On monarchy and neoreaction


  A libertarian monarchy is inherently neoreactionary. It fundamentally rejects liberalism of any type, being routed in two basic principles: the non-aggression axiom and meritocracy. The latter makes this proposed political system inherently conservative, sharing the general view that responsibility for one’s action is generated by outcomes based on reality.

  Who are we, the neoreactionaries, reacting against?  The Democratic Party, like Republicans? The two-party political system, like Libertarians and Greens or the modern political Establishment, like Pat Buchanan, and more recently, Trump? The answer is all of this is and much, much, more. We reject cultural modernism, leftism as a whole and, at the core, The Enlightenment itself.

 “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are NOT created equal, that there is no such thing as unalienable rights, be them granted by a Creator, the government or any constitution. That if a government is created to secure or alter them, they are nothing but privileges. That pronouncing any preferred privilege a right is fundamentally meaningless, nothing more than an illusion of comfort, on which A Cathedral may be built.”   

  A rejection of The Enlightenment cannot exist without a rejection of Democracy. In today’s age it is, unfortunately, not widely known that the United States of America was built on founding principles that recognize absolute majority rule as evil.

 “As for the moral status of majority rule, it must be pointed that it allow for A and B to band together to rip off C, C and A in turn joining to rip off B, and then B and C conspiring against A, and so on.”  Hans Herman-Hoppe

   In other words, in a system based on absolute majority rule, 51% of the population can enslave the remaining 49%, or even engage in mass genocide.

   Why not just support a Constitutional Republic then? Because it empirically failed. The United States of America engaged in the greatest experiment of Constitutional Republicanism in the history of the world. The checks and balances are emphasized, the principles of federalism forbid the centralization of power into a big government at Washington and yet the only thing preventing the Federal Government from ignoring all of your “rights” is public opinion. If you don’t think so, try exercising your 2nd Amendment rights in New York City or Washington DC. Try exercising your 4th Amendment rights when dealing with the Patriot Act or when your entire internet activity is tracked by the NSA. And of course, try being governor of any American state and not engage in Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or any federal program on protections granted by the 10th Amendment.

   The solution to the present issue cannot exist in a world of moral relativism. One needs to find an universally moral political reality (I will argue for moral universalism in a different post), build a system based on it, and then pick a protector of the ideal means of government. Call him a CEO, a King or an Emperor.

  Why wouldn’t a small and intelligent elite rule better than popularity contests winners elected by unsophisticated masses? You tell me.