditionalist. I am also Orthodox, so I support him on the grounds that he is trying to bring the country back to their faith.

      I think that we can recognize monarchy as being a great good, without thinking it is the only good.

      Delete
  4. Hear, hear!

    Though, I've always wondered (though it should be a no-brainer, I still consider it quite a bit) if your religion factors into which monarchies you, if you had to choose between the two, would prefer? I suppose the answer is if you had to choose between a Catholic, Orthodox, Islamic, or some pagan empire, which would you choose and on what merits would that choice be made?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being Catholic, I want to see Catholic monarchies restored but I want other monarchies restored too. Historically most non-Christian monarchies, at least in the last few hundred years, have been fairly tolerant of religious minorities. Some certainly did persecute Christians although this was not the same as Jacobin or Communist persecution of Christians.

      An Islamic Empire would be a Caliphate but it is not certain who would be eligible for such. The last great Hindu Empire was that of the Marathas, whose successors are the royal families of Satara and Kolhapur.

      Delete
  5. I think all monarchists are used to that reaction these days, though with people I meet, its usually bemused surprise rather than hostility. As the most prominent and eloquent monarchist voice on the Internet these days, it seems MM takes the brunt of the abuse and stupidity from the general public, for which I have to just say thank you for hanging in there and fighting the good fight for all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "who come to the weblog or Facebook page titled “The Mad Monarchist” only to then feign outrage to find support for monarchy"

    Perhaps the word "monarchist" is too big for them, after all republicans (both the liberals & the commies) are not known for their intellect.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...