Davis Aurini - Why Monarchy?

Feb. 3, 2014 - Davis Aurini

19:44

Why Monarchy?

Radish Magazine: http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/crazy-talk/ My blog: http://www.staresattheworld.com/ My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Aurini Download in MP3 Format: http://www.clipconverter.cc/

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Monarchist.
	It's an odd thing to call oneself these days, isn't it?
	After all, we fought three world wars for the sake of democracy.
	Today we're all about freedom, the free market, the supremacy of the individual.
	And yet here I am advocating for monarchy.
	It's a weird sort of stance to take, isn't it?
	To a certain extent, the reason I call myself a monarchist, like the term neoreactionary, it's simply a way of cutting the Gordian knot of left-right politics.
	A lot of the argumentation going on today, it's this manufactured left-right argument, the left-right divide.
	People get all wrapped up in the puppet show of the left versus the right, liberals versus conservatives, and they never notice what's actually going on behind the scenes.
	You want a perfect example.
	We have had 40 years of conservative government here in Alberta, and yet they're passing all sorts of left-wing legislation.
	Partly it's just a way of cutting the Gordian knot, of stepping outside of politics and not giving your allegiance to one party or the other.
	But unlike the term neoreactionary, which is a pure stepping outside of the mainstream, there's also some positive affirmations with monarchy, with monarchist, that we should have a divinely chosen monarch to run the country.
	Now it's important not to let this become just another hat.
	See, there's far too many political hats that people are wearing these days.
	Somebody reads a little bit of Atlas Shrugged, and they become an objectivist.
	They read some Mises, and they become an anarcho-capitalist.
	You know, so on and so forth.
	There's people looking for an identity, and they find a label and they make that their identity.
	As opposed to just thinking about the system and asking valid questions and trying to come up with good conclusions, good theories based upon history, based upon political philosophy.
	So, keeping that in mind, I try not to let monarchy become a hat that I wear.
	It's mainly a way of stepping outside the system, along with a few different positive prescriptions about what should be done, about how we should govern ourselves.
	And they're very hard to explain simply because our vocabulary is so broken nowadays.
	The way we talk about things, the values that are instilled upon us, are very modern values, and they are values that have happened before in the past.
	In the past, they did not lead to the survival of the civilization.
	But to actually talk about this, well, I think the best method would be to approach it with that false divide, with the left versus right mentality.
	Because although left versus right, it's not good politics.
	It does describe a very real condition in the human psyche, that psychologically some people are liberal and some people are conservative.
	And it's been the liberals controlling this dialogue for the past 60 years in the West, if not longer.
	So to get the, let's start to define this divide.
	Let's start with one of our enemies, a truth-hating Marxist, Eric Fromm.
	Eric Fromm was one of the intellectuals in the open conspiracy to take over the West known as the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism.
	And if you haven't heard of them before, do your research on these guys.
	The Frankfurt School see the original school of Marxism was that it was going to be an economic war between the exploited proletariat and the exploiting capitalists or landowners.
	And that never came to fruition.
	What Marx was looking at was a short-term imbalance in the economy, where all of a sudden a huge amount of power went towards the capitalists thanks to the industrialization of Britain.
	And this disenfranchised a lot of people, it hurt a lot of people economically, turned them into a step above slaves.
	But that corrected itself.
	Eventually you did get the union movement and you did get forward-thinking capitalists.
	Allegedly, Henry Ford was one of these guys who paid his workers well enough that they could buy his cars.
	It fixed itself.
	The hardcore Marxists, however, they weren't satisfied with simply greater equity in society.
	They needed to push the message forward.
	And so the Frankfurt School, full of intellectuals that got chased out of Germany by Hitler because he absolutely despised Marxists, they came up with the idea that what we need to do is to destroy all the institutions in society, all the institutions that make people unequal.
	For instance, religion, marriage, the economy, the social order to things.
	We need to destroy all of this, and we're going to hurt a lot of people in the process, but once we have everybody down to an individual atom that is interchangeable with every other cog in society, at that point we can build the new Marxist man.
	So the way they did it was by trying to undermine institutions by getting into them.
	The slow march through institutions is what they did.
	And one of the first steps was pathologizing conservatism.
	So this is a quote from Eric Fromm's book, Man for Himself, and a hat tip to Radish for finding this quote, by the way.
	It does a perfect job summing up the difference between liberals and conservatives, between rabbits and wolves, in language that's very hostile to conservatives, but I think that most of you out there will identify with quite strongly.
	So quote begins: In authoritarian ethics, an authority states what is good for man and lays down the laws and norms of conduct.
	In humanistic ethics, man himself is both the norm giver and the subject of their norms, their formal source or regulative agency, and their subject matter.
	Those right there are the two different perspectives, and both of them at present reject the concept of monarchy.
	But let's start with the second one: the humanistic ethic.
	Man himself is born the norm giver and the subject of the norms.
	This is modern liberalism.
	What happens when you appeal to the individual as the giver of all ethical norms?
	Let's think about ourselves as individuals.
	Let's think about ourselves as young men and women.
	When we were 15 or 20, we didn't know anything about the world, and we were desperate for guidance.
	And yet the guidance given to us was this do what you want, do what makes you happy.
	Any type of lifestyle is okay just as long as you're not hurting anybody else.
	And yet the guidance we need is how do I not hurt myself?
	How do I make wise decisions to make sure I end up where I want to be?
	The whole manosphere phenomenon is basically a group of Gen X men who have looked at all the mistakes that we've made in our lives and wish that we'd had somebody to guide us through those without making those mistakes.
	You know, it starts with the sex that nice guys finished last and we all got raised to be nice guys, but it starts rapidly growing into the fact that a lot of us got useless university degrees.
	A lot of us associated with people or kind of believed in things that wound up being detrimental to us.
	And there was nobody in our lives to give us a smack on the head and say, don't do that.
	We were looking for that mentorship, for that authority, and nobody ever gave it to us.
	Furthermore, when you focus just on the individual, when you raise up the individual as the arbitrar of all that is good or true, you have no way of distinguishing one ethos from another.
	If everybody's equal, then the rapist is on par with the saint.
	The child molester is equal to the married man.
	If all ethics are purely arbitrary, then there are no ethics.
	There is just feelings.
	There's just the relative truth, and you get absolute social chaos.
	Now, in the case of Fromm, he advocated this stuff quite intentionally.
	All of these Frankfurt School cultural Marxists knew precisely what they were doing.
	If you tell an entire generation to go out there and do whatever feels good, you're going to wind up with young people going out and getting drug addictions.
	You're going to wind up with girls going out and dating bad boy after bad boy until they're a single mom and then regretting the decisions in their lives.
	You're going to wind up with a generation of broken people who need the state to survive.
	In Fromm's case, it was completely intentional.
	These Frankfurt School Marxists are incredibly Machiavellian and quite, quite evil.
	But as for the rabbit person, the rabbit person reads this humanistic ethos, the humanistic ethics, and they see an opportunity.
	The thing about rabbit people is that they are scared of outright competition.
	They are scared of outright authority.
	This modern practice of giving everybody a trophy in a sports game, this is liberalism 101.
	This is because liberals are afraid to compete openly.
	They want everybody to get a trophy.
	And they're going to find a way to manipulate things to make it so that the best player on the sports team is somehow morally questionable.
	You're only the best player because you were born that way.
	Check your privilege.
	The rabbits seek out a hierarchy as well, but they seek out a covert hierarchy.
	Something as explicit as monarchy frightens them, the same way the military frightens them, because they know that they can't compete in an honest game, so they try and manipulate the rules.
	They try and work behind the scenes.
	They, on the outside, say that everybody's equal, while behind the scenes, manipulating things so that they're on top.
	It's a competitive reproductive strategy.
	It's a rather vile one since we are a K-selected species overall.
	But that's why they are so intimidated by monarchy.
	It's the desire for freedom, but it's a sort of freedom that you use to subvert the rules.
	They don't like explicit rules.
	They like to manipulate them.
	The second big challenge to monarchy is the conservative side of things.
	So let's revisit what Fromm says about conservatives, which he calls authoritarians, because he is, of course, trying to associate conservatism with Nazism to discredit it.
	And what he says, the authoritarian ethics, an authoritarian states what is good for man and lays down the laws and norms of conduct.
	Now, even as wolves, as wolves like explicit hierarchy, we like knowing what the rules are.
	We play by the rules, and there's no victory if you don't play by the rules.
	That's the whole point of the game, is we want to hone our skills and get better.
	We want to know who the boss is and who we take orders from.
	We don't want to always be minding our P's and Q's because some overweight 40-year-old single mother is going to make a sexual harassment complaint about us when we weren't even speaking to her.
	That bothers us.
	We like the explicit rules.
	But notice the way that Fromm states it.
	The authoritarian, one man dictates what all the rules are.
	One man gets to tell you what the good life is.
	And so here you get the other half of the coin, that the conservative mind does not like the idea of people being born into wealth.
	When the conservative wolf person mind, when that psychology sees monarchy, they see that, that unjustified privilege, being pushed around by somebody who didn't earn their position, what we like, what we admire is somebody that earns their position, somebody that justifies being leader of the tribe, and then we are perfectly happy to follow them.
	The liberal will make snarky comments behind their back and try and undermine their authority.
	The conservative mind respects somebody that earns their wealth.
	This is why we love the free market.
	It's a fair and open competition in theory.
	And monarchy seems like it isn't that thing, right?
	But again, that's a fake divide.
	This is the manipulation that people like Fromm have introduced into our language.
	That we think that monarchy is unjustified totalitarianism.
	When what monarchy actually is, it's the acknowledgement of explicit power structures, of explicit rules.
	In a monarchy, there are rules to play by.
	The monarch has limits put upon them, and you as an individual have opportunity to rise throughout this system.
	It's not the Indian caste system where you're born into it, you have to be this for the rest of your life.
	It's simply a system of explicit rules.
	And so with this manipulative language, which makes conservatives constantly apologize for being leaders, for being authorities, because you don't want to be authoritarian, it's this manipulated language that drives the conservative-minded individual to reject the system of monarchy.
	Basically, we've mistaken monarchy for communist tyranny.
	The leftists, with their occult hierarchy, create the authoritarianism, except the language has been manipulated, so you conflate authoritarianism with the right.
	Now, one final justification for monarchy is the fact that any system that you have is eventually going to have people in power.
	So let's take a really brief and somewhat unfair analysis of anarcho-capitalism.
	In an anarcho-capitalist society, eventually you are going to get a 1% of elite wealthy individuals.
	What is the guiding ethos of this society, however?
	In anarcho-capitalism, the guiding ethos is all about the individual and free will.
	That so long as an individual in an anarcho-capitalist state is choosing something, you have no right to criticize it.
	And so the 1% elites at that point start selling fake catharsis, fake independence, fake freedom, which is where we are right now.
	You buy the video game and you're the hero.
	You buy the Nikes and you're an NBA player.
	And they become absolute slaves to the system, being progressively brainwashed and manipulated to be cogs in the machine.
	You get an irresponsible elite when you have anarcho-capitalism because the foundational myth is the primacy of the individual.
	With monarchy, on the other hand, with monarchy, it's an upward pull.
	Rather than the downward pull of the individual sacrosanct, you have an upward pull to create the best possible society ever.
	What is the monarch supposed to do?
	If the monarch's chosen by God, the monarch needs to be godly.
	So even if, in a monarchy, you have a bad monarch, you have a sociopath, well, on a purely economic scale, they have everything they want.
	So there's really no need to exploit everybody because you can only sleep with so many concubines in a day, you can only play so many video games.
	But more to the point is that the underlying ethos of this society is that the nobility sets an example for the peasants.
	And even if the nobility is actually a bunch of psychopaths, they are going to pretend not to be.
	Somebody once said, comment on my blog that monarchy is a very primitive form of government.
	I agree, and we are a very primitive people.
	Trying to design a system that only works for saints is going to result in absolute monstrosity.
	Whereas something like monarchy, it accepts the broken nature of man.
	How the vast majority of people are selfish, are cruel, are short-sighted, and it creates a system that pulls them into being something better than themselves.
	And rather than being worried about their material well-being, which leads to slavish consumerism, it worries about their spiritual well-being.
	The foundation of the government is trying to be godly.
	Whether or not you believe in God, it's a good thing to try and pursue.
	And so that trickles down from the very top.
	Right now, we have trickle-down economic prosperity, which is why everybody in the ghetto probably makes more money than I do.
	But we don't have trickle-down spirituality, value in the self, and an explicit hierarchy that allows one to climb the ladder without finding that the ladder secretly leads to a pit.
	Why monarchy?
	Because it's good for the human soul.

▲