I have no experience yet with blogging, but there is a first time for everything. My particular choice of subject is, of course, not a popular one. I know that real monarchists are still a small minority as compared to the hordes of republicans who are radically opposed to monarchy. However, in this modern day and age where we have access to countless new technologies and means of communication, the internet offers new opportunities for the monarchist cause. It does, obviously, not matter to me that our numbers are still few. One might ask: What are the odds that monarchy is ever going to regain the political significance that it had organically achieved in the past? I think that if there is a slight chance of success, then this is enough to try. What were the odds that republicans would overthrow most of the world's monarchies and establish their republics?
The republicans were, back in the day when monarchy was the norm, fighting against the odds. They still won in most cases. I cannot but see in this a huge tragedy for all of mankind. However, I am also inspired by the fact that, although monarchy used to be the norm, republicans still managed to achieve what they have achieved. There are definitely a few lessons that we can learn from their history. They say it is good to learn from one's enemies. Reading and studying republican history are important to me as a monarchist, since I see it as a guidebook that tells how to successfully fight against the odds. History is full of extraordinary events, and it would be foolish to think that the return of monarchy is totally impossible. I am not one of those who believes that the world's democratisation is the inevitable result of historical progress.
The ideology of democracy may make a claim to progress and pretend that it has exclusive ownership of progress, but no matter how often propaganda is repeated, it will not change reality. Even though the advocates of democracy equate democracy with progress systematically, progress is nevertheless not an exclusive attribute of democracy. Monarchy is capable of generating progress as well. So progress, if ever it is achieved, is nothing unique about democracy, despite the claims of wild-eyed advocates of democracy. After all, democracy does not somehow have a patent on progress, even if propaganda makes it often seem like that.
The fact that there are people who pretend that progress is a unique attribute of democracy says more about those people and their arrogance than about those monarchists and monarchies that they are radically opposed to. Monarchy as a political system is, doubtless, profoundly different from democracy, and even many of my republican opponents agree with me on that, although we disagree on the exact way in which monarchy magnificently differs from democracy, or other forms of republicanism. Understandably republicans will try to argue that monarchy is ineffective, corrupt, or simply evil, and that democracy, or whatever kind of republic they happen to be advocating, is the epitome of efficiency, fairness, and morality.
It is not difficult to see faults in the claims of those who argue that democracy is absolutely good. They make it easy for me, because I have to find only one example to disprove their point, and the card house of their argument will come crumbling down since it had an ostensibly bad foundation. Republicans may think of the overthrow of traditional monarchies that organically evolved as an 'achievement,' but they have yet to point out to me what exactly makes that an 'achievement' in the usual positive sense. If you build a house and I burn it down, then will you agree with me that what I did was an 'achievement'? And what if I tell you that if you disagree with me, you are blind to your personal history and to what you have achieved since the burning down of your house? And what if I tell you that building a new house is a bad idea because it would not be progress?
You would correctly - or at least I would argue that it is 'correct' - perceive my last claims as adding salt to injury and my act as a crime against yourself. I know that the trickery of republicans might not be so obvious to some, but it has become increasingly obvious to me, as I became more and more familiar with their anti-monarchial rhetoric and blatantly misinformed claims about history. I feel nothing but pity for those who keep on repeating the usual lies about monarchy. I know that I was misguided once myself, and I have sympathy for those who have yet to learn and to go on the same journey as me. However, the highly educated people who repeat the same old lies that any bright young schoolboy or schoolgirl could see through should know better.
It is claimed that monarchy will never become the world's most common political system again and that its glory days are permanently over, as it is said to be in a permanent state of worldwide decline. Then the people who make these claims will usually move on to portray monarchial history as one big failure that is the epitome of both pure evil and regression. This whole theatre of black-and-white thinking is so ridiculous in and of itself that I will make not much of an effort to prove these republican claims to be obviously false, despite the fact that they are so fanatically repeated, perhaps sometimes worded in this way, sometimes in yet another way. The variations on these claims can be, I admit, excessively creative. However, the essential point that they are trying to make is remarkably similar. It could even be summarised in only four words: 'Monarchy, Bad. Republic, Good.' If republicans had openly told everyone their message was that simple, no one would ever have helped them to overthrow the various monarchies that they were plotting to overthrow.
Now the question is: Even if monarchy disappears completely as republicans so passionately desire, will monarchy ever come back? First, I do not believe that the return of monarchy as a worldwide phenomenon is impossible at all. Second, I think it is certainly not unreasonable to believe that the return of monarchy might be inevitable, as monarchies have organically developed all across the world, and were overthrown by theory-based artificial systems that we know as republics. The triumph of theory over reality might only be temporary, and what is a few decades, or a few hundred years, of republic compared to thousands and thousands of years of monarchy since time immemorial? I might be fighting against the odds, but I believe that if we do not try, we will certainly not win, and that if we give up, we can never restore the Old Order. I am a person who does not know how to give up. These may be difficult times for monarchy, but the cause of monarchy is never entirely lost, unless we believe it is.
Please, if you have a minute, leave a comment in the comment section!
