academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressArticle by Jef Costello.
—————————————————————————————————-
In recent months, when I would think ruefully of the peculiar life I lead, I took some solace in the thought that soon my invitation to Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding would arrive.
Alas it did not, and I am writing these words hours after the nuptials ended – apparently without a hitch (if we don’t count the fashion disaster that was Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie of York). For weeks prior I was deliberately shocking everyone I know by telling them of my excitement about the Royal Wedding. Americans are all knee-jerk anti-monarchists. I am a knee-jerk pro-monarchist partly because I am a knee-jerk anti-American. My enthusiasm was always met with disbelief. “Who cares?” they would ask, grimacing at me. This question was often followed by the usual ignorant claims about the Royal Family being parasites and nitwits. (The biggest idiots are always the ones who make an exception for Princess Diana.)
Sadly, it’s becoming difficult to find a Brit who seems to think differently. Every time I meet one over here I always find a way to ask what they think about the Royal Family. “Oh, they’re all parasites and nitwits. Except for Diana,” they’ll say. Finding an Englishman who admits to liking the Royals is becoming about as hard as finding a German who admits to liking Wagner. And yet all the polls show the majority of the British public against the abolition of the monarchy. (Just as every summer Bayreuth is full of Germans.)
So, why do I like the British Royal Family so much? Well, partly it just has to do with the fact that I am pro-monarchy – and I am pro-monarchy because I am a Radical Traditionalist. That it is the British monarchy I am so passionate about is no mystery. My ancestry is English and my mother was a staunch Anglophile. She worshiped the Royals and imbued me with a respect for them, and for my English heritage.
Attack the System
Categories: Left and Right
“In defense of previous imperial eras” should be Costello’s next column.
I could never bring myself to defend those who claim they were “born” to rule. This is written as if the queen is nothing but a symbolic ceremonial figure-head with no real power–just a harmless old relic passing her time sipping tea at the palace, as if the royal wedding were not a sanctuary of tyrants and The Crown were not a worldwide money cartel.
To me this article only proves that the Right’s reaction to present power is just as bad as the Left’s reaction to the older status quo.
“I get a kind of warm feeling inside when I see the Queen (the real Queen, not the Marxist Mirren). It’s the same sort of feeling I get when I see Hitler. If I could choose my fantasy mother and father, they would be the Queen and Hitler.”
:::faints:::
Yeah, I thought that writer had an fantasy life that’s, uh,…interesting.
Agree with Ryan. I actually really like the American attitude of “Who cares?” Plus, how did the queen get her fortune in the first place?
This article is incredibly reactionary in the worst sense. I think there are those from the “right” who have something to offer, but somebody who defends “royalty” is on the opposite side of the fence in my view.
If anything, the British royal family are an ideal argument against monarchy. They’re basically just the English version of the Kennedy clan.
“I get a kind of warm feeling inside when I see the Queen (the real Queen, not the Marxist Mirren). It’s the same sort of feeling I get when I see Hitler. If I could choose my fantasy mother and father, they would be the Queen and Hitler.”
LMFAO!
Who’d choose to envision the Queen over Helen Mirren?
How does Hitler’s tweaker ranting convey “dignity” and “nobility” in any way?
Why do so many of these socon types speak of “elitism”/authoritarianism in such fawning terms, as if they’d revel in their own domination at the hands of these ideal figures? They come off in a similar fashion to the kids who tag along, and cheer on, the school bully.
All, that said, Prince Philip does give me jokes!
“there was the time Prince Phillip said to a group of deaf children at a pop concert in Wales, “No wonder you’re deaf listening to this row.” “
That’s just one of many hilarious gaffes in his career.
For every insightful and interesting bit of commentary to come out of the radical Right, there’s about ten examples of this horseshit. We’ve got a long way to go.
The author’s attempts to justify his disturbed Freudo-Nazi surrogate-parent-worship by invoking ‘Radical Traditionalism’ are feeble; Evola supported monarchy only as a spiritual institution, not some kitsch tourist-baiting excuse for a load of geriatric simpletons to wave flags and go ‘ooooh, isn’t that a pretty dress’.
The question is, how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? There is much of value in the ‘alt-right’, but people like Jef Costello will ensure that it stays the domain of creepy, virginal loners like him.
Comparing the Royals to the Nazis is absurd, those sort of arguments won’t get you anywhere.
Once of the reasons the Royals are so popular is because they are not politicians. That’s surely something for anarchists to cheer. Plus if you’re on the “Right” you should cheer them on for acting as powerful bastions of conservatism and tradition (which is why the British Left hates them so much).
And then of course there’s Hoppe’s very interesting defence of royalty over democracy.
I actually think arguments for monarchy advanced by thinkers like Hoppe and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn are very interesting. There’s actually a whole tradition of “anarchism of the Right,” particularly among the French, that defended monarchy and aristocracy against the inevitable totalitarian tendencies of mass democracies and mass societies generally. I have some work on issues related to that coming out eventually.
But I agree, trying to defend monarchism by relating it favorably to Nazism is lunacy from a public relations perspective. Besides, it’s not even factual. The Nazis were anti-monarchists, anti-aristocracy, anti-traditionalist, anti-clerical, anti-conservative. They purged many such elements from the German state and military. They viewed themselves as revolutionaries creating a new order based on rationalist and progressive principles (as they understood and defined such things). Nazism exalts The Leader as the manifestation of the peoples’ will and essence, which is a very Rousseauan concept. Benoist is right to describe them as “brown Jacobins.” They were to the Right what the Jacobins were to classical liberalism and the Bolsheviks were to the Left.
I wrote this a while ago and I think it’s applicable here, as it goes to why an aristocratic order is better than a democratic order:
“This reminds me of de Tocqueville’s observation that people who lived in democracies were much more obsessed over wealth accumulation than people who lived under artificial aristocracies. I believe there is a sociobiological explanation for this. Dogs suddenly throw together are initially uneasy. After they briefly duke it out, however, a pecking order is established, with an alpha dog, betas, omegas, etc. Now all the dogs are relatively happy and at peace, even the dogs at the bottom rung. They all wanted to know their place in the pack, and now they do. In complex societies, what Hayek called great societies, that are also democracies, the way people compete to show their superior status is to accumulate wealth, People are uneasy because there is no established pecking order, but unlike in the dog example, there is never a point where a natural hierarchy emerges. This results in a never ending rat race in which people single mindedly pursue wealth, forever uneasy, forever keeping up with the Jones, never knowing their place in the world. One can see rampant careerism emerging, which is exactly what we have in the United States today. In a regime in which there is a bullshit artificial hierarchy, on the other hand, people are not uneasy (providing they believe the bullshit). Counts are above dukes who are above earls (or whatever–I have no idea how the ranking goes). People know where they stand and spend life on more important activities, like enjoying the company of friends and family.”
From what I’ve heard from Brits and Europeans their politics seems to be even more of a rat race than ours, despite having more choices, so I I suppose I do have to agree a little bit with some monarchists then in that its a countervailing, balancing power, and obviously though I look forward to the breakup of the country as both an anarchist and a Celtic nationalist, its still a good symbol of Britishness (or really just Englishness, and thank God for that)
“if you’re on the “Right” you should cheer them on for acting as powerful bastions of conservatism and tradition”
In Britain, sure. But I’m from the states and rejecting royalty is an American tradition.
“Besides, it’s not even factual.”
Keith, perhaps the “true pro-monarchists” reject any type of nazi influence or injected tendency. But it’s no coincidence to see pro-royalists defending nazism. Who was prince Phillips best friend? Prince Bernhard of Holland, the founder of the Bilderberg group, our plutocratic enemies. Phillip and Bernhard are the royal patrons of this phenomenon. Bernhard was a minor not very wealthy German nobleman, who married the House of Orange–possibly the most wealthy in the world (between the Orange and Windsor). This guy went from an SA brown shirt nazi stormtrooper to an SS black shirt elite, and he was a member of an upper subdivision of the SS, I don’t remember the German word for the unit, but it was the elite of the elite, you had to be a noble. Then when he married princess of Orange, the future queen, he had to basically resign from all of his nazi party offices. It’s really no surprise to see some of the more radical pro-monarchists still fantasizing about Hitler. I think if we were to launch an all out investigation into the royal family, we would find a strong affinity for both nazism and genocide. King Ed 8 is another one. Ed8 was a close personal friend of Hitler, about 1936 he was forced out he had to actually run out through Portugal. This guy was a volunteer to Hitler to become the Viceroy of a Nazi puppet state in Great Britain if Hitler had conquered the British aisles. Ed8 would have become Marshal Peetu? (or something like that, my German sucks) and of course would have also claimed Royalty. That would have meant that nazism would have come into Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Hitler would have got a foothold in the North America continent. A lot of United Empire loyalists would have said, “well, if the king is Edward and he’s supporting Hitler, then we have to support Hitler too.”
And then there’s King Ed 7, who was king in the first decade of the 20th century. So about a hundred years ago he died. Since Victoria was out of her fucking mind, and was a total recluse for so long, Ed7 was in effect the acting king. This is one case where the monarch coincides with the leader of the oligarchy. In other words, Ed7 combined both posts. Sometimes its the monarch some weak figure and the oligarchy has a different leader. But King Ed 7 had both of these. Any “anti-state traditionalist” should reject something like that. But I guess It all boils down to what comes first, the “anti-state” or the “traditionalist” –do they reject statism first, or fancy their personal pet projects? My guess is that they’re a lot like the left. Meanwhile, heres a guy, Ed7, who basically organized most of the historical tragedies from about 1860 until his death. World War I is really his handy work. Ed 7 is the guy who created the triple on taunt (Britain, France and Russia against Germany– the encirclement of Germany). I think this is important because the US-China relationship today echoes the British-German relationship at that time. And of course that led to a world war. So Ed7 setup this alliance system, this idea that in 1914 when something happened in Europe the only thing that was possible was if France started to mobilize, than everyone else had to mobilize, and once everyone started to mobilize– war was a foregone conclusion. So Ed 7 is the indispensable person responsible for causing World War I. And out of World War I comes World War II, communism, nazism, eventually the Cold War. The entire pattern of World Hsitory since Ed 7 was shaped as this great catastrophe. He’s basically the royal family’s greatest activist, most successful political guy since William the Conqueror. As for Ed 8’s nazism, it wasnt just him, it was an entire faction in the House of Lords, the so called Clifton sect, it’s written as “Clive” back then. This is Lady Aster, Lord ASter, an entire group of dukes and lords who were all pro-hitler and supported the so called “appeasement policy” which was really just support for Hitler.
Check this out…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-379036/Prince-Philip-pictured-Nazi-funeral.html
Another thing, as Webster Tarpley points out, the affinity for nazism is one thing, but we also have the issue of insanity, mental degeneracy, and support for genocide. George 3 was starkraving MAD, the tyrant, there was even a movie about that some years ago. Queen Victoria, spent the last forty years of her life as a recluse, practically never going outside, living in Balmoral Castle, running a death cult around her dead husband, Prince Albert. Some years ago the prescription
records from the local pharmacy were found, she was an opium addict–the hypocrite bitch. Or how about Prince Phillip saying he wanted to die and come back reincarnated as a deadly virus to wipe out the population? That statement goes beyond anything Hitler ever said in public forums. Or what about the great, great, great Uncle of the couple that just got married, Prince Albert Victor Edward
(Prince “Eddie”)– this guy, according to most historians, is the main suspect of being Jack The Ripper.
I think the pro-monarchy argument against democracy is certainly compelling. But also quite dangerous for newbies. As third positionists and serious anti-statists its our job to promote the healthiest class of elites as possible. We can defend both the left and right without advocating the cancerous individualism of the Right and the mob absolutism of the Left. And that’s what I try to do.
“In Britain, sure. But I’m from the states and rejecting royalty is an American tradition.”
No kidding! Monarchy is about as marketable in the U.S. as Charmin made out of sandpaper.
“Keith, perhaps the “true pro-monarchists” reject any type of nazi influence or injected tendency. But it’s no coincidence to see pro-royalists defending nazism.”
I’m aware of much of the historical trajectory you discuss, but I think we’re getting at two different issues here. The facts you raise have more to do with the collaboration with Nazism by individual members of royal families and European aristocracies. There were certainly plenty of those and you’ve given some good examples. In fact, there were collaborators, sympathizers, and dupes for Nazism all through the layers of European societies, and not just in Germany. There were plenty of military officers, politicians, capitalists, professionals, workers, peasants, clerics and the like who either joined the Nazi movement or were tainted by it.
You’ve actually brought up a really interesting bit of political and intellectual history. The standard Marxist interpretation of Nazism is that is was a manifestation of latter stage capitalism, a tool of the capitalist class to save itself from communist revolution, and the class foundation of its support base was the socially conservative lower middle class of petite bourgeoisie, small landowners and so forth. This “lower middle class thesis” and “Nazism as capitalism” perspective was what I was taught by my New Left elders back in my days as an 80s radical. But I no longer hold to that perspective.
If we look at the actual membership of the Nazi Party in Germany, we see that people from all kinds of backgrounds were joining that movement as it became a rising force. Probably it’s largest demographic were the “middelstand” (roughly the equivalent of white collar collars), but its supporters came from all over the place. I don’t think Nazism can be understood in purely economic terms or class analysis the way the Marxists attempt to do. I think Nazism is better interpreted as a kind of religious cult (like Christianity or Islam in their early period) and, like most cults and religious movements, it attracted people from a wide variety of backgrounds, including the aristocrats and royals you mentioned. But what I was getting at was a somewhat different issue and that’s the question of the nature of Nazi ideology itself.
Whatever the backgrounds of its supporters, and whatever political compromises it made along the way for reasons of political expediency, I think Nazi ideology itself was a sharp departure from anything normally associated with the traditional right or even the radical or revolutionary right. I see it as a political cult (like the LaRouchies) with it own unique set of doctrines that bear only a casual or incidental relationship to anything from the conventional right. Lew Rockwell discussed that on a very surface level here: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/socialist_origins_of_neonazism.htm I tend to think writers like Rockwell or Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn overstate the leftist influence on Nazism just like the Marxists overstate the capitalist or right-wing influences, but the nature of Nazism as an extremist radical ideology built on rationalist, or at least pseudo-rationalist, principles is a bit hard to assail, IMO.
“Any “anti-state traditionalist” should reject something like that. But I guess It all boils down to what comes first, the “anti-state” or the “traditionalist” –do they reject statism first, or fancy their personal pet projects? My guess is that they’re a lot like the left.”
No doubt. Serious anti-statists, particularly those who put their anti-statism above and beyond other interests, are rather rare. That’s just as true of right-wing anti-statists as leftist ones. Anti-statists of the right are probably more reliable at present, due to the fact that the center-left is the most dominant political force, though that could obviously change. This is one of the reasons I take some of the positions that I do. Most people just aren’t going to adopt “anti-statism” as an end unto itself, so anarchists, libertarians, and anti-state radicals need to make more of an effort to meet them where they’re at than what they typically do.
“Another thing, as Webster Tarpley points out, the affinity for nazism is one thing, but we also have the issue of insanity, mental degeneracy, and support for genocide.”
No doubt. One fairly common practice among royal families in Europe, and also in Asian, was in-breeding so as to maintain the power of a particular dynasty. Hence, cousin marriage, sometimes even sibling marriage, was sometimes used for this purpose. The end result is that you’d eventually get a monarch who was a drooling retard due to so much inbreeding in his family lineage.
“I think the pro-monarchy argument against democracy is certainly compelling. But also quite dangerous for newbies.”
Well, it’s really a non-issue. It’s not going to sell in the US. Even in Europe, it seems to be something as an archaism. Even if it were a viable concept, I wouldn’t endorse it as it doesn’t jibe well-enough with my own beliefs. That said, I do think some of the anarcho-monarchists I’ve encountered do bring some interesting ideas to the table. Even if they seem to go off in a Dungeons and Dragons-like fantasy world at time, they’re still somewhat refreshing when compared with some of the more piously political correct anarchists who really do get to be a big bore after a while.
“As third positionists and serious anti-statists its our job to promote the healthiest class of elites as possible. We can defend both the left and right without advocating the cancerous individualism of the Right and the mob absolutism of the Left. And that’s what I try to do.”
Yes! It’s the perfect Nietzsche-Bakunin synthesis. Bakunin’s anarchist leadership corps of “principled militants” as a manifestation of Nietzsche’s ubermensch.
“I don’t think Nazism can be understood in purely economic terms or class analysis the way the Marxists attempt to do. I think Nazism is better interpreted as a kind of religious cult (like Christianity or Islam in their early period) and, like most cults and religious movements, it attracted people from a wide variety of backgrounds, including the aristocrats and royals you mentioned. But what I was getting at was a somewhat different issue and that’s the question of the nature of Nazi ideology itself.”
It’s not that I see nazism as right wing, like the Marxists. My concern is that nazi ideology is inherently totalitarian. A statist construct.
“It’s not that I see nazism as right wing, like the Marxists. My concern is that nazi ideology is inherently totalitarian. A statist construct.”
Well, yes, that’s obviously the practical concern involved here.