Why indeed?

     After reading the comment sections for a critique of the "neo-reactionary" movement, an article derisively named "Geeks For Monarchy", an interesting comment came from one of the biggest anti-N.R. commenters. 

Why did America's founders break away in the first place? Why did Americans fight and die for independence against a seemingly 'benign' British monarchy? Why did the French rise up against their 'benign' monarchy? 

     This is easily seen after reading my previous blogpost, "Republicanism Hitting the Wall". Also, there is the funny irony that those who try to name-call "Geek!" are in fact, likely, the "geek"-iest group of all. Did this commenter really believe that being ruled by a mon-arch who lived the distance of a risky two to three month trip by boat is approximately e-quivalent to having your own leadership that is closer by? Did this commenter really fail to see the obvious warm-blooded connection between having sovereignty over yourself with, naturally, a local leader?

     One reason that an anti-Libertarian meme has been recently brought out in "neo-reac-tionary" circles is because that N.R.s understand that the second estate, the nobility, does, in fact, impose a degree of economic restriction. This is especially so in situations where colonization by foreign peoples and cultures is a problem. Libertarians want "open bor-ders", or an easy way for aliens to gain citizenship. A monarch, who sees the inherent threat to his nation's culture and peace says "No". Libertarians want currently illegal drugs to be able to be sold on an open market. Again the monarch, and very likely the clergy, or first estate, says, "No". 

     The reason for republicanist gain and monarchist loss, the reason for misfortune nearly all the time for us fallen men, is economic. In this way, the case against the gluttony of the third-estate merchant class grows and continues to be brought to the forefront of the argument. The French traders, after loading up on expensive furs from the Americas were, in one form or another, restricted from completely wide open trading by the French nobili-ty's bureaucracy. This type of friction continued until the merchant class had "greased e-nough palms" to build the support to overthrow the king, who in the noble tradition valued stability over wealth. Down went the kingdom. It's for this very reason that the Anglo-A-merican colonial leadership did not try for monarchism on the East Coast. 

     It's prudent to point out now that Stability is, and should be considered paramount, in light of Mexican colonization and also, potential for Chinese or Islamic colonization. The Libertarians are out of suggestions in the short term, and can only speculate about the future. All the while, the cultural and racial capital has been drained from a formerly first-world nation. What's the argument against that, republicanists?

     However, the Tech-Crunch commenter continues:

You guys who do not live under a monarchy do not know what you a talking about. Why do you think the First World War came about non-competing benign monarchies eh? 

     Rather, it seems that the republics, seeing an opportunity to dethrone the Germanic kings, went for it. This is a sad chapter in traditionalist history because the republicanists won. The French Republic and the American Republic's influence on the English language and cultural ties to the British kingdom overwhelmed the Central powers or Kingdoms. The Tech-Crunch commenter apparently saw an opportunity when another N.R. supporter used the term "benign" to describe monarchies. But, that opportunity was enough for that com-menter to see fit to let loose with his venom, in fact giving a little insight into his republi-canist prejudices. His loss. 

If I've made historical errors, no doubt someone is taking note of it... Thank you for reading.

Source