By Walt Garlington for the Saker Blog
There have been a few political thinkers in the United States through the years worthy of attention, but many of those here who comment on such things are awful guides, their views being badly skewed by their belief in American exceptionalism. Mr William Federer is a great example: His articles, while full of interesting details most of the time, too often place them in a distorted metaphysical frame. What he posted recently about kings is unfortunately not a departure from his established norm:
‘Slavery did not start in 1619. It began with kings. Whenever you had the first king on top you had slaves on the bottom.’
This is about as unserious and childish a statement as one could make about monarchy. So why bother about it, then? Because it is representative of the way many, if not most, people in the States think about kings. And that thinking is such a distortion of reality, political and otherwise, that it calls out for a response of some kind, if only to try to ward off any worse evils than we have been living through recently.
Christian monarchy, contra Mr Federer, is a great blessing to people in a number of ways. First, it draws their collective attention away from the mundane to heavenly realities. The Orthodox priest Father James Thornton writes in his book Pious Kings and Right-Believing Queens,
‘The throne of a Christian Emperor, King, or ruling Prince, is not an earthly contrivance but is of a much higher order. It is ordained and blessed by God and belongs to Him. It is written in the Old Testament that, “Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD.”4 The throne, thus, was not Solomon’s but was God’s.5 The thrones in all Christian monarchies are the same; they belong to God and are occupied by God’s anointed. In the Orthodox Church, the monarch is anointed in a Mysteriological (or “Sacramental”) act. At the coronation of Saint Edgar the Peaceable in 973, for example, “[t]he climax of the ceremony was not the crowning, but the anointing with holy oil which conferred near-priestly status….” 6 Precisely the same was true of the coronation of Saint Nicholas the Tsar Martyr in 1896, almost a thousand years later. As Bishop Nektary of Seattle (1905-1983) writes, “The Tsar was and is the anointed of God.”7 After the anointing, the monarch’s person is sacred and, consequently, to lay violent hands on an Orthodox monarch is a grave sacrilege; in fact, among the worst sacrileges possible. Conversely, a monarch is held by God to a much higher standard than ordinary men and women, for the monarch holds, by God’s Grace, special powers in his hands, which powers he is sworn to use in a God-pleasing manner. He is also an example to his subjects, on which, if his example is a wholesome one, those subjects should model their own lives, to the extent possible. Monarchs, consequently, must use their powers with fear and trembling, not arbitrarily, and must be mindful that the eyes of God and of His people are ever upon him. The monarch’s purpose or role is to uphold the law of God in his country, to protect his country and people from adversaries, to shelter the poor, widows, and orphans, to contribute to the prosperity of his people, and to provide, through the Church and in cooperation with the Church, spiritual sustenance, thereby guiding his subjects to eternal salvation.’
Modern Western democracies/republics, with their official detachment from anything Christian, simply cannot provide the kind of spiritual uplifting that a Christian king and the rites involving him and his people can.
Nor can they offer quite as powerful of a moral example needed to sustain other important institutions in society like the family. His Eminence Archbishop Chyrsostomos writes in the ‘Introduction’ to the same book,
‘ . . . we can . . . see in the lives of pious kings and queens from the past how they cultivated virtue in their subjects and how virtuous subjects, in turn, inspired selfless leadership in their rulers. This reciprocal relationship, centered, at least in Christian monarchies, on self-sacrifice and the concern of the monarch and his subjects for the goal of living a Godly earthly life in preparation for eternal perfection, is ideally reflected in the life of the family. The monarch, like a mother or father, cares for his or her subjects with love and concern, just as his or her subjects, like children looking up to a parent, feel an obligation to the monarch who nurtured and protected them. Monarchism, therefore, is intimately related to the family, a basic element in the structure of society, and draws on many of the same powers that have made the family such an enduring force in human history and in our personal formation.’
Modern elected politicians are prone to selfishness and not to self-sacrifice, seeking after power and wealth, unwilling to let go of them (some even dying while still holding their elected or appointed posts; recent US Supreme Court justices like William Rehnquist and Ruth Bader Ginsburg come quickly to mind). The Christian monarchs, His Eminence goes on to say, show us the opposing virtues:
‘The most amazing lesson that we learn from the lives of the virtuous monarchs of our Orthodox Christian Faith is singular virtue of fearing, following, and then loving God. Our royal Saints were men and women who feared the lure of the world and ruled according to Divine precepts, following the examples of the Saints. Many of them, in so doing, came to such love of God that they became monastics at the end of their lives, giving up power and privilege for the simplicity, poverty, and humility of the angelic life. Virtue so transformed them that they became, in the parlance and thought of the modern world, social parasites. But as the very lives of these righteous royals aver, in the course of embracing virtue they elevated and benefited humanity and society, giving it essential life. They expose, by their example, those who eschew virtue, who suck the marrow from human life, exploiting it for the sake of selfish passions and personal gain, as the real parasites. Trading social preëminence for humility, wealth for poverty, leadership for obedience, and self-interest for self-transformation in Christ, the Orthodox royals who sacrificed their lives for their people, who set an example of Godly life and self-abnegation in abundance and luxury, and who, in the most severe and extreme expression of their commitment to God and others, embraced the monastic life—these extraordinary figures pose a challenge to our increasingly unreligious societies, to our materialistic and passion-centered way of life, and to our deviation from the path of achieving human perfection in selflessness. They throw down the gauntlet to all of us in an epoch where we have made depravity available to all, calling us to spiritual nobility, the lowly and the mighty alike; to an egalitarianism of humility; to a common aristocracy of virtue; and to an abandonment of the material world and the passions for the spiritual gifts of goodness and purity.’
But this is not all. Most admirers of US constitutionalism and the Founding Fathers fail to realize how friendly towards monarchy many of those Founders were. John Adams, for instance, writes,
‘An hereditary limited monarch is the representative of the whole nation, for the management of the executive power, as much as an house of representatives is, as one branch of the legislature, and as guardian of the public purse; and a house of lords too, or a standing senate, represents the nation for other purposes, viz. as a watch set upon both the representatives and the executive power. The people are the fountain and original of the power of kings and lords, governors and senates, as well as the house of commons, or assembly of representatives: and if the people are sufficiently enlightened to see all the dangers that surround them, they will always be represented by a distinct personage to manage the whole executive power’ (Eric Nelson, The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding, Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass., 2014, pgs. 67-8).
We disagree with Mr Adams as to the powers of ‘the people’ to make and unmake a government, but the statement is still remarkable in its claim by a ‘loyil American’ that an unelected king can be a legitimate representative of a people.
But even more noteworthy than this is that many North American English colonists were in favor of strengthening, not weakening, the powers of the King of England:
‘The Virginia lawyer and pamphleteer Thomson Mason (younger brother of George Mason and a future chief justice of the supreme court of Virginia) agreed, declaring (as we have seen) that “the general opinion, that the great defect in the present Constitution of Britain is the enormous power of the Crown” ought to be dismissed as “a vulgar errour.” Quite the contrary, it was the failure of the British people to restore “the ancient independence of the Crown” after the two revolutions that had crippled the mixed monarchy. The Americans, unlike their brethren across the sea, recognized this defect, and they were accordingly in a unique position to rescue the constitution, both in the colonies and in Britain itself: “Was our Sovereign, even now, to place a little more confidence in his American subjects, there are many amongst them whose knowledge of their country would enable, and whose affectionate loyalty to him would impel, them to point out constitutional modes of placing him in a very different situation from what a corrupt, selfish, British aristocracy wish to see; for, however humiliating the reflection may be to a Briton, it is the virtue of America only that can preserve Great Britain from becoming the prey of the most despotick aristocracy that ever yet was elected”’ (Ibid., pgs. 56-7).
It was King George III’s refusal to reign in the corrupt oligarchs in Parliament that led the colonists to abandon their loyalty to him rather than some kind of special, world-changing zeal for ‘freedom’.
Southerners for their part were quite comfortable with the hierarchy of the English monarchical system. This is plain in Mr Thomson’s writing above, and even as far removed from the War for Independence as 1836, when the Virginian Nathaniel Beverley Tucker published his novel George Balcombe. William Napier speaks first in this passage, followed by the titular character Mr Balcombe:
‘”You must have a curious fancy for genealogies. For my part, I only care to know that I am my father’s son.”
‘”Then you do yourself great wrong. Were you a Plantagenet, men would hardly blame you for claiming descent from the Conqueror, though traced through the treacherous John and his imbecile son, or any others whose crimes tarnish the glories of that illustrious line. Is it not a higher honour to be sprung from a race of men without fear and without reproach the ancient cavaliers of Virginia? Men in whom the spirit of freedom was so blended with loyalty as to render them alike incapable of servility and selfishness; and who, when their sovereign tore himself from his place in their hearts, transferred their allegiance to their country, and again poured out their blood like water, and scattered their wealth like chaff. Had they fostered this and transmitted it to you, you would have been careful to make out your claim to the inheritance. Are you not degenerate, if you do not prize, even yet more highly, the name, for the honour of which they gave so freely that which was, in their estimation, comparatively but as ‘the small dust of the balance?’’ (Harper & Brothers, New York, Volume 1, p. 22)
The firm grip of demonic revolutionary democratic ideologies on the Western soul makes a recovery of Orthodox Christian monarchy in the US or abroad unlikely in the short term. However, the awakening and re-enthronement of the sleeping king is a theme that recurs throughout history. There is an innate desire in mankind for a king-father to rule over him. The misguided efforts by writers like William Federer to ignore that good and natural desire and feed it the poison of pure egalitarianism instead (per C. S. Lewis) will only drive the West deeper into the darkness of ruin.
The Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee having come and gone, we cannot help noting that many folks in the States today sound all too much like the Pharisee – ‘We thank Thee, O Lord, that we are not like all the other countries with their autocrats’ – and other such prideful thoughts. Only the humility of the Publican will save us, though.
This explains why so many Tsars were either murdered by or attacked by Jews. These were attacks on the Church itself.
Sorry but, If the Tsar had been great person, and would have given a piece of earth to their people like толстой said, the Romanov had survived and had not be taken down into the oblivious by the false ebrew Bolshevik. Tsar simple let Gesuit enter again in Russia and used Ebrew as their instrument. Ebrew does not more exist from 70 A.D. Bible is clear about that. With the first Judaic war the left the earth. …………………………… Nicholas II was nephew of queen Victoria they say.
Wonderful piece!
For follow-up, one might read Aquinas’ De regimine principum, the first principle of which is that all proper dominion is based upon the example of God, Who is the one ruler of the universe.
Aquinas went on to discuss the virtues necessary for proper governance by Christian princes. Primary among those virtues is self-governance in light of Christian Revelation and the cardinal virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Fortitude.
In addition to the Orthodox rulers named, there were Western “saint-kings” such as Louis IX of France. Even those who were not saints were guided by Christian virtue (such as Alfred the Great of Wessex), or held in check by a society aimed at it (such as John of England and the opposing barons both being held in check by Magna Carta, written by then-Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton).
It is when kings and rulers turn away from Christian virtue that hell on earth begins.
And the same can indeed be said regarding fathers of families.
“It is when kings and rulers turn away from Christian virtue that hell on earth begins.”
It isn’t the Chair that makes decisions is is the person who sits in it, happen-chance rules the World, and Happen-chance chooses the Rulers, we, as the Bard once said, are poor creatures fretting and strutting on the stage and the Zeitgeist of the times furnishes the props we play to!
I once read about a English king who felt free to walk the streets of his Capital, a King who knew his boot-maker’s first name and who had decreed that every child should be educated to the limit of their ability, I believe that that Country was probably a nice place to live, as long as it lasted!
The Zeitgeist changes in response to ‘something’ that is beyond human control!
To me, it seems that the really important changes happen just before human perception, and there fore have already happened when we recognize them. The Rulers try to change the facts to suit the narrative they serve but time never stops and never will no matter how fervent the wish that it should stop now, while I am at the top.
Isabel la Católica of Spain, Carlos I of Spain and his son Felipe and many others whom brougth to America faith and civilization.
Puleeze, don’t tell the aboriginal peoples of the Western hemisphere that the Catholic friars brought “faith and civilization.” They brought death and slavery. Have you any idea how many native people died in just the silver mine of Bolivia ? The friars spoke in Latin or Spanish to the natives, who understood not a word. Their incomprehension was sufficient excuse for the Conquistadores to slaughter the heathens. For me, the Spain that was imposed by Isabel and Fernandez was worse than the Third Reich. Sorry to impose Godwin’s Law, but that’s how far you have to reach, to describe the depth of any hagiography of this vicious kingdom. And by the way, that same kingdom – along with its comprador Church – was still doing matanzas throughout the 1800’s, but back in Spain. To speak good of evil is … evil.
A great number of people’s histories have been erased in order to make such free-floating claims about human nature and kings seem like fundamental truth. Genocide is written into the Abrahamic cultural script. It’s necessary to establish the sort of narrative about humanity necessitated by the social structure it encodes, alternative perspectives on human potential and nature become an existential threat. The mere existence of alternatives fundamentally undermines so many of the claims, and with it, the free lunches of many rulers.
You’ll have to kill people like me.
ah, Kodiak,
lol, I often wonder how a Darwin would have survived in that old world? Actually, he wouldn’t have even dared to broach such a subject as evolution and why is because in that old world faith and the existence of God wasn’t a blind belief idea based on nothing more than an ideology that can’t be proved as in the words of Carl Sagan:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”
The stories of the great flood of Noah, Nimrod and all the other stories were based as actual fact of history. God was not some unknown foreign person that couldn’t be seen or touched to those people. For heavens sake Abraham walked the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah. Such events were front page news including the the parting of the Red Sea etc etc. Poor Darwin would have been laughed out of existence talking about we evolved from apes.
Genocide? If there was one word that sums up the entire Old Testament and indeed perhaps even the New Testament given what we find written in the Book of Revelation is it not the word Treason?
Treason is a crime worthy of the death penalty is it not? How much more so when it comes to the sin of idolatry? Just think of ones own children whom you created with your spouse. To come home one day and find them thumbing their nose at you as their father and jumping the shark into all kinds of disobedience and calling someone else their father instead, what are you going to do with such disobedient children? Pat them on the head and say O its okay I understand you love the pleasures of sin which makes you sacrifice my grandchildren to your idols? You have the freedom to do as you wish?
This was the sin or rather blatant rebellion of that old world and yes this can even be seen in Christs own life when He pronounced judgment upon the cities Capernaum and Sidon etc for their lack of repentance in the face of great miracles. This one cannot do with the one who created us!!!!
Genocidal? It seems to me that another genocide is approaching and Christ will be the One who will instigate it and why? Because in the Book of Revelation we are told mankind will actually go to war against the Creator Himself who unfortunately has been redefined as an alien? I guess we haven’t seen the last of the Stalin s of the world?
Rev. 14: 11..
The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
—— King of Kings and Lord of Lords!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.
Treason, Kodiak, Treason!!!!!!!!! That is the story of the Old Testament from beginning to end!!!!
Treason you say? The “Arrogance” (of Jacob i.e. Israel after the name-change, lol) would seem to be the more constant theme from which all manner of sin, errors and vanities are borne.
However, the topic is on the so-referenced God-Given Kingship/Kinship; and along said path of (t)reason it should be noted that the power of any earthly-throne is consistently contained, limited or otherwise balanced or undermined by the Royal-“Courts”, which duly-morphed into the Legal-“Courts”; hence the Judiciary Power-Sharing within the Structure of The Republic(s). Here is wherein the pattern of the matter-in-question becomes not Treason per se, but Extortion! Why? Simply look at the pattern shown in Sacred Scriptures regarding Samuel, as interlocutor for the God-Head; whereby, Israel being symbolically-representative for the entire human-race implores for an appointed King rather than having to deal directly/indirectly with the God-Head; because a King-Head is mortal and can be made vunerable to the power of extortion, whereas the God-Head will simply tell any potential-extortionists to stand-off to one-side and then the Earth will swallow them whole, lol. Israel was quick-to-learn early-on that NEGOtiations with The God-Head are not beneficial to the human-health (-: Some Monkey-Suits have overplayed their hands/skins…. IMHO
REF.:
https://biblehub.com/genesis/32-24.htm – Jacob Wrestles with God
https://www.etymonline.com/word/extortion#etymonline_v_14122
extortion (n.)
“the act of extorting, the act or of wresting anything from a person by force, duress, menace, authority, or any undue exercise of power, oppressive or illegal exaction,” c. 1300, from Latin extortionem (nominative extortio) “a twisting out, extorting,” noun of action from past-participle stem of extorquere “wrench out, wrest away, to obtain by force,” from ex “out” (see ex-) + torquere “to twist” (from PIE root *terkw- “to twist”).
https://biblehub.com/bsb/numbers/16.htm
32and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households—all Korah’s men and all their possessions. 33They went down alive into Sheol with all they owned. The earth closed over them, and they vanished from the assembly.
https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_samuel/8.htm
6But when they said, “Give us a king to judge us,” their demand was displeasing in the sight of Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD.
19Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We must have a king over us. 20Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to judge us, to go out before us, and to fight our battles.”
17He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18When that day comes, you will beg for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you on that day.”
https://biblehub.com/bsb/amos/6.htm
The Pride of Israel
8The Lord GOD has sworn by Himself—the LORD, the God of Hosts, has declared:
“I abhor Jacob’s pride
and detest his citadels,
so I will deliver up the city
and everything in it.”
https://biblehub.com/amos/8-2.htm
“A basket
(kə·lūḇ)
Noun – masculine singular construct
Strong’s 3619: A bird-trap, a basket
of summer fruit,”
(qā·yiṣ)
Noun – masculine singular
Strong’s 7019: To awake
https://biblehub.com/bsb/amos/8.htm
The Basket of Summer Fruit
1This is what the Lord GOD showed me: I saw a basket of summer fruit.
2“Amos, what do you see?” He asked.
“A basket of summer fruit,” I replied.
So the LORD said to me, “The end has come for My people Israel; I will no longer spare them.”
3“In that day,” declares the Lord GOD, “the songs of the temple will turn to wailing. Many will be the corpses, strewn in silence everywhere!”
ABC123=4DLULZ – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7796-au8U
Extortion you say? Good grief man God promised and gave them a land flowing with milk and honey and delivered these people from slavery and in return God had to listen to Korah belly ache and complain incessantly about leaving Egypt -why we had it good there let us return? They had every chance given to them before Sheol?
As for Jacob wrestling with an actual angel of the Lord speaks to his courage in approaching God and not letting Him go. Jesus was surely thinking about Jacob when he said ‘the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the mighty take it by force.’ God always looks and blesses those who seek Him with a full heart. Such faith is to be rewarded. Sin though always lies at the door like a weed that constantly pops up especially pride.
As for Samuel you didn’t care to mention climate change which is the work of God and was promised to Israel and Samuel revealed to the people how they had forgotten this great blessing and during of all things harvest season. Do you understand this they were promised climate change and this extended throughout their entire generation right down to the present age! God even used the weather as a weapon against her adversaries!!!! Job is the great teacher on this subject summing it up:
He brings the clouds to punish people or to water his earth and show His love. Job 37:13
These people weren’t faithful to God and it ended under Ahab and Manasseh in such a terrible way that as He said about their sacrificing their own children to moloch ‘ such a thing wouldn’t even have entered into my mind to do such a thing!
Extortion? Hardly.
If I accepted the historical validity of your arguments, which I do not, then I would have to convert to Islam, because in Islam, there is no justification whatsoever for killing people because their beliefs differ from yours.
It is best to keep the serfs deluded with visions of glory and heavenly bliss. Christian or not it has been the strategy of all ruling elites.
It seems you support monarchy ruler. Sure republic are corrupt, obviously, and they descend into oligarchy. Could you name a monarch in history which was good and worked for the poor? I think not and perhaps it is the problem all of you have. Sorry for that but the Bible was written by man non God. None saw him and the Bible itself declare it. Hi
100%
Agreed.
St. Louis of France
St Brigit of Sweden, you can search the list.
Asoka Maurya, emperor.
Exceptionalism and the collective west !
So in a nuclear war ( heaven Forbid) these exceptional beings are going to bath in the glory of their exceptionalism knowing they have stopped the non-exceptional ones !
If human beings want to be truly exceptional, cooperation and mutual understanding might be a better starting point!
“Christian monarchy, contra Mr Federer, is a great blessing to people in a number of ways.”
You’d be hard pressed to soft sell that sh!t to 400,000,000 dead native Americans, whose treasures built your cathedrals.
B@lls to this rubbishy propaganda.
Yes Christian and their kings killed native american. Sorry sterminated. Thank for remember this
Dear Alessandro Could you name one mass murder Christian king?
Thanks a lot.
How many Christian kings participated in crusades against the saracen? We can start the list there.
Their atrocity was not just to invade and inflict devastation upon the peoples of foreign lands. Each excursion relied upon the enlistment and sacrifice of the monarch’s own hapless subjects’ souls in pursuit of his and the church’s vainglory.
Any and every single one of them participating in any crusade, including those against slavs.
The greatest cathedrals are in Italy and Germany, who never had any significant overseas empires. Many of them were built before the discovery of the Americas. Also, there were nowhere near 400,000,000 native Americans. The estimate for North America is about 20,000,000. Most of the ethnic cleansing and genocide in North America took place after it became a republic. Most of the population in South and Central America is of mixed native and European ancestry. Many of them are strongly Catholic. It was only in North America that true genocide took place under British and later “American” rule.
Perhaps you can get a job creating numbers out of thin air for one of the Empire governments.
Let me quote Wikipedia, the always-whitewashed encyclopedia. “… it is believed that around eight million miners died in total.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Rico Somewhere, I read the death toll was 14 million, not 8 million, but I don’t recall the source. Perhaps someone else can help fix the faulty history of our Alieu.
One other thing: Modern historians and archaeologists put the number of people in just the present-day USA at over 100 million. Mexico alone would have been at least 20 million.
Generally this site is very valuable with a solid foundation in material reality. I hear Andrei is on a road trip; who’s might explain posting such mindless twaddle. There is absolutely no place for hereditary monarchy in modern rational states. None. 250 years ago Edward Gibbon eviscerated the reasoning behind supporting monarchy in a brief aside in his monumental Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. His reasoning has only grown more self-evident with the end of the reigns of Wittelsbachs, Hohenzollerns, Romanovs, Habsburgs and many others, but not enough to prevent such chumps as the author of this piece from hampering human progress.
Hats off to Good King Wenceslas, but the current queen is a lizard. Perhaps you are instead thinking of Socrates concept of the benefits of an “Enlightened” ruler. If nobility doesn’t create slavery, it certainly creates class and privilege and taxes and armies to feed to secure their rule. Although there may have been good kings, it is much more likely a “game of thrones” with all the off stage horrors.
I think our current problem is the same as it was for the Roman Empire: the Executive and Military branches dominate over the Congress of Oligarchs who really don’t care about the people either but their high position in society, like the Pharisees in the Bible.
A great man once pointed out that authoritarian states use government power to protect the people from degenerate and subversive elements, while democratic states use government power to protect degenerate and subversive elements from the people.
Thus spoke Zarathustra.
Excellent piece. It is no coincidence that the English, French, and Russian revolutions all culminated in regicide, an analog of patricide and deicide, an anti-sacrament to expunge the most visible icon of God’s sovereignty over human affairs.
Is this real? You are joking because the Saker was gone, right? Do we not still see a monarchy in Britain. Your God dies when the king dies (deicide)? Long live your deity! I think you confuse politics and love for God. Who is to say God is “my Lord” rather than “my Beloved.” Is not the purpose of sacraments to get us closer to God rather than do the will of “Princes” and “rulers” of the World? There are different ideas on how human-kind is sovereign.
Deicide is killing God. The Crucifixion was deicide.
Man is created in the image and likeness of God. All human authority derives from Him. That is imaged in the family (patriarchy) and the state (monarchy). Thus anarchists, atheists, revolutionaries, and satanists of all stripes are enemies of patriarchy and monarchy.
Patricide and regicide aren’t just murder. They’re unique evils seeking to expunge the divine template of humanity by killing God’s icon of authority in the persons of fathers and monarchs. That’s why they’re demonic “anti-sacraments” – tearing down and degrading what is holy.
I propose it is more accurate to perceive man as having ‘created’ god in his own image. Significantly, this creation of monotheistic self-reflection correlates with the creation of vertical power hierarchies. Representing and invoking the power of a supreme divine being is awfully convenient to the needs of a supreme political ruler. It is conversely interesting that hierarchically flat societies tend to understand their existence via pantheistic mythologies. Please explain how this evident pattern might be otherwise understood.
1 KINGS VIII [LXX – Brenton]
6 And the thing was evil in the eyes of Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us: and Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hear the voice of the people, in whatever they shall say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from reigning over them. 8 According to all their doings which they have done to me, from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day, even as they have deserted me, and served other gods, so they do also to you. 9 And now listen to their voice; only you shall solemnly testify to them, and you shall * describe to them the † manner of the king who shall reign over them. 10 And Samuel spoke every word of the Lord to the people who asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This shall be the ‡ manner of the king that shall rule over you: he shall take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and among his horsemen, and running before his chariots, 12 and his manner shall be to make them to himself captains of hundreds and captains of thousands; and to reap his harvest, and gather his vintage, and prepare his instruments of war, and the implements of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your good olive yards, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tithe of your seeds and your vineyards, and give it to his eunuchs, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your servants, and your handmaids, and your good herds and your asses, and will take the tenth of them for his works. 17 And he will tithe your flocks; and you° shall be his servants. 18 And you° shall cry out in that day because of your king whom you° have chosen to yourselves, and the Lord shall not hear you in those days, because you° have chosen to yourselves a king.
It’s 1 Samuel, btw.
Some kings are good. Some are bad. Most are mediocre.
In full on democracy, every politician that rises to the top is a born scoundrel.
In my book, the only “promised land” was tollan-tenochtitlan given to the mechica people by their God Huitzilopoxtli, to found their civilization. But eurocentric civilization labeled them as barbarians, canibalistic or the like.
Mesoamerican civilization thrived for a good 1,500 by the time Alfred was trying to be the first king in Avalon. And yes, the “royals” have to be anointed by the high priests in the various Tollan’s through the ages. In those times there was a driving ideology too, which had been conceptualized by the term Zuyua, their representative deity being the “feathered serpent”, Quetzalcoatl, in the central plains, Kukulkan for the Mayans or Gucumax for the maya-quiche of the Guatemalan Highlands. plenty of Man Gods in those days…
But to give some thought to “old world” kings, it comes to mind Ettiene Laboise “Against voluntary servitude”, or “God and the State” by Bakunin!
( The Gregorian calendar was modified after the information given by those “barbarian” astronomers of the “new world”. my one cent.
Good article! I’ve come around frim all the ‘democracy’ brainwashing to be a monarchist.
The most important thing is that it MUST be centered on God, and the True religion.
Sadly most are post-Christian, false-enlightenment thinkers’ steeped in an unscientific Darwinian fairy tale about their origins. This is why, when they try to percieve of monarchial institution they try to understand it it within a purely modernist secular way, where the nuclear family and patriarchy and God are bad words, and naturally it ceases to make sense for they want unrestrained freedom free from sensible moral order outside of murdering one already privileged enough to escape their mother’s womb, so monarchy is alien to this lifestyle.
Heaven exists, and God is sovereign there and there is permanent and fixed heirarchial order. If one wants to build paradise on Earth, it makes sense to model it on Heaven. Instead, every one, like Satan, wants their own throne, amd wants it above God’s. So they always inevitably end up building Hell instead. And there is always inevitably a Tower of Babel to keep all of Hell on Earth in line.
Voting is an illusion. Power is always top-down. Monarchy, even under the worst sorts, at least was evidently the truth and all men grasped that visibly. Today it works the same way, except the treasonous rulera are all hidden and we get their installed puppets to look at.
That is supposed to be better? Keep voting, I guess… vote harder next time.
This piece starts with the obvious, that being a subject of a king does not qualify as slavery, and then takes a sharp turn to become the clear leader in a race with very few competitors, for having the least justifiable idea ever.
Don’t quote anything in the Old Testament, please. There we find God supposedly angry with Jews who did not want to murder the “women, children and livestock” of another tribe. If I took the Old Testament as a historically and theologically valid text, then genocide would always be all right, so long as the Big Guy says so. If a pack of jackals, all in brown shirts, replace this “Jewish god” with a made-up Nordic god they would have the theology for a holocaust. Words fail to describe how bad such an idea is, but there it is, right in the Old Testament.
English writers at any time in history, extolling the virtues of “divine right”, are roasting in hades, if such a place exists. There is not one word in the Bible about the “divine right of kings.” No one in later centuries dared to add such an evil idea into this holy book, Old or New. Quite to the contrary, Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
The tsars of Russia show the very best and the worst of dictators. As someone else commented here, the Romanov line ended because the czar was completely incompetent. “Divine right” is supposed to prevent the worst of errors and excesses, but history shows even the least intelligent person that the woeful truth shows there is no such thing as “divine right”. This nonsense should have ended hundreds of years ago, when history books became widely available. Faced with such drivel, I get a small appreciation of what VVP must have had to endure, in a room for hours of German Prime Minister Scholtz making stupid big lies.