“Where men are forbidden to honour a king, they honor millionaires, athletes, or film stars instead; even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
C. S. Lewis

The reasons behind the election of the man who currently resides in the White House can be found in this same question. Was he elected because he clearly articulated a vision of a morally upright, honorable America where all men would have the opportunity to excel and then reap the rewards of their success? or was he elected because he seemed “cool” and “hip” and represented “the latest ‘in’ thing”? To paraphrase someone he is fond of quoting, was he elected based on the content of his character – or on the color of his skin? I have no doubt that it was for the latter.

I have made no secret of my admiration for constitutional monarchy as a form of government, and Mr. Lewis has presented the chief argument in favor of that – the moral and spiritual reason. Many people will, of course, feed their “spiritual nature” with poison rather than food simply because the nature of man tends toward the wicked rather than the good. Those type of people will always be with us. The benefits of having a leader who represents honor and righteousness and justice and freedom go not to what I refer to as “Walmart people,” but to those who yearn for a leader who brings out the best in men rather than pandering to our baser instincts.

As one who had embraced radical libertarianism while in college in the early 1970’s, I fully understand the attraction of an individual-based system. I associated with others who introduced me to the libertarian concept, and who were active in the libertarian political scene. That was a time when trusting in “self” and radical self-government appeared to be the solution to all life’s problems. Instead, it was a Utopian fantasy. One of the blessings of growing up is the ability to understand the shortcomings of all men, including ones self.

He goes into much greater detail, but this section of the post will give you a good idea of what it is about. Be sure to read the entire post.

If humanity does not shrug off this illusion, it will self-destruct.

Here at Amerika, we retaliate with a few ideas:

• There is no equality. Crush their primal taboo, which is the idea of no hierarchy. We all have different abilities and most importantly, moral character. Some are stronger than others.
• Bring back the monarchy. We trust in institutions and lists of rules to make our leaders honest. It doesn’t work. Instead, pick honest leaders, or people who are ahead of the rest of us in moral character and leadership ability.
• Social Darwinism is a friend. Stop saving people from themselves. Stop welfare, stop subsidies, stop warnings. We don’t need (to) save people from themselves. Let natural selection work for us.
• Focus on nature. Our cities and even suburbs are designed to hide nature away. Instead, make sure everything is surrounded by forest so that people always know primal fear, and transcendental beauty.

Mr. Stevens’ Amerika blog has been a part of my regular reading for quite a while – highly recommended.

In Great Britain, the Queen is known for being exceptionally frugal, using the same car until it practically falls apart. In fact, in a recent year, the travel expenses for the entire British Royal Family was considerably less than the travel expenses for President Obama and his small crew.
•••
(W)hen people think of Marie Antoinette, they think lavishness and frivolity, they do not think of a woman who gave large amounts to charity, who broke down social barriers at court and who invited poor children to eat with her own royal offspring at Versailles. When it comes to royal children for that matter, it may surprise some to know how much more luxuriously the children of a President of the United States live compared to royal or even imperial offspring.
•••
The Romanov Archduchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia, for example, had to sleep on camp beds and take cold baths. Their educational schedule was positively Spartan with dawn till dark studies and exercises. The White House may not be the Winter Palace but you can be sure the Obama daughters are taking hot baths at night. Similarly, when one thinks of an Emperor one doesn’t usually think of someone like Emperor Francis Joseph who slept on an army cot and wore clothes until they were worn out -and then patched them and wore them some more!
•••
In Russia, Emperor Alexander III preferred the simple meals of his servants to the delicacies of the banquets thrown by the upper class and his idea of recreation was a simple walk in the Russian wilderness with some sausage and a piece of bread for his lunch. These imperial leaders were hardly men of lavish, wasteful luxury and indulgence.

So… what is the point of this, you may ask? Why are we reading about monarchies on the Confederate Colonel blog? Aside from the fact that monarchies are a time-proven form of government that is grossly misunderstood by those who depend on American public schools for their education, it would behoove us give some serious thought as to what will replace the republican form of government here in America once it fully self-destructs. If you don’t see that coming, then you’re not paying attention. Am I advocating that America become a monarchy? The fact that I cannot see any realistic path from “here” to “there” precludes that. Still, it is a form of government that has stood the test of time for far longer than any form of self-government has. It’s a sad commentary on our ability to govern ourselves.

There are, of course, many forms of monarchy. What comes to mind for most people today is an absolute monarchy where the king lives as some sort of cartoonish, villainous character as often portrayed in movies. I suppose there is an example of that somewhere in history, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. No, we’re talking about men and women who have been raised from birth with the objective of leading a nation; who understand the realities and the give-and-take of any leadership position; who are motivated not by what they must do to get elected and re-elected, but by a sense of duty and responsibility.

Do phrases such as “constitutional monarchy” or “libertarian monarchy” sound contradictory? If so, open your mind a bit and consider what America has become – and what might have been a better choice. Consider it an intellectual challenge rather than a political proposal.

The Mad Monarchist is a blog that I read regularly. Today’s post is titled Rebutting Republican Myths and is a good starting point for an open-minded look at how government works. The author addresses the following objections raised against monarchy as a form of government, and then rebuts them:

• Monarchies are un-democratic!
• Monarchies are too expensive!
• Hereditary monarchy just isn’t fair!
• Monarchies are dangerous! What if the monarch is incompetent?
• Monarchy is an archaic throwback! It’s simply out of date!
• What about cruel monarchs like Nero or Attila the Hun? Surely no benefits could be worth risking leaders like that!
• Royals are too out of touch. They have no idea how regular people live.
• At best, monarchs are unnecessary. A president could do just as good a job.
• Monarchies must be bad or else there would be more of them!
• Monarchs are so set apart, they cannot represent ordinary people.
• Republics bring progress, monarchies only oppress.

Be sure to read the full Rebutting Republican Myths post.

The Mad Monarch’s August 5 post lays out one of the best analyses I have seen yet about the current controversy over homosexual “marriage”. While it completely skips over the most important reason against it – the Biblical truth that it is a sin that God calls “an abomination” – that is also what makes it so good, since it holds up in even the most secular of arguments.

I have copied some of the key points below, but please be sure to read the full post to get the most from it.

The whole nature of this argument frankly baffles me. By long established tradition “marriage” is defined as the permanent union of one man and one woman. Now, a vocal minority wants to change that definition and when anyone complains about that or voices opposition the retort is that you are being discriminatory by not treating them just like everyone else. What? I’m confused. Of course they are being treated different than everyone else because their behavior is different from that of everyone else. If they were behaving just like everyone else there would be no reason to change the definition in the first place.

In any event, some want their relationships to have the same legal status as that of other legally married people. Why? You don’t need the government to make a commitment to someone and you don’t need the government to give you a license to behave as you please in your own home. The only reason I can see is that these people want government recognition, sanction and effectively the “blessing” of the government of this country which rules on behalf of “we the people”. And that is where I am forced to get involved -forced- in something I have no desire to. By my vote and by my words they want me, through my government and personally if they ever met me, to say what they’re doing is okay. That is what it comes down to. They don’t just want me to let them do it, they want me, through our representative government, to officially and publicly approve of them doing it. I cannot. I will not.

You can get rid of a monarchy, you cannot ever get rid of the reason for monarchy. Part of that reason, somewhat lamentably to traditionalists, is the glossy-magazine aspect. There is a great swath of the people, even in the most advanced nations, that seek to live vicariously through the tabloid media. This is nothing new, though the nature of modern media has made the process far more rapacious. The peasants gossiping about their monarch’s personal affairs was not then a vast and profitable industry.

It is one of the beneficial features of monarchy, especially one so well established and conservative as ours, is that it can direct this rather prurient interest toward, generally, more worthy objects. In the American Republic the fascination with the rich and famous tends to settle on Hollywood celebrities, among the most vapid creatures ever to draw breadth upon creation. There is not in that soulless place a stern matriarch calling her progeny, with varying degrees of success, back upon the path of relative decency. Hollywood: Nothings seeking to be exalted above the nil in a vast nowhere.

The great dig against the monarchy is that its operatives, if we may call the Royal Family that, have not earned their position. True. They have at the very least been taught how to behave like civilized human beings in public. A behavioural trait that is frequently missing among the “earned” elite of the modern media. Breeding isn’t everything. Neither is a specious understanding of merit.

(Emphasis mine)

I have often thought that a Constitutional Monarchy is a superior form of government to what we have now in America. What we have now is something slightly more civilized than mob rule – but not by much.  We have legal protections – in writing – but they are routinely and increasingly ignored, much as they were under the old Soviet Union.

Here in American, we pretend that a nation is made up of geographical boundaries and laws. There is no mention of and no protection for that which truly defines a nation – the people and the culture of those people. Having a monarchy does not, of course, prevent a culture from losing its identity. The once-great England is a prime example of how to have a monarchy and still destroy a nation. England has ceased to exist as a nation – it is now over-run with immigrants who bring with them their own cultures that are at war with what used to be English culture. I am not familiar enough with the political system of Britain to even start to understand where things went wrong, but if the monarchy had taken seriously their responsibility to maintain the culture instead of wanting to be liked by Marxists, I am confident that things would be quite different there now. A constitutional monarchy is certainly not without its own set of problems, but it is a system that has the potential to be the best form of government possible when it comes to governing  a nation containing fewer and fewer men of moral courage, wisdom, and a fear of God.

The Old South, with its aristocratic traditions, would have been far more sympathetic to a constitutional monarchy – or at least a clear recognition of the importance of culture and the people that make up the Southern nation. I am quite confident that had the Confederate States survived as a political entity, mass immigration would not have been permitted as it has under the Kennedy-led assault on American culture beginning with the Immigration Act of 1965.

There is nothing we can do about how things are done on the political level, but there is everything we can do within our own families and circle of influence. There is one true Guardian of Southern Culture – that is the Southern family that understands the importance of passing along the culture to future generations. What are you doing to pass along our Southern culture and heritage to future generations?