Posts
"Throughout Gaul there are two classes of persons of definite account and dignity. The common people are treated almost as slaves and are neither heard nor listened to in councils ...
Of the two notable classes, one consists of druids and the other of knights. The first concern themselves with divine affairs, managing public and private sacrifices and interpreting matters of religion ...
The Germans differ much from this manner of living. They have no druids to regulate divine worship, no zeal for sacrifices. They reckon among the gods those only whom they see and by whose offices they are openly assisted, such as the sun, the fire-god and the moon. Of the rest they have not even heard.
[Julius Caesar, The Gallic War Book VI]
As to which Caste should rule - whether Priests, Warriors of Farmers [taking the old Aryan triad], I personally favour either military rulers, or else leaders drawn from the warrior caste, as I think that "the military school of life" is the most effective at inculcating the virtues of discipline, comradeship, respect, self-sacrifice, order of rank, cleanliness, commanding and obedience; all of which are essential to rulership.
To me, it is the only real form of education.
I believe that all our greatest rulers and leaders had proven themselves as warriors to some degree, and I still think this is a necessary tradition.
Essentially I see life as Struggle; therefore the warrior is the human incarnation of this philosophic principle.
There is a distinction between philosopher and priest.
The latter is an institutional functionary, while the former is a thinker.
Many of our great warriors were also no mean philosophers.
This is because that 'military school of life' is also the best natural instructor in philosophy.
Think of Plato's system; Plato - whose very name referred to his wrestler-fighter's build [not only that, his ideal republic is clearly based on Sparta, the classic warrior society].
Of course, the three Caste preferences suggest different political leanings; warrior rule implies dictatorship, monarchy, aristocracy; priestly rule naturally suggests theocracy, while farmer rule implies a folkish socialism.
In a way, the basic triadic caste blueprint is the foundation for all our later viable political structures.
So whether one prefers military rule, theocracy, democracy, or even mobocracy, indicates our sincerely held, if more modern, political leanings
__________________
Monarchy
Otherwise, I hold with Monarchy, it being derived from warrior rule, of course.
Mon- = One, -arch = Rule.
True monarchy believes in ONE RULER - no intercessors, no division of powers, no Pope, no King of Kings, no 'checks and balances'.
One Ruler, who by his very POSITION is superhuman.
"Monarchy represents the belief in one man who is utterly Superior, a Leader, a Saviour".
[Nietzsche, Will to Power 752]
This man's Will IS Law.
All the rest is democratic and liberal tinkering.
Monarchy is coterminous with Aryan civilisation; for thousands upon thousands of years monarchical rule was the rule.
THEN, with the introduction of the Christian religion, within a few centuries, the monarchical principle is weakened [by those who claim that they recognise only Christ as the 'king of kings'] and eventually done away with, leading to today's world hyper-power, the USA, a state created in rebellion against monarchical rule!
A Judaized, anti-monarchical masonic state!
The USA, its policy aimed at unseating monarchs of all kinds in the name of its banker's "freedom"
No, messers democrats, the king is not one man "among many"!
To say so is an insult to the king [still an offence in many Arab kingdoms today - 'sabb that al-malikiya'].
As Frazer tells us;
"In Sparta, all state sacrifices were offered by the Kings as descendants of the god".
[The Golden Bough]
You insult a god when you insult a king.
You will suffer the fate of Christian martyrs like James Intercisus who dared to insult the Persian king Bahram by refusing the Aryan fire sacrifice!
That Christian was slowly sliced to pieces for his insult to kings!
True monarchy believes in ONE RULER - no intercessors, no division of powers, no Pope, no King of Kings, no 'checks and balances'.
One Ruler, who by his very POSITION is superhuman.
"Monarchy represents the belief in one man who is utterly Superior, a Leader, a Saviour".
[Nietzsche, Will to Power 752]
This man's Will IS Law.
All the rest is democratic and liberal tinkering.
Monarchy is coterminous with Aryan civilisation; for thousands upon thousands of years monarchical rule was the rule.
THEN, with the introduction of the Christian religion, within a few centuries, the monarchical principle is weakened [by those who claim that they recognise only Christ as the 'king of kings'] and eventually done away with, leading to today's world hyper-power, the USA, a state created in rebellion against monarchical rule!
A Judaized, anti-monarchical masonic state!
The USA, its policy aimed at unseating monarchs of all kinds in the name of its banker's "freedom"
No, messers democrats, the king is not one man "among many"!
To say so is an insult to the king [still an offence in many Arab kingdoms today - 'sabb that al-malikiya'].
As Frazer tells us;
"In Sparta, all state sacrifices were offered by the Kings as descendants of the god".
[The Golden Bough]
You insult a god when you insult a king.
You will suffer the fate of Christian martyrs like James Intercisus who dared to insult the Persian king Bahram by refusing the Aryan fire sacrifice!
That Christian was slowly sliced to pieces for his insult to kings!
__________________
"Monarchy is the most natural form of government for man".
[Schopenhauer]
[Schopenhauer]
The Roman Republic and Greek democracy retained their kings [the latter being defeated by kingly Sparta and then in turn by Alexander the Great, while Rome saw sense and went over to Imperial rule].
Europe's foul history of king-killers did not begin with the French but with the Britisher Cromwell, a most devout Christian. Indeed, Cromwell and his cut-throats [and Jewish moneyers] used the Biblical notions of Jesus being the only king ['king of kings' indeed!] as justification for their rank treason.
And Cromwell is not so far away from the Skull and Bones President of the USA who uses Christian rhetoric to up-hold his masonic design of Judaized world government, which includes the toppling of all ethnic kings and Leaders.
The USA has bred a mob of monarchy-haters!
They have no king in their Souls!
They have no Souls!
There has never been a more anti-kingly era than this one - thanks to the Jewish virus hidden in 'Christendom'!
"We may hope that one day even Europe will be purified of all Jewish mythology".
[Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena II]
There are a multitude of examples of rebels who have met their rightful deaths for insulting kings [even the merest slight could seal such a Fate] from ancient times up to the present day.
Ultimately kingship is pagan and symbolic;
KING:The masculine principle;
Sovereignty;
Temporal power;
Supreme achievement in the temporal world;
The supreme ruler, equated with the Creator God and the Sun, whose delegate he is on earth.
In many traditions it was held that the vitality of the king reflected, or was responsible for, the vitality of his people and the fertility of the land, hence the sacrifice of the king, or, late, his scapegoat, when his vitality waned.
The king and queen together represent perfect union, the two halves of the perfect whole, completeness, the androgyne;
They are also symbolised by, and symbolise, the Sun and Moon, heaven and earth, gold and silver, day and night, and, in Alchemy, sulphur and quicksilver.
Attributes of the king are the sun, crown, sceptre, orb, sword, arrows, the throne.
[Cooper, Encyclopedia of Symbols]
The Sun is the Swastika.
There are Kings ONLY upon Earth - there is no "kingdom of heaven"!
Christ was NEVER a king - he was mocked by the Noble Romans who derided him as "king of the Jews"!
He had no kingdom then, he has no kingdom NOW!
Europe's foul history of king-killers did not begin with the French but with the Britisher Cromwell, a most devout Christian. Indeed, Cromwell and his cut-throats [and Jewish moneyers] used the Biblical notions of Jesus being the only king ['king of kings' indeed!] as justification for their rank treason.
And Cromwell is not so far away from the Skull and Bones President of the USA who uses Christian rhetoric to up-hold his masonic design of Judaized world government, which includes the toppling of all ethnic kings and Leaders.
The USA has bred a mob of monarchy-haters!
They have no king in their Souls!
They have no Souls!
There has never been a more anti-kingly era than this one - thanks to the Jewish virus hidden in 'Christendom'!
"We may hope that one day even Europe will be purified of all Jewish mythology".
[Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena II]
There are a multitude of examples of rebels who have met their rightful deaths for insulting kings [even the merest slight could seal such a Fate] from ancient times up to the present day.
Ultimately kingship is pagan and symbolic;
KING:The masculine principle;
Sovereignty;
Temporal power;
Supreme achievement in the temporal world;
The supreme ruler, equated with the Creator God and the Sun, whose delegate he is on earth.
In many traditions it was held that the vitality of the king reflected, or was responsible for, the vitality of his people and the fertility of the land, hence the sacrifice of the king, or, late, his scapegoat, when his vitality waned.
The king and queen together represent perfect union, the two halves of the perfect whole, completeness, the androgyne;
They are also symbolised by, and symbolise, the Sun and Moon, heaven and earth, gold and silver, day and night, and, in Alchemy, sulphur and quicksilver.
Attributes of the king are the sun, crown, sceptre, orb, sword, arrows, the throne.
[Cooper, Encyclopedia of Symbols]
The Sun is the Swastika.
There are Kings ONLY upon Earth - there is no "kingdom of heaven"!
Christ was NEVER a king - he was mocked by the Noble Romans who derided him as "king of the Jews"!
He had no kingdom then, he has no kingdom NOW!
"Republican Rome continued to use not merely the functions and powers of the old kings, but for ceremonial purposes even used the very name".
['A History of Rome', Myres]
"Divisions of power" within a kingdom refers to non-kingly elements taking power away from the king.
Dual kingship is not therefore, a division of power, anymore than a king sharing the throne with his queen is!
When the king commands the military, his ministers, the aristocracy, and the priests etc., this is not a 'division of power'!
Likewise, 'checks and balances' refers to any non-kingly elements having power OVER the king; this is against the whole concept of monarchy. This is not the same as the king having advisors, for example, as such are BENEATH the king's power.
Nor is Shakespeare putting words of self-doubt into a Medieval king's mouth in a work of fiction, an example of any such division of power: even the gods have doubts, according to poets.
The basic ethos of Mon-Archy is that one man rules when he is in the position of being king/emperor/fuhrer etc.,
This has been mankind's main political system for the greater part of world history.
It is only in the recent centuries in the Christian West where we have had kings overthrown, beginning in Europe with the Christian Cromwell, and the imposition of an anti-monarchical polity [Republican Rome retained its kings as did Athens, see the above quote].
Monarchy is a pagan system and so I support a paganistic monarchy as it is essentially monarchic.
Clearly, I object to a non-kingly power such as that of the Catholic Pope during the Christian period, which challenges the kingly power.
I am against non-kingly interests such as the financiers challenging the kingly power also.
I am also against an ideology which pretends that there is a mythical "kingdom of heaven", and therefore thumbs its nose at the real earthly kingdoms.
The Greeks were aware that their pagan pantheon was largely symbolic and metaphorical - a kind of Sabianism.
Euhmerism itself was a Greek doctrine [i.e., that gods were really just exceptional heroes from history who had been deified]
The philosopher Xenophanes knew that religion was anthropomorphic and therefore man-made.
"God" is just a way of referring to those aspects of life that are beyond our comprehension. For me 'god' is the force of Nature throughout the Universe - the Will to Power etc.,
All the personifications are just that.
Likewise, as Schopenhauer says, kingship is NATURAL.
So while history shows the reality of kingship on Earth, there is NO EVIDENCE of kingship in Heaven.
So if there is no 'kingdom of heaven', or if Christ was king of nothing, then what do we want with a 'Christian monarchy'? - which is a contradiction in terms because to Christians, CHRIST is their king, not Caesar.
Xenophanes
The Divine Right of Kings puts this in the most intense form. In the following, the stress on God actually places the King closer to God than the priest;
"The state of Monarchy is the most supreme thing upon this earth, for Kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God Himself are called gods ...
In the Scriptures, Kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation is to be compared to Divine Power.
Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a King is truly 'Parens patriae', the 'politique' father of his people ...
Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner of resemblance of Divine Power on earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King".
[King James I of Great Britain]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I support the all-encompassing ideal of Divine Right, where the Monarch is Lord of his god-given land, his legions [Folk] and his laws, according to the Will of the Creator.
He embodies a mythos which devolves from Heaven.
This mythos marries the Monarch, the people and the land in one Holy Unity.
The British mythos involves Brutus that refugee from the Trojan War [see Geoffrey of Monmouth]. It seems that the mythographers knew about cultural connections [passed down via myths] that were proven MUCH LATER by linguistics and archeology.
People like Geoffrey of Monmouth and Snorri Sturluson [Poetic Edda], writing in the Medieval period, dealt with these connections via mythology.
It was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that such mythologies recieved a scientific basis.
Look at the story of Troy, for example, long thought to be the pure invention of the Homer poet until the discoveries of Schliemann!
Now the Iliad is recognised to be based on historical fact.
That our occidental languages/ mythologies are of recent Indo-European derivation is beyond dispute: we are the western BRANCH of the Aryan tree.
Myths need to drive their roots deep.
At any rate, every healthy culture needs a mythos - the British mythos I have referred to above is a wide and wonderful one, taking in the whole Arthurian epos.
For the Empery of the Germanic people, perhaps our genealogists should find the closest to the line of Charlemagne?
I believe that the Blood-line itself, and the Role of kingship itself, are far more important than the particular individuals involved [providing they be of the Blood of course]. The institutions themselves are able to survive weak kings, just as they positively thrive under strong kings.
It MUST be heriditary in basis to be worthy of the name Royal.
I am not for a Christian Monarchy as such; the kingly line of Europe goes back far beyond the introduction of Christianity; indeed, I believe that the Royal culture merely assimilated the Christian and is redolent far more of paganism in its essence.
To me Monarchy is about an unbroken chain of inheritance and heritage going back into the mists of time. The English Royal line may properly go back to Woden, but then Woden, as Snorri said, was one of the Aesir and so from Asia as the name suggests.
To me, ultimately the Line goes back to the original Aryas - it was their gift to us.
I deplore the American renegades and their traitorship toward the Crown [and they are paying for that].
As far as Britain is concerned though, I think that we may have to go back to the Tudor line as the present 'Windsors' [actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha] have presided over race-treason in the Realm.
As to the importance of Woden for the English;
"The East Saxon royal genealogy is unique of all Anglo-Saxon royal pedigrees because the Kings of Essex claimed descent from the god Seaxnet and not WODEN AS IS MORE USUAL".
[See this link for full article;]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A923474
There is a lineal descent from Woden to the present Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.
It is Snorri who gives us details of the Aesir and the Vanir which we do not have from any other source. He deliberately links the Aesir with Asia which is not far-fetched as we now know about the self-explanatory Eurasian connections of Indo-European culture. Also, the Aryan homeland is thought by most analysts to have been in the East.
The similarities between the Vedic gods and the Norse gods is just another example.
I take the Vanir to represent the pre-Aryan Old Europeans who merged with the invading Aryans [from the East], or Aesir.
The Tudors were of Welsh descent, but they were thoroughly British as their lineage shows. Henry was the father of our greatest Queen, of course;
The Tudor system is the closest to a desired British national polity from the kingly past.
Charlemagne is an example of a pan-European Emperor whose death was followed by the break-up of that entity; by repairing his line we could re-constitute that Imperium.
In actual fact, the divinity of kings as an out-look began to wane in the Christian period towards the parlous state it is in today.
In his mammoth and epochal book, 'The Golden Bough', Frazer dwells at length on the conception of kingship amongst the ancients;
"The divinity which hedges a king has its roots deep down in human history ..."
[Ib., chapter XVI]
Talking of the "kings in the classical period of Greek and Latin antiquity" he says;
"The stories of their lineage, titles, and pretensions suffice to prove that they too claimed to rule by DIVINE RIGHT and to exercise by superhuman powers".
[ib., my emphasis]
There is a wealth of material in Frazer's book covering many cultures to prove the point. Therefore we can say that the Christian period is marked by the diminishment of the divine right principle in its true sense.
Talking of the antiquity of European paganism in general, Frazer says;
"In those days the divinity that hedges a king was no empty form of speech, but the expression of a sober belief. Kings were revered, in many cases not merely as priests, that is, as intercessors between man and god, but as themselves gods ..."
[ib.,]
So we see that in the Christian period the Church and State are split and are often at war with each other, leading eventually to the reduction in power of both.
To get the pure Aryan view on this, we must go to the Laws of Manu;
"The Lord [god] emitted a king in order to guard his entire realm".
[Manu 7:3]
Of the divinity of kings;
"Because a king is made from the particles of these lords of the gods, therefore he surpasses all living beings in brilliant energy, and like the Sun, he burns eyes and hearts, and no one on earth is able even to look at him".
[ib., 7:5,6]
This reminds us of the taboo against looking the king in the eye.
That kingship actually DEVOLVES from the divine is made clear here;
"Even a boy king should not be treated with disrespect, with the thought, 'He is just a human being'; for this is a great deity standing there in the form of a man".
[ib., 7:8]
The coronation ceremony is thought to derive from the Celts.
One Folk
One Empire, and
One Leader.
All the rest is silence.
When we talk of 'democracy' and 'republicanism' generally we are referring to the forms of government we know of today which utilise a universal suffrage quite unknown to the ancient world.
So when we mean the latter [Greece and Rome] we qualify them by saying 'Athenian Greece' or 'Republican Rome'. Both [as I have said] retained monarchical functions of the kind found in what I call 'true monarchies'.
My conception of monarchy rests on the notion of true kingship; Evola illustrates this power of true true kingship when he says;" ... just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
Just as National Socialism says that the Will of the Leader IS Law, or Louis XIV says that "the state is I" [L'Etat, c'est moi!]
__________________
Aryan Invasions Pattern
The Swastika as a symbol of a European Monarchy.
The Swastika is only found in areas of ancient Aryan expansion and settlement [it is not found in Africa for example]; therefore it was chosen as a pan-Aryan symbol, rightly so.
As the symbol of the the sun, the swastika may be universal, but it means one thing to a nord [who welcomes it], and something very different to an African who is tormented by its heat.
KING CNVTE
"The East Saxon royal genealogy is unique of all Anglo-Saxon royal pedigrees because the Kings of Essex claimed descent from the god Seaxnet and not WODEN AS IS MORE USUAL".
[See this link for full article;]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A923474
There is a lineal descent from Woden to the present Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.
It is Snorri who gives us details of the Aesir and the Vanir which we do not have from any other source. He deliberately links the Aesir with Asia which is not far-fetched as we now know about the self-explanatory Eurasian connections of Indo-European culture. Also, the Aryan homeland is thought by most analysts to have been in the East.
The similarities between the Vedic gods and the Norse gods is just another example.
I take the Vanir to represent the pre-Aryan Old Europeans who merged with the invading Aryans [from the East], or Aesir.
The Tudors were of Welsh descent, but they were thoroughly British as their lineage shows. Henry was the father of our greatest Queen, of course;
The Tudor system is the closest to a desired British national polity from the kingly past.
Charlemagne is an example of a pan-European Emperor whose death was followed by the break-up of that entity; by repairing his line we could re-constitute that Imperium.
_______________
In a polytheistic system, such as that of the Heathen Anglo-Saxons, it is not surprising that various tribes had different deities - but they were all from the same pantheon, so to speak.
The Saxons were a tribal confederation, some looked to Saxnot, but the majority looked to Woden. In England the Saxons divided themselves up into the East Saxons [present-day Essex], West Saxons [Wessex], South Saxons [Sussex] and Middle Saxons [Middlesex].
The Saxon flag as flown by the last true Saxon king, Harold, at the Battle of Hastings, was a red winged dragon with a green and yellow tail.
http://flagspot.net/flags/fr_bayxt.html
The Angles [Anglia] are thought to have come from Angeln, the name referring to a 'Hook' of land [cf., the sport using the fishing hook, angling, as you refer to in your list of flags].
'Ing' occurs in the Anglo-Saxon rune-row and is described as a hero from over the seas.
Ing Rune
The Jutes are really a mystery, and are usually associated with Jutland for convenience.
However, as I said, with a polytheistic system various Folk can devote themselves to a particular deity from the pantheon [as Hindus still do in India], but there tends to be a henotheistic over-lord, in this case Woden.
Properly speaking, 'British' royalty is Keltic and therefore related to the Druidic system. Waddell in his books manages to link the Keltic and Teutonic kingdoms.
The Saxons were a tribal confederation, some looked to Saxnot, but the majority looked to Woden. In England the Saxons divided themselves up into the East Saxons [present-day Essex], West Saxons [Wessex], South Saxons [Sussex] and Middle Saxons [Middlesex].
The Saxon flag as flown by the last true Saxon king, Harold, at the Battle of Hastings, was a red winged dragon with a green and yellow tail.
http://flagspot.net/flags/fr_bayxt.html
The Angles [Anglia] are thought to have come from Angeln, the name referring to a 'Hook' of land [cf., the sport using the fishing hook, angling, as you refer to in your list of flags].
'Ing' occurs in the Anglo-Saxon rune-row and is described as a hero from over the seas.
Ing Rune
The Jutes are really a mystery, and are usually associated with Jutland for convenience.
However, as I said, with a polytheistic system various Folk can devote themselves to a particular deity from the pantheon [as Hindus still do in India], but there tends to be a henotheistic over-lord, in this case Woden.
Properly speaking, 'British' royalty is Keltic and therefore related to the Druidic system. Waddell in his books manages to link the Keltic and Teutonic kingdoms.
I conceive of Royalty being ultimately Pan-Aryan.
Etymologists are certain that Wotan/Woden/Odin derives from an Indo-European word, *Wut- meaning a 'frenzy'. This is shown by the now obsolete word 'wod' in English, meaning to go crazy. Shakespeare utilises it in a pun when he says to "wood in a wood" - i.e., go mad in a forest.
As I said above, many Saxon kings traced their lineage back to Woden as he was a favourite god of many of the nordic pagan tribes in this pre-Christian era. He seems to have usurped Tiw and therefore combined the notions of inspiration and war-frenzy.
I doubt that we can disentangle such ancient tribal groupings as Jutish and Angle, which are historically problematical anyway. I think we should work on the principle of precedence, and look at the qualities of past royal lineages. The Tudors give us the example of a strong racial state [Jews were still banned until the usurper Cromwell committed his crimes] which allowed the highest culture [e.g., Shakespeare] to flourish.
Therefore the Tudors get my nod.
As I said above, many Saxon kings traced their lineage back to Woden as he was a favourite god of many of the nordic pagan tribes in this pre-Christian era. He seems to have usurped Tiw and therefore combined the notions of inspiration and war-frenzy.
I doubt that we can disentangle such ancient tribal groupings as Jutish and Angle, which are historically problematical anyway. I think we should work on the principle of precedence, and look at the qualities of past royal lineages. The Tudors give us the example of a strong racial state [Jews were still banned until the usurper Cromwell committed his crimes] which allowed the highest culture [e.g., Shakespeare] to flourish.
Therefore the Tudors get my nod.
The Cross as an Aryan symbol pre-dates Christianity of course; the crucifix form being known as the 'staff of apollo'.
The Aryan influences on Christian symbolism are mentioned here;
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com
I choose the Tudors as the most legitimate royal house for Britain - we have to work with the historical/ mythical material that has come down to us.
The Aryan influences on Christian symbolism are mentioned here;
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com
I choose the Tudors as the most legitimate royal house for Britain - we have to work with the historical/ mythical material that has come down to us.
As well as a royal house for each European nation. we also need to look at the possibility of a pan-European monarchy.
Is 'Divine Right' a typically Christian outlook? I would be cautious of finding anything 'typically' Christian!
In actual fact, the divinity of kings as an out-look began to wane in the Christian period towards the parlous state it is in today.
In his mammoth and epochal book, 'The Golden Bough', Frazer dwells at length on the conception of kingship amongst the ancients;
"The divinity which hedges a king has its roots deep down in human history ..."
[Ib., chapter XVI]
Talking of the "kings in the classical period of Greek and Latin antiquity" he says;
"The stories of their lineage, titles, and pretensions suffice to prove that they too claimed to rule by DIVINE RIGHT and to exercise by superhuman powers".
[ib., my emphasis]
There is a wealth of material in Frazer's book covering many cultures to prove the point. Therefore we can say that the Christian period is marked by the diminishment of the divine right principle in its true sense.
Talking of the antiquity of European paganism in general, Frazer says;
"In those days the divinity that hedges a king was no empty form of speech, but the expression of a sober belief. Kings were revered, in many cases not merely as priests, that is, as intercessors between man and god, but as themselves gods ..."
[ib.,]
So we see that in the Christian period the Church and State are split and are often at war with each other, leading eventually to the reduction in power of both.
To get the pure Aryan view on this, we must go to the Laws of Manu;
"The Lord [god] emitted a king in order to guard his entire realm".
[Manu 7:3]
Of the divinity of kings;
"Because a king is made from the particles of these lords of the gods, therefore he surpasses all living beings in brilliant energy, and like the Sun, he burns eyes and hearts, and no one on earth is able even to look at him".
[ib., 7:5,6]
This reminds us of the taboo against looking the king in the eye.
That kingship actually DEVOLVES from the divine is made clear here;
"Even a boy king should not be treated with disrespect, with the thought, 'He is just a human being'; for this is a great deity standing there in the form of a man".
[ib., 7:8]
The coronation ceremony is thought to derive from the Celts.
Indeed, the Christian stance is actually ultimately corrosive to true Absolute Kingship; the Christian calling of a King "one among many" would actually be treasonable in a total monarchy.
The conflict between Church and State goes back to the medieval period with the Pope(s) and Emperors vying for supremacy - a split brought about by Christian ideology. With a division between Church and State neither one can be absolute. Emperor and Pope must be combined in the divine person of the King!
The King is not just a "man" as the Laws of Manu make clear; to suggest so would be treasonable in an absolute monarchy.
The conflict between Church and State goes back to the medieval period with the Pope(s) and Emperors vying for supremacy - a split brought about by Christian ideology. With a division between Church and State neither one can be absolute. Emperor and Pope must be combined in the divine person of the King!
The King is not just a "man" as the Laws of Manu make clear; to suggest so would be treasonable in an absolute monarchy.
Ccorruption in power in the Christian period is largely due to;
1) The split between Church and State - endemic conflict breeding corruption, and,
2) The diminishing of the divine status of the monarch - leading to rebellion and to a rampant egoism.
And who 'checks' the supreme power?
The Church in all its corruption?
Or the bankers in all their deracinated greed?
And, under this theory of the necessity of such 'checks', - who checks the checkers?
No!
Bring in occam's razor; all we need is;
1) The split between Church and State - endemic conflict breeding corruption, and,
2) The diminishing of the divine status of the monarch - leading to rebellion and to a rampant egoism.
And who 'checks' the supreme power?
The Church in all its corruption?
Or the bankers in all their deracinated greed?
And, under this theory of the necessity of such 'checks', - who checks the checkers?
No!
Bring in occam's razor; all we need is;
One Folk
One Empire, and
One Leader.
All the rest is silence.
As to corruption in the monarchical system; I note that monarchies across Eurasia have produced vibrant leadership and high culture century upon century from time immemorial, whereas secular rule has produced corruption and degenration within just a few decades.
Why? - because secular rule has no conception of Duty, Loyalty, and yes ... no conception of Tradition.
Let there always be a caste bred to rule, a caste conditioned from birth that its sole reason in life is to rule according to divine right.
Let this caste be imbued with the accumulated wealth of the nation so as to be above corruption!
This system works because ultimately that wealth of the nation belongs to the nation and is only held in stewardship by the royal caste. It is their duty to hold onto it and not to sell-it-out as the secular politicians have done.
Why? - because secular rule has no conception of Duty, Loyalty, and yes ... no conception of Tradition.
Let there always be a caste bred to rule, a caste conditioned from birth that its sole reason in life is to rule according to divine right.
Let this caste be imbued with the accumulated wealth of the nation so as to be above corruption!
This system works because ultimately that wealth of the nation belongs to the nation and is only held in stewardship by the royal caste. It is their duty to hold onto it and not to sell-it-out as the secular politicians have done.
Such single Rulers include kings, queens, emperors, caesars, kaisers, tsars, dictators, fuhrers, Leaders etc., etc.,
Evola says, in his 'Men Amongst Ruins', for example, that;
"The ancient Roman notion of IMPERIUM essentially belonged to the domain of the sacred".
So the religious and the political MUST be united in the Monarch by my conception - hence I reject the separation between the holy monarch [the Pope] and the king, found in Christian history.
Conflicts between Church and State have included the war between the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for example. Of course such a conflict exists within the soul of every Christian who perversely calls Jesus Christ [a carpenter's son who was crucified like a common criminal] a "king". King of what isn't certain, but it apparently also means that Jesus is the "king of kings"!
Such impudence! Christians even think of their heaven as being a "kingdom"!
Amazingly, some Christians have taken this literally and have opposed the true kingly power which is only on Earth. Cromwell was such a Christian literalist fanatic who saw fit to murder a king.
Of course, Cromwell tried to make himself into a Monarch; he failed because his heir [his son as in the kingly fashion] was not up to it. The monarchy was restored and Cromwell's body dug up, beheaded and hung on traitor's gate. Such should be the ultimate fate of all king-killers.
As for Rome, the rejection of the Etruscan kings led to the establishment of the mon-archical offices of dictator and Emperor;
DICTATOR - 'dictator rei gerendae causa' - held "absolute military and civil power in the State".
Examples include;
Camillus - five terms
Cincinnatus - 5th century BC
The following are all 4th century BC;
Corvus - two terms
Rufinus
Cursor
Rullianus
3rd century BC;
Caecus - two terms
Caiatinus
Cunctator
Maximus
1st century BC;
Sulla [made himself dictator without limit]
Julius Caesar, 'dictator for life'.
The Emperor Augustus ruled as an AUTOCRAT for more than 40 years;
"An AUTOCRAT is generally speaking any ruler with absolute power, the term is now usually used in a negative sense (cf., despot and tyrant). The term is derived from the Greek word 'autocrat' (literally 'self-ruler' or 'ruler-of-one's-self')".
[ib.,]
More generally we have the concept of dictatorship;
"DICTATORSHIP; a government headed by a Dictator or more generally any authoritarian or totalitarian government".
"TOTALITARIANISM is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all respects of day-to-day life".
[ib.,]
We can think of many examples of these throughout world/history.
Often a Dictator creates a "FAMILY DICTATORSHIP which operates much like an absolute monarchy".
[ib.,]
Thinking of Cromwell, Napoleon and others we note this form of monarchy;
"A SELF-PROCLAIMED MONARCHY is a monarchy that is proclaimed into existence, often by a single individual, rather than occurring as part of a longstanding tradition. It is at least initially the opposite of most hereditary monarchies, although if a self-proclaimed monarchy is successful, it will evolve into a hereditary one".
[ib.,]
My own [and Evola's] starting point is this;
"An ABSOLUTE MONARCHY is an idealised form of government, a monarchy where the ruler has the power to rule their country and citizens freely with no laws or legally-organised direct opposition telling the monarchy what to do ....
Basically an absolute monarch has total power over its people and land - including the aristocracy ...".
[ib.,]
Examples from history are multitudinous; we can probably begin with the Pharaohs.
Note that Savitri Devi illustrates her thesis with three mon-archical characters; the Pharaoh Akhenaton [a true mono-archist], Genghis Khan [means 'Universal Ruler'] and Adolf Hitler [single Leader of the Third German Empire].
"Thus it was rightly said: 'princeps a legibus solutus' - namely, the law does not apply to the one who acts as Leader, just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
[Evola, Men Among Ruins]
It is this concept which is central, as I said before: - the king IS the Law!
On Hitler's view of Monarchy.
While it's true that Hitler was very critical of monarchism's degenerate aspects - the tendency for servility to become endemic, for example - it must be pointed out that he supported monarchism in principle according to his Mein Kampf.
In that book, after making criticisms of monarchism, he then asserts that monarchy has "unquestionable assets", which he goes on to describe;
"The stability of the entire state leadership, brought about by the monarchic form of state and
The removal of the highest state posts from the welter of speculation by ambitious politicians.
Furthermore, the dignity of the institution of monarchy as such and
The authority which this alone created:
Likewise the raising of the civil service and particularly the army above the level of party obligations.
One more advantage was the personal embodiment of the State's summit in the monarch as a person, and the example of responsibility which is bound to be stronger in a monarch than in the accidental rabble of a parliamentary majority ...
Finally, the cultural value of the monarchy for the German people was high and could very well compensate for other drawbacks ...
What the German princes did for art and science, particularly in the 19th century, was examplary. The present period [i.e., 1925] cannot be compared with it ..."
[Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler. Bk I:10]
So we see that Hitler was a monarchist at heart and modelled his own Fuhrerprinzip on an idealised monarchism.
Hitler greets the Duke of Windsor, England's future king.
Evola says, in his 'Men Amongst Ruins', for example, that;
"The ancient Roman notion of IMPERIUM essentially belonged to the domain of the sacred".
So the religious and the political MUST be united in the Monarch by my conception - hence I reject the separation between the holy monarch [the Pope] and the king, found in Christian history.
Conflicts between Church and State have included the war between the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for example. Of course such a conflict exists within the soul of every Christian who perversely calls Jesus Christ [a carpenter's son who was crucified like a common criminal] a "king". King of what isn't certain, but it apparently also means that Jesus is the "king of kings"!
Such impudence! Christians even think of their heaven as being a "kingdom"!
Amazingly, some Christians have taken this literally and have opposed the true kingly power which is only on Earth. Cromwell was such a Christian literalist fanatic who saw fit to murder a king.
Of course, Cromwell tried to make himself into a Monarch; he failed because his heir [his son as in the kingly fashion] was not up to it. The monarchy was restored and Cromwell's body dug up, beheaded and hung on traitor's gate. Such should be the ultimate fate of all king-killers.
As for Rome, the rejection of the Etruscan kings led to the establishment of the mon-archical offices of dictator and Emperor;
DICTATOR - 'dictator rei gerendae causa' - held "absolute military and civil power in the State".
Examples include;
Camillus - five terms
Cincinnatus - 5th century BC
The following are all 4th century BC;
Corvus - two terms
Rufinus
Cursor
Rullianus
3rd century BC;
Caecus - two terms
Caiatinus
Cunctator
Maximus
1st century BC;
Sulla [made himself dictator without limit]
Julius Caesar, 'dictator for life'.
The Emperor Augustus ruled as an AUTOCRAT for more than 40 years;
"An AUTOCRAT is generally speaking any ruler with absolute power, the term is now usually used in a negative sense (cf., despot and tyrant). The term is derived from the Greek word 'autocrat' (literally 'self-ruler' or 'ruler-of-one's-self')".
[ib.,]
More generally we have the concept of dictatorship;
"DICTATORSHIP; a government headed by a Dictator or more generally any authoritarian or totalitarian government".
"TOTALITARIANISM is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all respects of day-to-day life".
[ib.,]
We can think of many examples of these throughout world/history.
Often a Dictator creates a "FAMILY DICTATORSHIP which operates much like an absolute monarchy".
[ib.,]
Thinking of Cromwell, Napoleon and others we note this form of monarchy;
"A SELF-PROCLAIMED MONARCHY is a monarchy that is proclaimed into existence, often by a single individual, rather than occurring as part of a longstanding tradition. It is at least initially the opposite of most hereditary monarchies, although if a self-proclaimed monarchy is successful, it will evolve into a hereditary one".
[ib.,]
My own [and Evola's] starting point is this;
"An ABSOLUTE MONARCHY is an idealised form of government, a monarchy where the ruler has the power to rule their country and citizens freely with no laws or legally-organised direct opposition telling the monarchy what to do ....
Basically an absolute monarch has total power over its people and land - including the aristocracy ...".
[ib.,]
Examples from history are multitudinous; we can probably begin with the Pharaohs.
Note that Savitri Devi illustrates her thesis with three mon-archical characters; the Pharaoh Akhenaton [a true mono-archist], Genghis Khan [means 'Universal Ruler'] and Adolf Hitler [single Leader of the Third German Empire].
"Thus it was rightly said: 'princeps a legibus solutus' - namely, the law does not apply to the one who acts as Leader, just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
[Evola, Men Among Ruins]
It is this concept which is central, as I said before: - the king IS the Law!
On Hitler's view of Monarchy.
While it's true that Hitler was very critical of monarchism's degenerate aspects - the tendency for servility to become endemic, for example - it must be pointed out that he supported monarchism in principle according to his Mein Kampf.
In that book, after making criticisms of monarchism, he then asserts that monarchy has "unquestionable assets", which he goes on to describe;
"The stability of the entire state leadership, brought about by the monarchic form of state and
The removal of the highest state posts from the welter of speculation by ambitious politicians.
Furthermore, the dignity of the institution of monarchy as such and
The authority which this alone created:
Likewise the raising of the civil service and particularly the army above the level of party obligations.
One more advantage was the personal embodiment of the State's summit in the monarch as a person, and the example of responsibility which is bound to be stronger in a monarch than in the accidental rabble of a parliamentary majority ...
Finally, the cultural value of the monarchy for the German people was high and could very well compensate for other drawbacks ...
What the German princes did for art and science, particularly in the 19th century, was examplary. The present period [i.e., 1925] cannot be compared with it ..."
[Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler. Bk I:10]
So we see that Hitler was a monarchist at heart and modelled his own Fuhrerprinzip on an idealised monarchism.
Hitler greets the Duke of Windsor, England's future king.
A Monarchy is a kind of state, but the monarch should not be called a statesman - he is more exalted than that.
He is above the state - but he IS the state.
Obviously, democracies and republics etc., are not true monarchies; they give some power to the 'demos' or to the 'public'.
In a true monarchy power rests solely with the monarch.
All other political aspects of the state have to go to the monarch before they can act; they need the monarch's 'seal of approval'.
He is above the state - but he IS the state.
Obviously, democracies and republics etc., are not true monarchies; they give some power to the 'demos' or to the 'public'.
In a true monarchy power rests solely with the monarch.
All other political aspects of the state have to go to the monarch before they can act; they need the monarch's 'seal of approval'.
Clearly, what we call 'democracy' or 'republicanism' bears little relation to the what was called Democracy in Greece or Republicanism in Rome.
Athens was first ruled by kings, as was Rome, which passed through a republican phase - [which retained kingly functions - even then it had the office of Dictator] - before being ruled by Emperors.
I have already listed the Dictators such as Sulla and Caesar; we can add well known figures such as Alexander the Great as well, and also the monarchs of ancient Egypt, Persia etc., etc.,
A Dictator is a mon-arch in all but name [just as, in a reversed instance, the current Queen of England is a mon-arch in name only].
Alexander, Sulla, Hitler etc., were DE FACTO mon-archs [while Louis XIV is an example of a monarch who calls himself one and IS one]; while Queen Elizabeth the Second is merely a figurehead who is called a 'mon-arch', but isn't one, going by the definition of a mon-arch as a single ruler.
Monarchs can be tyrannical, and therefore can be called tyrants [just as some monarchs can be called 'enlightened despots' etc.,].
I have already listed the Dictators such as Sulla and Caesar; we can add well known figures such as Alexander the Great as well, and also the monarchs of ancient Egypt, Persia etc., etc.,
A Dictator is a mon-arch in all but name [just as, in a reversed instance, the current Queen of England is a mon-arch in name only].
Alexander, Sulla, Hitler etc., were DE FACTO mon-archs [while Louis XIV is an example of a monarch who calls himself one and IS one]; while Queen Elizabeth the Second is merely a figurehead who is called a 'mon-arch', but isn't one, going by the definition of a mon-arch as a single ruler.
Monarchs can be tyrannical, and therefore can be called tyrants [just as some monarchs can be called 'enlightened despots' etc.,].
__________________
When we talk of 'democracy' and 'republicanism' generally we are referring to the forms of government we know of today which utilise a universal suffrage quite unknown to the ancient world.
So when we mean the latter [Greece and Rome] we qualify them by saying 'Athenian Greece' or 'Republican Rome'. Both [as I have said] retained monarchical functions of the kind found in what I call 'true monarchies'.
My conception of monarchy rests on the notion of true kingship; Evola illustrates this power of true true kingship when he says;" ... just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
Just as National Socialism says that the Will of the Leader IS Law, or Louis XIV says that "the state is I" [L'Etat, c'est moi!]
__________________
_______________
Aryan Invasions Pattern
__________________
The Swastika as a symbol of a European Monarchy.
The Swastika is only found in areas of ancient Aryan expansion and settlement [it is not found in Africa for example]; therefore it was chosen as a pan-Aryan symbol, rightly so.
As the symbol of the the sun, the swastika may be universal, but it means one thing to a nord [who welcomes it], and something very different to an African who is tormented by its heat.
KING CNVTE
The Emperor of Europa
Logically speaking, if we are talking of a European Empire, then we are implying the possibility of a European Emperor.
Of course, such issues are in the realm of the hypothetical at present.
There are many models form history, the most common being a series of kindred petty kingdoms with one of them being mutually recognised as over-lord.
We have plenty of evidence of the ancient Roman's reaction to north European culture. They found many parallels between the Celtic/Teutonic pantheons and that of the Roman/Greek, for example. They assumed that those who worshipped Wotan, say, were merely worshipping Mercury by another name.
Of course, such issues are in the realm of the hypothetical at present.
There are many models form history, the most common being a series of kindred petty kingdoms with one of them being mutually recognised as over-lord.
We have plenty of evidence of the ancient Roman's reaction to north European culture. They found many parallels between the Celtic/Teutonic pantheons and that of the Roman/Greek, for example. They assumed that those who worshipped Wotan, say, were merely worshipping Mercury by another name.
__________________
Religion
When Europeans colonised and conquered the Americas they took a very different view of the native religions. They regarded them either as perversions of Christianity or else as Devil-worship.
They then set about CONVERTING them. See also the work of Christian Missionaries.
This is very different to the way that the pagan Romans dealt with the religions of other pagan peoples. In this case they merely added them on to their own pantheon as I have described. This worked because the Indo-European religions are all closely related [and this also explains why the pagan Romans persecuted the monotheistic religion of the Jews/Christians].
The same cannot be said for the Semitic and Aryan religions; when these meet, religious conflict ensued.
Those of related cultures are compatible, while those of unrelated ones are not.
So in this sense we are NOT "all human", but we ARE Aryans, [or Semites, Mongolians etc.,] and "never the twain shall meet".
There is not, as far as I know, any evidence that all the world's languages are connected, although there IS evidence that language groups are connected.
They then set about CONVERTING them. See also the work of Christian Missionaries.
This is very different to the way that the pagan Romans dealt with the religions of other pagan peoples. In this case they merely added them on to their own pantheon as I have described. This worked because the Indo-European religions are all closely related [and this also explains why the pagan Romans persecuted the monotheistic religion of the Jews/Christians].
The same cannot be said for the Semitic and Aryan religions; when these meet, religious conflict ensued.
Those of related cultures are compatible, while those of unrelated ones are not.
So in this sense we are NOT "all human", but we ARE Aryans, [or Semites, Mongolians etc.,] and "never the twain shall meet".
There is not, as far as I know, any evidence that all the world's languages are connected, although there IS evidence that language groups are connected.
________________
The Aryans
The Aryans moved around - from north to south and vice versa; from east to west and vice versa. The invasions that left their imprint on history are only the most recent; many invasions have suffered the fate of Atlantis and have become submerged.
I personally believe that the Aryans migrated east to the Americas long before the mongolians did, for example ['White Gods'].
Also we know that climates have changed drastically within the historical period let alone the pre-historical.
Similarity is one thing, but direct descent is another; we see lines of direct descent in the Indo-Europeans;
I personally believe that the Aryans migrated east to the Americas long before the mongolians did, for example ['White Gods'].
Also we know that climates have changed drastically within the historical period let alone the pre-historical.
Similarity is one thing, but direct descent is another; we see lines of direct descent in the Indo-Europeans;
No comments:
Post a Comment