The Blackberry Walk

Plagued with American falsehoods, we believe monarchy and democracy are two forces at odds; to give one man such power would surely make him more than other men, more privileged than other men, more valued than other men? But hierarchy is an inevitability in this world. Not a single society in history has existed without hierarchy - what varies is whether this hierarchy is formal or informal. A formal hierarchy, like one of orders of nobility, is a hierarchy where official titles determine rank, whilst the hierarchy we live in today is hidden, informal, let on by where you live, what you do for a living, how you dress, etc. Let's go on a small tangent about capitalism. Capitalism is better called capitalarchy: it's the rule of money. Capitalism is where power is determined by money. The lords and nobility of yonder year received their power from their title and their land, not the amount of money they owned. What Europe's transition from feudalism into mercantilism saw was a kind of Baron's revolt of the merchant, not just against the monarch, but against the entire establishment of nobility: this is the Bourgeois Revolution. In classical Rome, there were two classes of people: the patricians and the plebeians. The difference, as de Coulanges writes, is that the patricians had family hearth's and household gods whilst plebs did not. Contra Christianity, Roman religion wasn't for the masses, but was instead parochial to each family, each of whom would have had their own style of worship to completely different deities. These deities were often famous ancestors whose grave was worshipped religiously, and were sometimes not - unfortunately, since such worship was held with the utmost secrecy within the family, we have lost virtually all knowledge of it. Through taboo breaking, such as being born out of wedlock or affronting the household gods and not being allowed any longer to be in their presence, you were exiled from your family and fell from the patrician class into becoming a pleb. The pleb had a dissolute life. Since all laws were available only to citizens (not plebs), and as law arose from this parochial family religion, plebs had no protection from violence (until later reforms) but neither had legal benefits such as marriage. Kingship existed in Rome, and was present at one time in all of these other Aryan societies, until at one point, as de Coulanges explains, the king was overrun by the nobility, by the patricians. The king in these societies held potently divine role, being instrumental in religious events to the gods of the city. If each set of household gods was worshipped by the patriarch of the family, the king could be understood as the patriarch of the city's gods. But the tensions between king and patricians ultimately in most cases reduced the king into a purely ceremonial position which in Rome was split up, and part of it was the pontifex maximus. Caesar's rise to power in part came from his position as pontifex maximus. He is the archetypal demagogue - the man who, with help from the tribunes of the plebs in the senate, galvanised the people against the failing democracy; his enemy Cato, of course, vying for the patrician class. When looking back at Roman politics, people struggle to point to whether Caesar was a left-wing or right-wing; but such categories are meaningless in this instance, for Caesar is a populist fighting elitists. The anarchy of the French revolution could not help but birth Napoleon, a king. Hitler was right when he said the Japanese were honorary Aryans. Much like Rome, Japan had a similar religious structure where over time (albeit delayed) the divine emperor, a descendent of Amaterasu, was sidelined in favour of the most successful military junta of all time. I say that tongue in cheek, but aren't the nobility just that - military leaders? We can see the Baron's Revolt under King John through the lens of a military mutiny; and so too the patricians of Rome, for no pleb would be allowed in the army! (until of course the decline of Rome). And much like Rome, Japan had their Caesar moment. Whilst the circumstances and impetus are different, the Meiji restoration reinstated the emperor as prime of position as the way to kick down the feudal military samurai class, to kick down the patrician nobility of Japan from their ruling positions. Such an effective move is only achievable with the divine authority of a king, for a king in the hearts of the people deserves such a position, not the useless figures of parliament. After the Bourgeois revolution, the noble titles no longer convey power, unless they have money, for wealth is what confers power. The new patricians are those with money who through industry, banks, and government run and control the country. The times are only squeezing us, and the country seems to be on a depressing spiral southwards with an American hegemony which doesn't care for us. The only figure to turn to in order to improve our situation is the king. This is the British Meiji: the restoration of the king doesn't mean a Sun King-like autocrat with unlimited power - Emperor Meiji didn't have that kind of power. The king, however, is the vehicle by which a new establishment gains legitimacy, wiping away the impotent stain of modern talentless parliamentarians for a new retinue dedicated to renewing Britain. William wouldn't do - King Charles III is a talented and intelligent man with real vision for Britain and what Britain should look like. He's a well read man, who'd assemble a court of clear-sighted individuals, in contradistinction to the myopic parliamentarians both sides of the isle. The sadness is his age; such a revolution would take energy he no longer had. It's not as if he had ascended to the throne earlier much would've changed, however, since times weren't yet dire enough to justify such action. Whilst this is just a pipe-dream, the main purpose of this article was to highlight that monarchy is democratic, and not merely in league with the the elites and the nobility. We think of society as a mere pyramid, but the western/Aryan model isn't like that. We have no traditions of pyramids and ziggurats like the Semites of Babylon and Egypt or even the Aztecs; Europeans are more refined that that. The Jews managed to reject the ziggurat - the synthetic mountain to reign in gods - in spite of their neighbours, the information of which is passed on via Christianity. These structures are massive termite mounds built by worker-ant society's, but we are liberal. The people can have power on their side against tyranny.