By Walt Garlington for the Saker blog
The desire for what is normal, for what God has established and ordained, is prominent in U.S. conservative discourse today: the desire for a normal approach to public health risks, for normal sexual development of children, for a normal home life with the husband as breadwinner and the wife who can stay at home with her children, and so on.
But the death of Queen Elizabeth II threw a wrench into the works. For while many conservatives praised her virtues and complimented the English monarchy for its stability, connection with the deep past, etc., they were also quick to add that the age of monarchy has forever passed for us here in the United States: There can be no going back to it.
Conservatives who believe that are walking a dangerous path. They want the reestablishment of God’s order in family, morality, economics, politics, and the rest, while denigrating monarchy. But doing so undermines the restorative efforts in the other fields.
“He bowed the heavens also, and came down” (Psalm 18:9) – Authority comes from above, where God dwells. From there God descended upon the mountain and gave Moses the Law. From there the Son of God “came down” and became incarnate within the womb of the Ever-Virgin Mary to fulfill the Law and open a new epoch in the history of mankind.
What comes from below, from fallen man, is less benign: “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy” (Rev. 13:1). The sea, according to the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, represents the rebellious, Christ-hating nations in their turmoil (e.g., Fr. Athanasios Mitilinaios, sermon 51, part 2; Abp. Averky Taushev, The Apocalypse in the Teachings of Ancient Christianity, tr. Fr. Seraphim Rose, Platina, Cal., St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1998, p. 187). The Beast/Antichrist will be their ultimate offspring.
From above, God bestowed authority on the father over the family; from above, God bestowed authority on bishops, priests, and deacons over His Church; and also, however much it rankles folks in the U.S., from above, God bestowed authority on kings over nations: All the philosophizing we can muster in the States will not annul that truth.
But we have tried; how we have tried! The Declaration of Independence, along with The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist responses and the Gettysburg Address, and all the rhetoric in between, were a Herculean, or should we say a Promethean, effort to find a way to justify the notion that authority comes from below, from the autonomous, self-governing people (thankfully there were exceptions, North and South, primarily before the fateful/fatal year of 1776, though in the South many of the leading theologians continued to expound the right teaching prior to that other terrible year of 1865). But God’s laws cannot be overturned; they do not expire with the passage of time; they do not wear out and grow old, needing replacement with better versions more in step with the current zeitgeist. A people may for a time go without a king for this or that reason, but the norm must be restored or disorder, imbalance, will arise.
And so it has arisen in the U.S., as is easily seen. Adding an hereditary monarchy is not a cure-all for a country’s ills, just as a purely elected government does not immediately sound the death knell for healthy human society whenever it is instituted. But the permanent displacement of the king from government will lead to harm, just as the father absent from the home or hirelings in churches will sooner or later bring it about.
A veto-wielding king is one of those real rights of mankind that Edmund Burke wrote about in his Reflections on the Revolution in France:
“Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves, and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights” (p. 51).
The children in a family may vote themselves jelly beans for breakfast, but the father is there to veto their decision for their own good. Likewise, the people or their representatives in a country may vote to allow abortion or to redefine marriage or to approve dangerous levels of deficit spending, but the king will be there to utter his fatherly No.
And should the king make a misstep, he, being one man, is easier to correct than an elected government backed by large segments of the population (take the covid totalitarianism for a good example of the latter).
France, again, provides U.S. conservatives with a cautionary tale. A biographer of Henri, the Comte de Chambord (d. 1883), heir to the throne of France, explained that one of the chief reasons the people of France did not accept him as their king was his refusal to accept the tricolor, the flag of the Revolution, as the national flag; he insisted on the pre-Revolutionary flag of the French monarchy (Chapter VI, “The White-Flag Crisis,” Marvin Brown, Jr., The Comte de Chambord: The Third Republic’s Uncompromising King, Durham, N.C., Duke UP, 1967, pgs. 102-38). Still, the greater number of the French people, who were given in the Comte an opportunity to reestablish a rightly oriented government, remained loyal to the Revolution and its symbols; the Comte never came into his inheritance; and the French have continued their decline into cultural decrepitude.
The United States did not undergo as violent a revolution as did the French, but it was a revolution nonetheless: The king was removed, and ruling authority passed from God above to the people below. If U.S. conservatives cannot agree even to the idea that it would be a worthwhile goal to put a monarch back on the throne, we will be placing little bits of authority-denying, antinomian dynamite into whatever edifice of normality we are able to build that will blow the thing sky-high one day when we aren’t expecting it. And the results for the rest of the countries of the world, needless to say, will not be beneficial.
If an emperor has no clothes, would you gaze upon and learn from, say, his naked depravity?
please don’t post nonsensical comments
if you have nothing cogent to say, then don’t.
thank you
This is the author of the nonsensical comment. The author of this article mentioned and quoted from Edmund Burke. The Burke-Rousseau tet-a-tet is a fairly old debate that reaches into many levels. Rather than extended polemic I used pithy versification. If my post seemed convoluted, abstruse, nonsensical, so forth, my apologies.
The only way for humanity to truly evolve into a holy human being (not the beast with brains that it still is today) as God (not religion) has in mind for us is to become aware and find leadership within not outside of ourselves. Bees and ants need a king. Real people don’t need to be led. They also don’t need religion, just as they don’t need an interpreter between them and God. All institutions eventually become corrupted by unconscious people. Even when they are led by a true hero or good statesman, his or her successor will end up ruining things. The path is inward, we will never evolve through the outside. This is the path God gives us when we are ready to use it.
I’ll never understand the obsession all mankind seems to have with touting their preferred leadership style as being divinely ordained, but so long as we’re talking about Divine Authority, let me remind everyone briefly about what God had to say when Israel wanted themselves a king, and spoiler alert, it wasn’t an *endorsement*.
1 SAMUEL 8:6~18
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord.
7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.
8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you.
9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king.
11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.
12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.
15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use.
17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
…the Israelites wanted a king anyway, and they got one. That didn’t go any better for Israel (and subsequently, Israel/Samaria and Judah) than their time under the Judges, for those who remember their Old Testament.
Restated in brief, the people rejected God and looked for a king, which God condemned as a rejection of himself. Subsequently, the people rejected a king, and set themselves up as Caesar – if indeed the people have ever truly, actually elected anyone in Western government. (A matter for another day.)
In particular I want to object to Burke’s characterization of the necessity of an executive to intervene and stave off the people’s worst excesses, and not by the ordinary method of pointing out that whatever the author might think of *the divine right of kings*, we’ve had more kings than we’ve had republics and democracies in this world, and a great bloody many massacres, exiles, pogroms, and cleansings to go along with them. The track record of Divine Kings is not one of pious service to the Lord.
I object to Burke’s comment, and so the author’s employment of it in this article, not because I do not agree that there needs to be checks and balances (oh-ho!) on the people and government alike, but because the author speaks as though God cannot, or does not, work His will – *His*, not ours, not California’s, France’s, or any other state or populace’s – through any system of government mankind might try to employ.
It makes no difference, and I really must capitalize this to emphasize the absurdity of this idea, to GOD ALMIGHTY what system mankind devises for organizing his affairs, as noted in Proverbs 16:9. God’s will is done in all cases; whether He *permits* a thing, or *orders* a thing is ultimately irrelevant; God alone is supreme in the matter, and all events and eventualities work together in His plan, in His time. Whether the government of a country is a republic, or a monarchy, or a tyranny, whether benevolent or malevolent, God is perfectly capable and always at work implementing His will, and raising up leaders to perform His wishes. Remember that the Lord called up Cyrus to destroy Babylon!
We as Christians must never become bogged down in human understandings and sensibilities when declaring a thing or its rival righteous or not. Our ways are not God’s ways, and he can raise up a leader from among a half-godless republic like America, even with the other half of its people lukewarm or lapsed Christians just as easily as he can raise up an Alexander the Great, or a Charlemagne, or take your pick of noteworthy royalty of yesteryear.
God is not hampered by what the people choose; and the people, originally, *chose a king*. So let us put from our minds this idea of the innate superiority and divinity of human monarchs; it is not only un-Scriptural, it is *anti*-Scriptural.
this is the best Scriptural argument against what the author is saying
Thanks. A good reminder.
The problem illustrated in the passage is godlessness. There’s no rejection of monarchy in this passage. Samuel was supposed to inherit the crown, but the people wanted to elect a king instead. This is seen as godless, and it is then described what sort of king they godless will elect and how he will behave.
Israel was a *theocracy* to that point in their history, governed by God through the Judges, of whom Samuel was one, consecrated to service to God by his mother after the high priest Eli (who sortakinda raised Samuel after he was given to the tabernacle) berated her for seeming to be drunk at a church event, when she was in fact praying mightily that she might have a kid so she didn’t feel inferior to her husband’s other wife anymore.
There was no *crown* to inherit. I genuinely don’t know what you are referring to here.
The passage very clearly states what will happen to Israel when they have *a human king*, period. There was no *crown*, there was no monarchy, there was only God, and the Judges. There is no way around saying that you simply do not know your Old Testament.
I wish to follow up on my previous comment.
An idea such as *electing* a king is only possible in modern civilization, wherein we can’t see any form of government aside from one paying lip service to “the will of the people” – much like America’s current form of government.
As an additional reminder to the author and anyone else interested, since we’re discussing the people’s wickedness in choosing leaders, the people of California voted against gay marriage – and the state Supreme Court overruled them. America’s elections, also, are obviously rigged and engineered, so why would you assume that the evil men and women leading America are, in fact, *the will of the people*?
That aside… What I wished to say to DW was that, contra to your misunderstanding of Scripture, the people did not wish to *elect* a king, and they did not, in fact, elect one. God sent Samuel out to a little village called Gibeah to find a giant of a man named Saul, and anointed him king of Israel. Subsequently, he was shown off to the people as “their king”, and they had to go and find the man because he panicked with stage fright, and had to be coaxed by Samuel to take the stage.
After this happened, there was some miracle-working to remind the crowd that God was serious about how they were going to regret asking for a king, but that can be read for oneself. The central point here is
There Was No Election Of King In Israel
Ever
Read 1 Samuel and see for yourself. I don’t know where this idea came from, but I’m going to guess it is from a misdirected romanticism for era of The Kings of Christendom, which let’s face it, were really quite awful.
I’m not a fan of democracy, republics, socialism, communism, anarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, or any other conceivable form of government. They’re all flawed, all dependent upon the (often lacking) virtue of those in power at the relevant moment – and no amount of stories about the Twelve Paladins is going to change the actual historical troubles associated with monarchy… no different than any other form of government.
Every pill is poison; don’t get caught up in worldly matters. We are travelers here, and our homeland is elsewhere.
The Devil is always trying to pull God down to man’s level, and lift man up to the level of being worshiped.
There are actually Christian organizations (one of them vying to be the coming ‘One World Religion’ ) who encourage praying to human souls rather than our savior Jesus Christ (the Lord God Almighty–John 14:8-9).
If monarchy is the answer, what’s the question ?
What’s normal ? Bush, Obama, Biden, Johnson, Truss ?
It may reassure some people, but is it normal to believe in an ultimate power that allows genocide, torture, inequality and oppression ?
What is wrong with respect and cooperation ?
Have we evolved or are we essentially stone age peoples with advanced technology ?
This writer has touched upon a profound and enormously difficult issue. I believe it would require a much deeper and more comprehensively inclusive conversation than has been offered here to do the subject justice. So I will confine myself to the following observations.
Authority is normal. Authority meaning the voice of God. Which some interpret as “monarchy is normal.” Monarchs traditionally represent the dignity of the whole human Self (God/Goddess) within a given society. This is what people find psychologically appealing about the authentic display of aristocratic qualities.
For example an English mother would tell her children that telling lies is treason. This means lying is disloyal to the embodiment of national integrity. Therefore telling lies is disloyalty to the King. Hence immorality can be seen as treason. But this social contract obliges the aristocratic culture to embody both integral balance and human wholeness. Which in the West it has conspicuously failed to do.
The primary reason for this in my judgement is because the religious traditions that inform the aristocratic posture of the monarchs is itself lacking in balance. It is this lack of inner balance in the culture itself that throws the relations between the aristocracy and the people into seemingly permanent and unresolvable conflict.
It appears to me that the primary imbalance/conflict can best be understood as over emphasis upon the authority of “above” to the detriment and denial of authority from “below.” This acceptance of all authority as coming from above and all sin as coming from below has a very ancient pedigree and drives our current patriarchal bias. “Above” can be seen as representing spirit or divinity and below as representing the natural expression of the human will. The judgement against either is a source of denial and generates imbalance. If the human will is seen as no more than a source of “sin” then the Monarchy will be conditioned to deny the natural needs of the people and oppression follows. In response the people feel driven to protect themselves by denying the need for instituted authority and confusion is the result. That being the American dilemma
What is needed in my judgement is the creation of a new culture that can integrate into stable balance both the divinity of spirit and the authentic feelings of the human will. However what we are used to is a belief that the two are mutually antagonistic. This is because incomplete and unbalanced religious tradition encourages us to hold divinity and the human will as mutually contradictory.
This inner conflict has sometimes been represented in human psychology as a conflict between the Sun (divinity above) and the Moon (divinity below). Sun being masculine and Moon being feminine. Stable authority, both psychologically and socially, requires the values of the Moon and Sun to unite in harmony.
It is this unfamiliar unity that we are really seeking.
The conflict that has defined Europe for so long (psychologically speaking) is just this denial of the Moon in favor of the Sun. It inevitably resulted in an unbalanced democratic and socialist reaction which denied the Sun (the divine spirit and it social authority) in favor of the Moon (the denied feelings of the masses.) It was a Russian poet who described the Russian revolution as a red lunar blanket that blotted out the Sun of aristocracy. He could feel that the Moon was smothering the Sun. That poet did not fare too well under Stalin. It seems that Putin is now doing all he can to find a more healthy balance.
With all due respect Walt, the death of QE II changed very little for New Zealand society… apart from the obvious fact that King Charles III will be much more open in his support for all of Mr Global’s genocidal agendas.
This is immensely saddening for me as this family dynasty provides NZ’s head of state. Technically we are a constitutional monarchy and as such, unlike a republic model, we don’t have the luxury of a President that would have the constitutional power to remove from office a Government that is blatantly practising democide and state treason.
Charles barely hides the fact that he fully supports the Nazi eugenics playbook of his father and historically pretty much the entire family. All of this carried on under Elizabeth’s reign, it’s just that she gave the appearance that she wasn’t personally invested in the opportunistic agendas of this network of oligarchs.
This has left NZ in a position where we have no avenue to fight the corporate tyranny that has taken over the halls of power. Furthermore, the Windsor family representative, our Governor General, is appointed by the evil to the core Prime Minister.
This is a 5-year political appointment. It is painfully obvious that the GG is a puppet for the PM… she never intends to use any of her reserve powers, or even begin to question the merit of her appointee’s incredibly destructive agendas. What’s more, she has openly admitted this in public.
This entire Royal Family has deep historical connections to global kleptocrats and also blatant tyrannical and Nazi regimes. NZ is a very junior member of the Five Eyes and obviously the so-called commonwealth. Just like Australia and Canada, we are used for very convenient petri dish experiments, where the most horrible field trials are routinely undertaken on an entire population often in some sort of macabre social experiment.
It is no coincidence that these three countries ended up with the three most draconian and lunatic-like PMs on the globe. Indeed this was by design… they were long-term and carefully groomed for these roles.
I had the honour of a 45-minute Zoom brainstorming discussion on this subject of political recourse with Canada’s Mathew Ehret. With Canada being a constitutional monarchy too, but at least having a Federal system with provinces with theoretical autonomy, Matt was equally as forlorn as I was. The provinces were fully captured by the same forces as the Federal Govt and were flat-out supporting the very same agendas as the lunatic Trudeau.
The death of Elizabeth changes only one aspect… the support of NZ’s head of state for WEF and Mr Global agendas will no longer have even the faintest veneer or disguise.
Regards from the south seas
Col
I agree Col.
There’s a very good reason that the Brit royals refer to themselves as “the firm”. It’s not just an in-family joke – it’s a joke at the expense of the community. It shows what they see as their social purpose.
Tulsi Gabbard, a voice of sanity quits the Democratic party:
https://www.rt.com/news/564…
The link is 404ing Kapricorn.
At least his one works for me down here in New Sheepland.
RT was shut down the very day the Russian SMO began…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11304407/Republicans-celebrate-Tulsi-Gabbard-leaving-Democrats-left-says-good-riddance.html
If the old prophesies come true about Holy Orthodox Russia and a Tsar rising to power in the End Times then for sure I will kneel before that Orthodox Tsar just as I venerate the icon of the Holy Royal Martyrs (Tsar Nikolai and his family) at the Cathedral.
As for America and the possibility of a Christian Monarch arising I would say that that would have to start with restoring the traditional Christian family and codifying traditional Christian norms into law.
I can agree with one point of what the the author of this article is saying:
“And should the king make a misstep, he, being one man, is easier to correct than an elected government backed by large segments of the population (take the covid totalitarianism for a good example of the latter).”
This is how 1) the idea of state sovereignty originally outlined in the articles of confederation and ultimately the US constitution was intended (i know this site extends well beyond US borders but the US influences everything at this point) 2) thats exactly why local governments were originally intended to supercede regional and national ones. 3) a republic that actually functions the way as advertised creates the same dynamic the author makes his case for in this statement, i can walk down to city hall and make my case to the mayor, i can write a letter to my rep in congress and it’ll get tossed into the “whatever” pile
accountability to a king requires the entirety of his people to revolt, accountability to a local leader requires a community who can actually organize to revolt
thats where i think this argument falls apart
it is better for man to control his immediate surroundings in a way that he’s in harmony with his peers, than it is for him to have to organize to do the same once he and his peers have reached an agreeable point of suffering
evil must be taken from the root, not given a pot to grow in
I never considered reading an allegedly biblical argument for the political system of monarchy imposed on The USA by a “conservative Christian.” (“Conservative Christian” is a curious, non-biblical locution. As is “Liberation Theology.”) I should have expected as much given “conservative Christian” enthusiasm for biblical literalism and “prosperity gospel.” But still . . . .
One would expect men of some learning to be at least circumspect regarding the difference between ancient locution presented anachronistically and essential meaning permeating ancient locution.
In the case of Christianity that essential meaning is: freedom from all bonds mundane and otherwise, including all books -=- including The Bible — and opinions thereon. And firstly, deserving that freedom by cleaning the heart. This would include especially “conservative Christian” expectations regarding political systems they believe The Bible dictates for their increase of wealth and prestige, name and fame. A host of demons lives in that belief.
President Putin declares that Russia is not returning to the political system of The USSR. Implied is that neither is Russia returning to the political system of Monarchy, titles of nobility, etc.
I declare that just as the question of American states’ secession was settled at Gettysburg in 1863 — Not happening. — so also the prior question of American states’ returning themselves to subjection to the British Parliament and Monarch also has been settled, and nearly a century earlier at Yorktown in 1781 — Not happening.
The whole point of current political upset at this time in The USA is that we do not and will not accept anyone, no matter their wealth or officialdom, taking unto themselves a title much less an aura of nobility. Here a man is respected for who he is, for his honor as a man, for her honor as a woman, not because they are in a position to help or harm others.
The antinomians in this world today are the “conservative Christians.” The world is God’s sandbox and He likes to play in it with his friends and playmates. Take what is and appreciate it. Don’t expect or hope for whatever it is to be or become something else. What is is what is, and God makes it so.
I believe in God but not the church and God wrote the 10 Commandments; try living by them and the rest of the Bible is man-made.
Monarchy is about as “divinely ordained” as fascism or democracy.
Even ISIS calls its “Caliphate” divinely ordained.
The problem isn’t that republican governments in and of themselves are flawed, it all boils down to who you say is eligible to vote. In my great grandfather’s day, only white MALE land owners {who paid taxes on the land}, of at least 25 years of age who could read and write at a proficient level were allowed to vote. Gradually, the requirements were either stripped away completely {race, sex. land owner and literacy requirements}, while the age requirement was first relaxed to 21 years of age, then later to only 18. The Labour Party in the UK even had a party plank where they were pushing for the age there to be rolled back to 16 years of age! You can bet the Democrats in the USA where watching that closely to see if there was any support for it. Imagine that, teenagers still living with their parents with no clue to how the “real world” is supposed to function having the same vote as an adult working and paying taxes. What could go wrong? Today you have half the country {USA} paying NO TAXES, receiving welfare subsidies, with no “skin in the game” electing politicians who promise them money out of the pockets from the productive citizens.That is what is wrong with the current American system. The day Congress ratified the Amendment that gave women voting eligibility, the clock started ticking on the republic. I know this isn’t popular, but it is true. Just look at all of the so-called “progressive” politicians that have been elected since 1920. This would have never been possible otherwise.
I strongly disagree; royalty rule by inheritance, not by merit, and are leeches and parasites on a modern society. Monarchies are an archaic institution best relegated to the past.
“The Burke-Rousseau tet-a-tet is a fairly old debate that reaches into many levels.”
Last year, I created the following web document: https://www.insight.4thtransition.ws/ in which the historical metamorphosis of human societies from egalitarian to stratified organization was considered. A distinction between influence (egalitarian society) and power (ranked/stratified society) was articulated. I feel that this denoted distinction offers an additional tier of perspective regarding the Burke-Rousseau debate.
Sorry Walt but I did not like your essay. Too much God talk for my liking. The uSA leadership pretends it’s Religeous but acts evil & it’s populance pretends it’s religeous also. But that’s all BS !
Monarchy has probably always been 3/4ths imagination. Same with ‘normal’. The earth and its situation is infinitely complex and imposed delusions are deadly oversimplifications. Jesus wanted his followers to give high regard to those he called the least, the humble, the peacemakers, when they faced important decisions.
Where is this entire article suddenly coming from on the Saker blog?
That is your God, I take it?
When it comes to political power and the involvement of God, there is but one issue.
Is my God bigger than your God?
How to resolve that question?
War. And off we go again.
No thanks.
Speaking of monarchy, here are a few cheeky “tributes” to their majesties, the British royal family:
The Incredibly Coddled Lifestyle Of King Charles III
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=610&v=xawE4vk_MIA&feature=emb_logo
BBC Censors Legendary Irish Anthem With Fake Crowd Noise After MMA Fans Mock Queen Elizabeth With ‘Lizzie’s In A Box’
https://www.outkick.com/bellator-mma-dublin-ireland-lizzies-in-a-box-chant-song-bbc-censor/
Shamrock Rovers Fans: ‘Lizzie’s In A Box’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYHIPm4bU8M
‘Soldiers are we’….is there any other country out there that has an anti Imperial rebel song, The Soliders Song, as a national anthem?
As hard as they try to white wash the past, the truth of the future lives on in the Oral Traditions.
Cheers M
Let’s not be too quick to cite God in any argument.
The following bit of (facetious, but accurate) dialog came into my head.
Moses: Well everybody, here’s Canaan, your promised land!
People: Wow, great, thanks! Let’s go!
Moses: Erm, there’s just one problem . . .
People: Oh? What’s that then?
Moses: It’s already occupied. By Canaanites.
People: So what does God want us to do?
Moses: Well, slaughter the Canaanities, of course. No point in asking them nicely to make room is there?
People: No, of course not. All right then, swords out lads, let’s go!
The place of the crowd is below, as below is the
unconscious place too. It is destined to belong here.
The ox, when he pulls the cart and plows,
Holy animal. When it goes up, it turns into a dragon.
He no longer pulls the plow, but the yoke
he drops it, goes berserk and spits fire.
Bela Hamvas
The idea that one man could be easier to correct has been disproved in history a number of times. Some men are harder to correct than a whole society – the prisons are full of them, and nepotism guarantees one ends up on the throne sooner or later.
Monarchy is utterly abhorrent.
It is the epitomy of cabalistic evil. The epitomy of contempt for the educated, the merited, the welfare of the many.
The concept that monarchism is somehow related to “God” is abhorrent.
I actually live in a monarchist ie feudalist country. And vile it is in the extreme because of it.
The corruption of feudalism, the slavery, the social class bigotry and corruption.
The relegation of the talented to modern day serfdom.
Most monarchies are 3rd world cesspools like Saudi Arabia and the like. Or sinister propagandist cesspools like Britain.
Such articles really shouldn’t have any place on this site. All they do is harm it.
Isn’t the best and really only example of a Monarchy found in the fall of the nation of Israel?
As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” Luke 19 41-43
They wanted a David or a Solomon or a Moses to deliver the nation form Rome. Christ could very well have done that as He also said elsewhere about “a greater than Solomon is here.”
Whats the problem then?
Well, as I heard on a radio broadcast on my way to work one morning a number of years ago. The preacher was talking about holiness and faith and then proceeded with all kinds of illustrations finally ending his rant by screaming into the microphone:
‘is anybody out there actually living the Life!?!?! Living a life of holiness and fear to God?!?!?!?!?!?!
Yeah, that about sums it up right there unfortunately. If the death of Christ means little to nothing then what one will get is legislated morality by way of an impostor king who will control your bread and conscience through computer tech. Glazyiev’s electronic concentration camp!!! The QR Code our politician / banker wet dream to control the masses.
Sainthood isn’t or wasn’t something just for those retreating into monasteries but for all of God’s people. Can you imagine St. Paul living during the crusades and watching Christians nations going to war to kill each other for their human monarchies? Christians slaughtering one another for money and power?
‘Few there be that find it?’ Jesus?
While I sympathize with the author’s sentiment, the problem diagnosis is off the mark, which leads to a very misguided conclusion. I have to emphasize this because no misdiagnosed problem is ever solved.
The idea that a government by *wise and benevolent* autocrat is the best government possible was put forth by Aristotle and Plato. But they also say that government by a bad autocrat is the *worst* possible. To this we must add the words of Lord John Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” The corollary: Good autocracies never last long.
Contrary to what it may seem on the surface, the political, social and moral decay of the United States is NOT due to some kind of inherent problem with “government by the people.” Actually, quite the opposite!! All of it is best understood as downstream chaos caused by the ascent of plutocracy. Theodore Roosevelt said it well a long time ago:
“There is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the money touch, but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.”
FDR also said something highly relevant to the current situation:
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is *FASCISM* – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
Government is about *who does what to whom*! The TRUE government of the US today is stealthy — “Stealth Fascism” (Eve Smith refers to it as “Neofascism”). It resides on Wall Street and in Silly-Con Valley, not Washington DC. The sacrilegious and hedonistic mob behavior in the United States that we all lament did not grow organically, it was fostered and nurtured by those who have used it as a mechanism of financial exploitation. You need look no further than Matt Stoller’s recent piece to get a feel for how this works: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/who-loves-woke-wall-street
The single greatest obstacle to removing the thugs currently in power is *confusion and lack of understanding around this issue*. I’ll add that it is unlikely the plutocrats could have ascended to such power without all the money printing. (This is something Putin himself touches on in his speech.) Remember that the US central bank is ABSOLUTELY NOT a democratic institution!
It’s also important to remember that the founders of the United States created a framework to AUGMENT God’s laws, not to replace them. This is quite explicit in much of their writing.
Of course the most beautiful and intelligent presentation of the entirety of our human dilemma was given by Dostoevsky in his story of The Grand Inquisitor (The Brothers Karamazov). But fans of monarchy take note: It is The Inquisitor — the story’s equivalent of YOUR MONARCH — who condemns Christ to be burned at the stake, not the people.
—
“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.” — John Adams, at the Constitutional Convention (1787)
I think it would be more accurate to say that the Bible history shows the divine law functioning under tribal republic, monarchy, and empire. All three are lawful.
That being said, the chosen title of Christ is King of Kings, not President of Presidents.
Therefore it is not unreasonable to say that monarchy is the ideal and the archetype, while all three forms of government are lawful.
The Swiss got it properly : The Ruetli Oath :
No, there is a limit to the tyrant’s power,
when the oppressed can find no justice,
when the burden grows unbearable-he reaches
with hopeful courage up unto the heavens
and seizes hither his eternal rights,
which hang above, inalienable
and indestructible as stars themselves.
The primal state of nature reappears,
where man stands opposite his fellow man.
As a last resort, when not another means
is of avail, the sword is given him,
The highest of all goods we may defend
from violence, Thus stand we before our country,
thus stand we before our wives, and before our children.
There was a plan for a CHF 20 with the Ruetli Oath, it never appeared. However it did on an American Banknote :
https://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/en/2017/05/the-ruetli-oath-on-an-american-banknote/
Every presumed Monarch should be requested to recite that, in the dock…
Kings and Queens have now largely been replaced by a private banking cabal.
Albert Einstein had this to say:
https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/