The politics of the West is based upon a dejenerat Christian culture. The Royalist Party explores the politics wich folow from a heathen relijus vision. It treats of monarchy both as a political universal and as a spesificaly heathen expresion. The Royalist Party has no relashon to existing monarchical tradishons. Ours is a scrufy, stinky, naked royalism for the culture yet to com.
It woud be good to asert a political crisis in our time. For that woud portend chanje. Insted we find political inersha. Wich is yet reason enuf for a new treatment of politics. A jenuinly radical examinashon from its orijins.
There ar many consepshons of the political. A working definishon wil suit our purposes. Politics: that organizashon by wich men in groups acomplish the tasks set befor them. Politics is simpl. Politics is primitiv. It is rooted in the relashons of men as we liv our lives every day. How we liv is ultimatly a spiritual question. The political as the spiritual is a basic truth of royalism.
We wil need to recount
How it Was
becaus how it was is not how it is. It seems that deep within the mind, the impresion exists that there is mor in the world than there apears to be. We woud say that from the begining of consiusnes men hav delt with the presens of the unseen. In many parts of the world there wer singers hoo gave a spesific form to the divine. Let this singer speak to us: "Remember me in after time whenever any one of men on earth, a stranger who has seen and suffered much, comes here and asks of you, 'Whom think ye, girls, is the sweetest singer who comes here, and in whom do you most delight?' Then answer, each and all, with one voice, 'He is a blind man, and lives in rocky Chios: his lays are evermore supreme.'" To return. The funcshon of relijon is to draw us out of the temporal and toward the eternal. Our lives being sircumscribed by time, we nevertheles hav the capasity to contemplate the timeles. The timeles is ritely considerd the divine, that somthing outside of man that elevates and ennobles man, and that thru the operashon of art beomes alive.
A fundamental human idea is the graeter. That wich is mor than what we ar. Thru al time the graeter is the proper focus of the self. The only focus for whatever graetnes we may ourselvs atain. We no not whens it coms, yet the graeter is the graetest gift we'v bin given.
That wich is mor than what we ar. In human afairs, they that ar graeter wer made manifest. Lov and onor acrued to them.
Just as relijusly the graeter is the unseen, politicaly it is manifested in the king. The bedrok of politics: hoo requires no analysis or justificashon: the king is a mystery we respect.
When the graeter is prevalent in consiusnes the result is a natural flow of lov and onor between king and peepl, as consiusnes of the graeter operated no les in the king himself. For the thing that is kingship is ever graeter than the man hoo is king.
If monarchy is the most seemly and jenuinly human political form, the question arises, why is monarchy now nowhere on the political horizon? To anser this we must investigate the nature of
Culture is what the world is. The quintesential creashon of humanity, culture tels us hoo we ar, where we ar, and why we ar. Every culture provides a diferent set of ansers. Every culture describes a diferent world. Yet, exept for primitivs, things arn't static. There is the proses of discovery. The sucsesion of truths. The esential fact of culture is chanje. Truths apear, even the graetest truths, wich in turn becom meaningles. When the esential truths of a culture die, that culture dies. Cultures may be considerd discrete organisms displaying a recognizabl life sycle of youth, maturity, and decay.
In political terms, a culture's youth and maturity develop under monarchy: the state under wich its graetest truths apear. For the sycolojy of monarchy is the graetest to wich we may atain: the sycolojy of lov and onor.
Why ask why a culture declines? Let it sufise that the edifises we bild, the worlds we create, ar never proof against time.
The Rise of the Self
When the graeter can no longer be aknolejd it is we hoo becom smal. The sycolojy of lov and onor is no longer tenabl and we regres bakwards from the adult to the adolesent. A new sycolojy apears, that of self and rebelion, and a political form apropriat to that sycolojy: democrasy.
The Democratic Rebelion
And a new doctrine is formulated in its suport: equality. The antithesis and negashon of the graeter. But it is not simply the graeter that the democratic man is in rebelion against, for by now as a respectabl idea it has long bin put to rest. Rather he rebels against any obstacl to his desire. Ultimatly he is in rebelion against law. Thus it is that the ultimat tendensy of democrasy is nihilism and its ultimat goal is its own self-destrucshon. For when the political standard is the satisfacshon of the self, then inevitably the quality of that standard, the quality of that self, wil decline. For politicaly speaking the self and the peepl ar equivalent. Such is the fatal flaw of democrasy and why democratic life inexorably worsens, even if the proses takes many jenerashons. The democratic system becoms unworkabl and a revolushon heralds a new era, even if in name democratic.
When the democratic rebelion is complete, the strugl is over and the victory won. We arive at a lawles despotic sosiety in wich the state no longer servs the law but is itself the law. But long befor that point a new political sycolojy aserts itself. For our adolesent has bin geting younger. The sycolojy of despotism is the sycolojy of the child: that of need and fear.
The Despotic Era
Aparently tecnolojy, democrasy, and capitalism ar intimatly intertwined. Capitalsim is the nuts and bolts of materialism. Soshalists require capitalists to maintain an acseptabl standard of living. But with the colaps of the ethos of producshon and consumpshon soshalists wil rein supreme in the graetly contracted economic life of the despotic era. Likewise there wil be a tecnical regresion. But the demise of the relijon of power wil present new spiritual posibilitys. New relijons wil proliferate.
The despotic state, ministering to the needs and the fears of Americans, wil be an esentialy stable rejime. Its chalenjes wil be external.
The youngest strongest most vigorus cultures in the world today ar those of blak Africa. Curently beset by the West, they wil com into their own after the end of world culture. How wil they resist when a new world is theirs for the taking? These blak wil suplant the peepl and culture of white America. And there wil be a new blak America, not of slaves but of free men, and royalist as it befits them.
There is only won reason, only won justificashon for war: to win glory. Behind every military desision lies the question, to hoom goes the glory? For glory goes to hoom that puts the most at risk. Thus obviusly, machines canot fite our wars for us. In any conflict, the nobler side is the les tecnical side. When this is realized, war wil rise to its proper level: hand to hand.
It is an eror to asert that modern sosiety is postchristian. The reality is that we ar subchristian, the situashon of peepl no longer believing in Christ, yet incapabl of throwing off Christian morality. The word atributed to Gandhi, "It is posibl to liv in peas," presents the core of the subchristian vision. That we hav the power to create and establish the Kingdom of God on erth. What is unquestiond is the morality of the Kingdom of God itself. The man of the Kingdom of God is a spiritualy mutilated human being that is unworthy of us. The sucsesor to the subchristian man, the Heathen man, presents a hole humanity equal to al that life has to ofer, equal to peas becaus he is equal to war.
The Chois Befor Us
The culture of peas, wich is the culture of the West, has had a long run and is dying. The West can not abandon peas or the Christian vision of man; it wil simply die. Seeing that the West must die, humanity must now choos, simply becaus the chois is presented, between peas and deth or war and life. There is no dout for the imens majority, what that chois wil be. Yet those hoo make the Heathen chois of life and al it entails wil becom the seeds of the life of the future, becaus after al,
We ar adults of the Falus
The falus, within the context of the West, selebrates the return to holenes. That after an unfortunat interval humanity has regaind its bearings. The West must be understood in its esens as the denial of, a war against, the falus and life. To asert the falus is to asert the world that is. Recognizing the history of the birth of the West, when Hebraic myth replaced the Hellenic, we can understand that the falus, even in the West's decline, can never be acsepted. When the falus rules, the West, with its capitalists and its soshalists, with its siens and tecnolojy, with its machine culture, nihilism, and frenetic mindlesnes, wil disapear. And in its plase wil be the noble world of war.
The Political Truth
No political form or ideolojy has escaped the inevitability that in whatever field of endevor, they that exel, lead. Royalism simply embrases the fact. Royalism is the cult of the exelent.
Lov and Politics
A radical asks fundamental questions. What is the basis of politics? What is the basis of male organizashon? Political lov, while esential to monarchy, rings stranje to democratic ears. Very stranje. Not lov, but a deep and abiding suspishon greets the ofisholder. A worthy suspishon, if voter and ofisholder be of the same fabric. Let us state the case clearly. Lov is the only jenuin political basis. Not fear, nor greed, nor ambishon can compel us to work as a group, lov being absent. Such it was from the begining and political lov was most hiely developt by the institushons of monarchy. To supose that lov may be suplanted by equality is a grievus eror and failure of the mind. We do not lov becaus we ar equal; on the contrary, when we can not lov we demand equality.
Monarchy wil not be establisht in the United State, for the human material does not exist. But royalism is not so much a mater of external institushons as it is a state of mind. Each of us has the royalist power to do onor to that and those we lov. To do onor is to afirm value. To do onor is to giv meaning. To do onor is to tel the world hoo we ar. To do onor is the royalist imperativ. From this personal royalism, free of formal constraints in a democratic sosiety, we now hav the oportunity to create the culture that is to com. A chalenjing and rewarding oportunity for those equal to it.
It's bin sed that the Greeks invented politics: that in a milieu of surounding monarchys, they first developt new political forms. The statement of cors betrays a democratic bias. For a real insite into the political, we must examin not inovashons, but the prevalens and persistans of monarchy acros time and acros plase. The Royalist Party is the result of that inquiry. The work was dun in a vacuum. For the Left, having conquerd the world, is itself the problem. The nany state, with the child sitizen, is its supreme acheevment. Nothing vital coud com from that plase. And the Rite, on the other hand, is an intelectual bakwater. Even in relijus guise it coud go bak no further than capitalism, and the asumpshons implisit in that view of the world. The Royalist Party has transformd the meaning of the Rite to signify those hoo beleev in a graet humanity; to signify those hoo understand what a graet humanity is. The falus, and the truths of life ar of the Rite. Christrianity and the longing for deth ar of the Left. The democratic world has given itself its own symbol. Humanity is now divided between the democratic peepl of the skul, and the royalist peepl of the falus. Wich wil prevail?
Consise critiques and contribushons to royalism wil be apended. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org