Monday, July 2, 2012

A Mad Monarchist Political Statement

From time to time I have been asked to summarize my political outlook as a whole or my “world view” if you will. Admittedly, this seems silly to me as I have never been shy about voicing my opinion on any subject and reading here everyday would, I think, give anyone a good grasp of my political opinions. I have also never had all that great of an urge to map out what would be my ideal system given that neither my own or anyone else’s ideal system will probably ever come about. However, if it would inform or entertain anyone to read something more than the simple statement that, “I am a monarchist” this, I hope, will serve to answer those who would be interested to know what sort of political system I would prefer. Given that, I will say at the outset, it would be to have no “political system” at all.

I believe in the style of system broadly defined as “traditional authority”. For virtually any country this refers to some form of monarchy. This means that, as a monarchist, I am at heart a theoretical absolutist. That being said, absolutism is not exactly what most people today think it is. I favor absolute monarchy but not arbitrary monarchy nor would I favor any kind of arbitrary authority whatsoever being held by mortal men. The absolutism I favor is that which says the final and ultimate authority of a given country, the basis upon which all civil order is built, must be sacred, inviolable and impossible to remove. To maintain the distinction between absolute and arbitrary there should always be checks and balances and in a society in which traditional authority is paramount this role would be filled by the clergy and nobility for the most part. I am in no way in favor of tyranny and in fact prefer as the ideal government the least government of all. Governments in the High Middle Ages (a rather glorious period to my mind) were positively Lilliputian and often consisted of little more than the king and his court.

I am fully aware that it would require a massive counterrevolution in world political thought for the system I would consider most ideal (at least at this point in my life, my views are subject to change on the finer points and open to persuasion outside the areas of monarchy and religion) to ever come about in this day and age. Ideally I would prefer a “government” that is practically no government at all as modern humanity understands the word. A king, clergy and nobility is all the government I feel should be necessary most of the time with each looking to their own mission. In looking at history, I have never seen parliaments, politicians and political parties do well by any country in the world. All too often we look upon these things as the instruments of liberation whereas in truth they have enslaved the world to a ruling political elite, they have encouraged division, discord, mass politics and the horrors of “total war” in which whole populations are filled with an ideology and hurled en masse at the populations of other countries indoctrinated with a different version. People did not live in nightmarish conditions before the rise of mass politics, all-encompassing taxation or the welfare state. Monarchs looked after the major issues of national interest, the clergy looked after the spiritual welfare of the people and nobles looked after their land. The common folk lived happy self-sufficient lives and were vastly more independent than the citizens of the most liberal democratic republics of today.

Today it is most common around the world for monarchs to play no active role in government at all. I do not believe this should be the case. On principle, I will support any monarchy, no matter how limited, as preferable to no monarchy at all but monarchs should have the power to act. As the saintly Tsar Nicholas II of Russia put it, even if he gave away his power to govern, he could never give away the ultimate responsibility which was his alone. But then, we are asked; how does one guard against tyranny? To my mind, it seems rather simple. Let the monarch be absolute but be self-sufficient and leave little for the government to have to bother with in the first place. If the rights of everyone to that which is justly and legitimately their own would be enforced, there would be no need for much of the government as we know it today. If everyone supported their church there would be little problem for religious institutions to take the place of the social welfare state and, I tend to think, do a better job at it in the process. If private property rights were truly and absolutely upheld, the state would be left with little to do other than to maintain law and order, uphold contracts, carry out relations with foreign nations and defend the country. In these areas, not only could a monarch do the job of an elected or appointed government but a monarch could invariably do them far better.

How is this so? A monarch has a vested interest in maintaining law and order as violence and disorder tends to be detrimental to the survival of any monarchy. This is totally different from elected politicians who often have much to gain by causing division and stirring up civil strife. Provoking a problem and then demanding greater power in order to deal with it is a long established tactic among politicians. In the area of foreign policy, a monarch can maintain a coherent and consistent, long-term strategy in dealing with other countries in a way no temporary political government ever could. We have seen clearly enough in our own time the chaos and ill will that is bred by one government pursuing one foreign policy until the next election at which time that same country, under a new government, pursues the very opposite policy with old allies being tossed aside and the enemy of yesterday being treated as the friend of today. A monarch who is on the throne for life can cultivate real trust among other nations, builds years of experience and can pursue a straight and consistent course. Finally, in the area of defense, it should go without saying that a monarch invariably has stronger support amongst the armed forces than the average politician and, as the country is “their” country, again has a vested interest in defending the country to the very best of their ability against all enemies and will do so in order that they may pass it on to their heirs and successors.

A monarch should have sufficient executive powers to be of best use to the country for without sufficient authority they can neither do good nor repress evil. A monarch should be able to deal with specific situations as they arise without getting a legislature involved which can only pass laws that inevitably become a huge, tangled mess of often redundant or contradictory rules and regulations, always added to and seldom lessened. Considering, however, that the modern world is not about to do without our beloved political talking shop and army of overpaid bureaucrats, if we must have a legislature I would prefer it to be organized in a different way. I would think that something along the lines of the Estates-General of the old Kingdom of France (representing nobility, clergy and commons) or the original Cortes Generales in Leon-Castile or, perhaps, the colleges of the Imperial Diet of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. There would have to be some modifications of course, but some form of representation based on social groups or occupational background would seem to me to be a way in which to discourage the formation of political parties and mass politics. I would deem any form of representation preferable which provides a means of protecting the interests of its constituents without at the same time encouraging the development of political parties. Political parties, in my view, are about the nearest thing to pure poison there is for traditional society.

I will repeat though that if my ideal of absolute commitment to private property and vested rights were put into effect, there would be very little for any elected national assembly to do. Individuals would make their own decisions, manage their own affairs and there would simply be no reason to have a permanent national assembly of any sort. The only justification I can see for having a national assembly is so that the taxpayers can have a voice in how their money is spent. However, in my ideal realm there would be very little, perhaps even only intermittent, taxation in the first place. National assemblies basically sit to decide what to do with the resources of others. If we got rid of the government welfare state, if we reverted to the contractual agreements, private roads and private security forces of the High Middle Ages, the government would have no need for the vast majority of taxes that are collected today and thus no need for huge national assemblies to decide how such taxes are spent.

When it comes to external issues, foreign relations and the like, I would fit into neither the interventionist or isolationist camps. It does make a critical difference though on whether or not a country has a monarch who can carry out a consistent foreign policy throughout his or her lifetime rather than an elected head-of-state who changes with every administration. I would base interaction with foreign countries on the same basic system as those between people domestically, which is to deal with foreign countries based on mutual consent and be open about it. The old colonial empires hold no terror for me but everything should be done openly and honestly. If one country wants protection from another country, they should be prepared to offer something in exchange for that protection. I see nothing sinister about that nor do I see anything underhanded or disreputable in the policy that some once called “sacred egotism” or ‘sacred self-interest’. Arbitrary aggression (it should go without saying) is always to be condemned. This is not the same thing as giving aid to a country against a common enemy who is as much a threat to you as to another people. Nor is it the same as a country taking necessary action when the interests of its people are threatened.

Much of what happens today, in terms of “interests” overseas for countries is economic and is based on the fact that so many countries have indebted themselves to others and then react against the consequences of this. Any country which places itself in the hands of another runs a great risk but any country, the same as any individual, is free to take such risks if they determine that other factors outweigh it. My primary point here is that what is popularly known today as “imperialism” was far more beneficial and even moral than the “humanitarian”, international, social programs of today which shackle people in poverty, stagnate countries, prop up tyrants and drain the resources of one country (or group of countries) while returning nothing of value except perhaps for the small elite which manages the transactions and takes a bit off the top for themselves. Compare this to the past when, even with all their flaws, imperial powers necessarily had (to varying degrees) to develop countries simply as a consequence of pursuing their own goals. I would advocate something similar but simply more openly and insisting that agreements (or contracts) are strictly upheld and adhered to. In some ways this may be the most controversial of my opinions but it has only grown stronger over the years as I have looked into the facts of real world examples. I have no problem with groups of countries, usually with some measure of things in common, banding together for mutual benefit. I have a very big problem with irrational, idealistic international organizations like the United Nations which have done a great deal of harm all over the world and, I will add, I detest the very word “globalism”.

If one country does some favor, some good, gives some benefit to another country, they should not be expected to get nothing in return for this. Charity is a wonderful thing but “charity” which is coerced is not charitable at all and, indeed, destroys the charitable impulse. This applies on the national level as well as on the individual level. When this becomes institutionalized as a program it makes people dependent, causes resentment and does more harm than good, both to those who give the aide as well as those who receive it. Such actions also make people less charitable and less generous because caring for those truly in need is seen as the responsibility of some international organization or the government or some foundation or another. Actual charity is something which should be appreciated but never expected. Of course, aside from the long-term planning and consistency that comes from having a monarch, any government could adopt these kinds of policies if they decided to. The bottom line is that no one should expect free favors in foreign policy and no country should have to apologize to, defer to or subsidize any backward, impoverished, failed country simply for being more successful than they are.

To summarize, while I would oppose arbitrary power being wielded by anyone or anything, I do believe in absolutism. I hold that everyone, from the monarch down to his lowest subject, should be absolute in their position and in all which is justly and legitimately their own. No one should ever have the power to take from anyone anything, whether property or title, earned or legitimately inherited. No mob, no matter how numerous, can or should be able to tell a King that he is no longer King just as the neighbors of one community should not be able to vote to seize the property of the most successful amongst them or that the least successful should be eliminated as a needless burden to society. I hold to the absolutism of independence. A monarch should be absolute and independent in that his position is sacrosanct and inviolable, not that he may do anything to anyone for any reason as he pleases. In the same way, things like “rights” and “freedoms” which most people today talk about are the imaginary, meaningless words tossed around by revolutionary mobs and political assemblies. True freedom cannot come from elections, a political party or a piece of paper but only from independence. The only person who is free is the person who is independent. Such independence is the just reward of whoever achieves it and at the highest level the independence of the monarch is the independence of the nation and neither should have what is rightfully their own subject to the whim of popular opinion.

The agents of the monarch should act to uphold, defend and protect and not to compel or coerce. This means upholding the traditional family as strong family units are demonstrably essential to the wellbeing of any society. It also means upholding the moral code, the “Truth” which should be the heart of any country. Efforts to coerce people into accepting this would be futile but the Truth should nonetheless be defended from attack. One may not agree but while one cannot and should not be prevented from disagreeing, one should be prevented from tearing down. This applies to both the religious and the philosophical spheres. It may sound harsh to modern ears but surely most would agree that demonstrably harmful ideologies such as Nazism or Communism should not be tolerated but that a country must be protected from these dangers which have proven themselves dangerous. Choosing to hold such views is one thing but choosing to spread them or enforce them on others would absolutely not be allowed. To tolerate that which is harmful is surely taking open-mindedness to suicidal levels. Evil can never be tolerated and the good must be defended and any country or society which cannot agree on the difference between the two will not long survive.

I could go into detail about other specific issues but, this is meant to be a basic overview and not a comprehensive list of my thoughts on all current events and, I fear, I have gone on too long already. Obviously, as stated before, one would be hard pressed to take all of the above and find a neat place my views would fit into amongst the current, fashionable ideologies. Also, to repeat, outside of the areas of religion and monarchy (and my support for monarchy comes from religion) I am always open to new thoughts and convincing arguments. My views have modified in many areas over the years and may well again in the future, but at present this is my general point of view. I hope I have at least satisfied the curious and/or provided the casual reader with something of interest or something to consider, whether or not you agree. Indeed, perhaps especially if you do not as my views are certainly not popular or mainstream. That, I think, is putting it rather mildly but, that is why I am … The Mad Monarchist.


  1. One of your best rants yet M.M.

    Monarchy is the ideal small government, you don't have 36789 bureaus breathing down your neck to "do and contribute whats right for society."

    Instead you have an Absolute representative of the people, the monarch, charged with the well being of his/hers Nation, People and Culture.

    With the Monarch ruling the nation justly everyone has more Liberty. To me that is the key word "liberty", the liberty to live our your life without the government forcing you to hand over your well earned livelihood to the undeserving so the welfare state can continue to churn out more "equal" servants of the people I.E. Bureaucrats.

    So be for Liberty, Not Equality. Free yourself from the burdens of Democratic Kelptocracy.

    Be a Monarchist!

  2. The smallest and fairest government I can think of is the following (influenced by the Creed of Freedom).

    That every subject has the right of life, of liberty, and of property, which shall not be taken away from him by any other subject, nor by any number, group, majority, or collective of other subjects; therefore, each subject exists by his own right for his own sake, not for the sake of the group, majority, or collective. Therefore, the monarch shall not sacrifice the life, liberty, and property of any subject for the alleged rights of any group, majority, or collective of subjects.

    That the monarch shall protect each subject from another subject and from the covetousness, emotion, and irrationality of any group, majority, or collective of subjects.

    That the proper role of the monarch is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive; and absolute, not arbitrary. The monarch shall protect, not provide; for if the monarch is granted the power to provide, then he must also be able to take and that always leads to plunder and loss of liberty. If the monarch is powerful enough to give everything, then he also will be powerful enough to take everything. Therefore, one of the proper functions of the monarch is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of his subjects.

    That every subject shall be equal under the law; likewise, neither any subject nor any class shall be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause, thus to favor one subject or one class over another subject or class is not equality under the law. Therefore, the monarch shall neither approve nor enforce any law that does not apply to all his subjects equally.

    That all desirable political, social, and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary and mutual action among the subjects than by coercion of law; that common tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and benevolence than by coercion of law; and that those subjects in need are better served by charitable trusts and organizations than by coercion of law. Therefore, the monarch shall neither approve nor enforce coercion for any purpose, except to protect life, liberty, and property of his subjects.

    I would be most gracious to live under a monarchy as above. The entire kingdom benefits, i.e., the subjects will be laborious, prosperous, and charitable; likewise, the monarch will be protecting, prosperous, and charitable. Unfortunately, the above example monarchy would not become known because our world is so entrenched in liberalism, socialism, and communism. Everyone wants to rob the life, liberty, and property of Peter to pay for Paul and for themselves.

  3. Mad Monarchist, Please make a reddit account so you join my monarchy forum at We would love to have you there. But beware, reddit has a large atheist communo-republican majority so ignore theother forums that aren't monarchist or christian.

  4. A very interesting read. You managed to more or less sum up my own views of society in a much more concise, powerful, and engaging manner than I could do.

    What are your opinions on socioeconomic mobility? Naturally you are against moving out of one's absolute position, but I assume the independence of this system allows people to make of their lives what they will while encouraging charity on the part of all. I agree that the nobility and the monarch ought to be hereditary positions, but others are free within their respective domains, given fair practices.

    1. I have no prejudice against success if that's what you're asking. I'm all for a hereditary nobility but, of course, the first to hold a particular title almost always earned that title through some great work. I would prefer to see more people raised to the nobility because of their achievements than by cronyism as is the case all too often in Britain today with the ridiculous "life peers".

    2. Here's another predicament that I ran into. I really like the laissez-faire approach that you mention. But I can also see where government involvement is rather necessary. Limited regulations on certain things is important when market forces most likely aren't strong enough to control it (we don't want cheap, ineffective medicine, unsanitary food, etc). Also, public education, especially for the nation's poor, is important. I'm still struggling for myself on to what extent I would want government in my ideal society. Do you have any opinions on the matter?

    3. Respecting private property is not the same thing as taking a laissez-faire attitude toward everything. As I said, I think the government must restrict things that are clearly and demonstrably harmful. I just don't worry as much about medicine that doesn't work or food that is unsafe as I do think the market will ensure that such peddlars go out of business and that the government doesn't do a terribly good job at regulating them anyway. The types of restrictions I think of is more in the area of companies that trade with enemy nations, sell weapons to terrorists or undercut their own countrymen -that sort of cut-throat capitalism. On education, I suppose I might care more if not for the fact that government education, in my experience, is worse than usleless in many cases. I would "encourage" all people to go to Church and let the Churches fund and manage their own educational institutions. A talented poor child who is eager to learn could also look for a patron amongst the aristocracy to fund his education at a private school in return for working for him a set amount of time afterwards. As long as the education is effective and not teaching treason and self-hatred I really don't care who runs it.

    4. Honoring and protecting property is the beginning of liberty. Life and liberty stream from property. If one's property is dishonored, then his life and liberty are dishonored. Life, liberty, and property are entwined, thus they cannot be separated. If one is disconnected from the three, then the whole will fall. If both the monarch and the subjects respect the above principle, then the kingdom as a whole will thrive. The subjects will become wealthy, prosperous, and charitable; likewise, the monarch becomes wealthy, prosperous, and charitable. If history teaches us anything, then heavy taxation and vast government hinder progress, prosperity, happiness, and charity. Liberals of all flavors detest property, thus they will grab or oppress it anyway they can, especially in the course of taxation. Low taxation, minimum regulations, and protection of property will make any civilization thrive.

    5. It does seem to be working quite well in Monaco, Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands and the few other areas where it has actually been tried.

    6. Your Madness, on that topic I'm a little hazy. Whilst I can see how the libertarian small-government low-tax laissiez-faire system works in small areas of land as you've just listed - a small country doesn't need a large police force, large army, large education system ect.; I'm struggling to understand how it would apply to a country the size of France or Germany. Wouldn't a bigger land area imply bigger spending naturally? Or would the taxes simply be controlled on a city-level and put to use by the city they came from whilst residents took care of their local roads and street lights and things?

      I can understand why both spending and taxes were low in the Middle Ages through to the 17th Century when there was less advanced technology available and street lighting consisted of a compulsory flaming torch outside your house at night; but in these modern times of the internet, macadamised roads, indoor plumbing, sewers, electricity, telephones and so forth; how would such things be implemented if not by a local council?

      I suppose on a local level they could be funded by shareholders as the railways were in the 1830s upwards. Ordinary people building and owning a monument as great as the Pyramids of Giza that they could all use functionally was a great achievement. But even the railways turned into a bubble that burst.

      I'm not sure how such a laissez-faire state with policies like those you and Ignisforte describe, but the size of Germany, France or Sweden could protect its subjects from such financial bubbles and things.

      Whilst I know from history that the German Federation was an example most similar to the libertarian system as a whole, I'm under the (most likely mistaken) impression that each little state was a socialist democratic system at heart?

    7. Any actual libertarian would probably punch you in the nose for calling what I outlined "libertarian". Would it work in a big country? I don't know, it's never been tried but I don't see what difference more land or people would make to basic math. More needs to go out, but then more would be coming it, just a matter of adding zeros. I also don't see how modern technology would necessitate state intervention. I have internet, electricity, indoor plumbing etc and all without any local council being involved. Just took some private companies and my bank account to make it all happen.

      As far as bubbles go, thinking that politicians are necessary to protect you from economic problems is exactly what causes most economic problems. I have yet to see a really bad bubble burst that wasn't caused because of state intervention propping up their big business buddies to create the bubble in the first place.

      German Federation -what's that? Never heard of it. First Reich, German Confederation, North German Confederation? All of the above would be rejected by every social democrat I ever heard of for having private property rights and hereditary monarchs. Now, Bismarck, in the German Empire, did institute arguably the first social welfare state but clearly it won no lasting support from the actual social democrats.

  5. You will have to ask someone smarter than me for the answer to that one. It varies from place to place of course but in Great Britain for example, the reality there seems to be that if a law is not invoked or if powers are not used they become void after a certain point. The Queen, for example, technically has the right to veto bills but since no monarch since Queen Anne has actually used that right it is considered to no longer exist for all intents and purposes. In most cases though it is a matter of practical reality. Monarchs may legally have the power to do X, Y or Z but they know that if they did there would be an immediate backlash with cries of tyranny and the monarchy would promptly be abolished. Most exist in a sort of stalemate.

    As such, it is not that monarchs ever gave up all their powers. Their powers were weakened and removed slowly over time or, where their powers remain, they are prevented from using them by the threat of the monarchy being abolished forever. Republics are widespread but the republican mindset is even moreso -unfortunately.

  6. Some thoughts regarding the operation of foreign policy:
    Having lived overseas I have seen personally the merit in what you are saying in regards to imperialism. Part of the present problem is the belief that each people is entitled to their own state and that no foreigner, especially white, should have any say in the affairs of areas outside their own homelands. Part of the reason for this is certainly mistaken American foreign policy which has since Wilson pushed the idea of the nation-state in all corners of the world. To back this up, the UN give every state its own seat regardless of size giving tiny nations hugely disproportionate power which is usually exploited by various blocks at the UN thereby strengthening positions that are often quite damaging. As is well known the states with their finances together foot the bill. I too detest the word “globalism”. All too well it is known how African states have fared since independence. They have hardly fit the concept of the nation-state and yet the imperial powers were pushed towards granting them independence by oftentimes external pressure. Many things could have been done much better if there had not been the 1960s independence bonanza. At least if aid had not been dished out as though it were obligatory the dependency syndrome would not be such a problem. As you said a monarch operating a constant foreign policy holds much advantage to the republican system of foreign policy.

  7. That's for readers I know personally, who I don't have to worry about being offended or outraged by anything I say.

  8. MM: What you think of the idea that the aristocracy, more than just a remarkable club, is a real ruling class that shows the best of society and its values​​, you have certain rights (to be determined), to offset the burden of being the rulers of society (with great power comes great responsibility).

      Also within the nobility should have another category,superior of course, the knights, with its own hierarchy and extra privileges, should be a social and military elite that embodies the same values ​​of medieval chivalry, these gentlemen would have two options or be military men or knights castle, and the military would stimulate even more privileges to that group. To become a knight should show that they have at least half plus one of the knightly virtues and should demonstrate, when ordered knights would have to take an oath similar to the medieval knights.

    Anyone worthy of being a noble could nobility, and anyone unworthy of being a noble would be expelled, the nobility would be hededitary and all the childrens of a noble would be from the group, no matter if they have a landed title (which would give no rights to such land), but being a knight wouldn't be hederitary.

    Just an Idea that i wanted to comment.

    Hi from Argentina.

    1. I'm all for a traditional aristocracy (all countries have them, whether they admit it or not) but I would not want them to be "a real ruling class". If the monarch is to share power with them it should only be if their contribution to the state justifies it. I don't care about giving them more power or priveleges, they would have a great deal more of both if the socialists would just stop punishing them in their desire to enforce "equality" on everyone. I would also have a problem with the "unworthy" being expelled. A monarch, as the fount of honors, can, of course, strip someone of their title if they do something terrible but I don't think there should be any litmus test for them. Once a hereditary title is given it becomes the property of the owner and passed on to their heir regardless of whether or not anyone else thinks he is worthy.

      The knights, I agree other than they being held superior to the nobility. My only real problem with the existing knighthoods of today are that they are given to unworthy people from rock stars to comedians (even republicans).

  9. I misspoke, i don't want a nobility with the de facto power, or a nobility with 50% of power, in fact i am an absolutist , it should be like a train, king, nobles, and commoners, each with rights and obligations. With "ruling class", I meant the group from which comes most of the bureaucrats, although I am not opposed to a commoner being a minister if he is good at that.

    A nobleman should only be expelled from the group in special circumstances, it is suposed that they he worthy unless he proves otherwise with his actions. I am against the existence a "litmus test" to be confirmed in the nobility, if you are a son of nobles you are noble.

  10. Dear Mad Monarchist,

    This is a very well written and reasonable article which I appreciate the most. I am a contributor of a hungarian monarchist portal, "Regnum!" and if you don't mind, I would like to translate your article to the hungarian language and publish it in our website.

    We have some increasing popularity in recent times, and the readers wants us to expose our concrete political conception. We pretty much share your views and principles of the nature of the ideal monarchy. Unfortunately this type of monarchy is almost impossible to restore in our times but it could serve as an ideal to achieve. I think your blog contains the best monarchist articles which I have ever red, so if it would not trouble you I would like to ask permission for possible further translations.

    1. That's fine, just a link bank is all I require for non-English websites.

  11. I must say, MM; your views are anything but mad though I whole-heartedly enjoy how you take the way the truly "mad" republicans and populists of today call you mad and wear it like armor. If Monarchy is insane, in this man's humble opinion, let madness take me! You have a staunch supported in me and the N.I.R.S., the group I manage and lead. The numbers are small now, but numbers don't matter when you fight under the banner of the Divine.

    If you could peruse it, I would be most honored. It's a work in progress. Even if you don't like what you see, I implore you to keep a watch on it. I would be most grateful if you would.

  12. Silly me, I forgot to include a link to the site I just mentioned! Here it is:


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...