Perfectionism has no good reputation in our modern society and this cultural perception is reflected in the deeply negative connotation that the word perfectionism itself bears. People dismiss perfection saying that there is no such thing as absolute perfection in reality. Absolute perfection may never be attained, but it is the path towards perfection that matters. Perfection as a human mental construct can be a means to an end. It can make you aim for something higher. It is this orientation towards self-improvement that makes the path towards perfection so valuable. Since absolute perfection cannot be attained, those who are on the path towards perfection are on an eternal journey towards progress. The path matters because it leads to progress, never-ending evolution towards something better.
Monarchy can be a interpreted as a framework. Since republicans always wish to convince everyone not excluding themselves that the overthrow of monarchies in every place and time means progress and that for this reason the historical overthrow of monarchies is good by default, they believe that monarchy is a framework within which no progress can be achieved and for this reason the monarchical framework is in their minds an obstacle that has to be removed for the sake of clearing the road to progress. However, these people who advocate the worldwide destruction of monarchy have not opened the floodgates to progress, but rather to revolutions against a system within which progress can also be achieved. I say "also" with a slight sense of irony, because the republicans promised miraculous progress, yet monarchy was already achieving progress and republicans were disturbing this process, plunging the world into violent and genocidal revolutions against otherwise peaceful and orderly monarchies as well as into various other unnecessary, painful episodes in our human history that could have been prevented.
It is false that monarchies are inherently stagnant or that they are obstacles to the process of never-ending improvement, since progress can be achieved within the framework that monarchy provides - the history of monarchy on our entire planet supports this as an undisputable fact. Monarchy as a political system is certainly no more antagonistic towards sincere progress than any republican system. When republicans claim that monarchies cannot achieve any progress, it should not be forgotten that progress is in their minds a term to indicate anything that represents their particular ideological aims. So, if you are a liberal, then the overthrow of a communist government and its replacement with a liberal government will be a sign of "inevitable" progress. However, if you are a communist, then the overthrow of a liberal government and its replacement with a communist government will be a sign of "inevitable" progress and the people's liberation.
Republicans have perverted the word progress to usually mean anything but sincere progress. Whenever they use the word this way, they add a sense of inevitability to it. They sum up their entire ideology in the concept of "progress" and then they say that this "progress" is "inevitable." Therefore, when they say that a revolution against monarchy is progressive, they also mean it is inevitable. This is "clever" in a way because they by-pass morality: If you argue against the idea that such a revolution is progressive (good), then they will say that it is inevitable and for that reason that you should embrace it anyways. Then, if you still do not agree, they go on to depict you as a crazy person who is fighting against the unstoppable currents of "change" and that whatever you say is merely based on a deep, irrational fear of "change." The circular logic can be summed up thus: Progress is inevitable because inevitability is progressive, and vice versa. In other words: What is progressive is inevitable because what is inevitable is progressive, and vice versa. This whole phenomenon of justifying progress through inevitability and vice versa makes no logical sense, but it does certainly become apparent that republicans are some sort of "fatalists" who try to silence opposition by saying their agenda (euphemistically called "progress") is inevitable and if this does not make the opposition shut up, they will resort to bullying the opposition into surrender.
However, republicans see what is inevitable as anything that represents their ideology. This can therefore not be called any genuine "inevitability" where a truly "outside force" imposes something. While it may be said that republicans perceive their ideology as an outside force which imposes itself upon the world, their sense of inevitability is rather a word game where "inevitability" and "progress" can be freely interchanged with the seeming distinction that "inevitability" is free from any moral judgement while "progress" is not (i.e. inevitability is morally neutral while progress is morally good). Nevertheless, that "distinction" is not a real distinction because "progress" and "inevitability" are freely interchanged as synonyms for whatever may be considered to represent the republican political agenda; it can be said that it is meant to confuse outsiders. Such a cunning attempt at confusion may be of unconscious origin as so many aspects of human psychology, but the origin itself does not diminish any of the menace that it poses to monarchy as a working political system and to the universal/international cause of restoring monarchy where it has been lost.
A dog may bite you out of an uninentional reflex, but it will nevertheless hurt. Thus, the discussion whether republican hostility towards monarchy is conscious of subconscious is irrelevant to the end result that they have destroyed or still make constant attempts at destroying traditional monarchies. There are doubtlessly "evil" individuals out there who consciously work day and night to destroy monarchy, while there are also others who do it more or less unconsciously. Those who consciously seek to destroy monarchy are certainly the most radical, but those who do it unconsciously are by no means any less destructive than their consciously destructive counterparts. A great part of this hostility comes from a republican upbringing and the fact that the republican culture is widespread in our modern society. If you are a member of our modern society, you will certainly not miss the reiteration of republican sentiments by teachers, university professors, journalists, historians, and of course politicians. This is what makes our society "progressive" according to some.
Stepping over the misconceptions about monarchy, it ought to be acknowledged that monarchy is a very dynamic system which adapts to the specific needs of any time, place, and people. In fact, an argument could be made that monarchy is a uniquely adaptive system which provides a framework within which an infinite amount of progress can be achieved in philosophy, science, and technology. Monarchy, as history has repeatedly proved, is anything but an impairment to sincere progress. In this period in time, monarchy will have to meet the challenges posed by the verbally, economically, and militarily aggressive ideology of republicanism. However, significant progress in the cause of monarchy can be achieved if people are willing to give monarchy a chance. Republicanism is like the stunningly sexy woman a man can get seduced by, and when he has committed adultery on his caring wife, he may later regret his choice once he realises that beauty is only of short duration but genuine, loving care does not fade with age. Whatever faults his wife may have had, the man may slowly but gradually start forgive her for these more or less minor faults and long back to her caring nature, acknowledging its higher value. It is also like that with monarchy: The novelty of republicanism will fade and ugliness will be all that is left, but will the people be able to forgive monarchy for whatever faults it may have had and be courageous enough to return to monarchy and repent for the aberration?
Our ancestors relentlessly sought to achieve progress within the framework of monarchy, and they seemed to feel no dissatisfaction until republican ideology started to challenge monarchies worldwide and make totally irresponsible, extravagant promises of Utopian conditions which would be achieved through revolution against monarchy. The experiments ended in various levels of failure, but they were all failures nevertheless. The most successful republican experiments ended up closely mimicking monarchy, yet still remain miles apart from monarchy. They often parasitise on the legacy of monarchy and at the same time pretend monarchy never achieved anything. This level of hypocrisy is what holds these republican experiments together for the time being. However, we must challenge this hypocrisy to make the people more aware of the return to monarchy as a viable option.
No comments:
Post a Comment