'Sovereignty'

'Sovereignty' is the most important political notion.

It is one that transcends the merely official stuff of politics and goes into the realm of beliefs and meaning.

The Divine Right asserts that the King is a direct descendent of god - his representative on earth.
Just as the king is a servant of his Lord god, then so are the Folk servants of the Monarch - as above so below.

There can be no sovereignty without this direct chain of Command in the following Order;

God(s)
King(s)
Warrior Aristocracy
Clergy
Farmers
Peasants
Slaves
Untouchables etc.,

Wonderment was expressed in the days of the British Raj at how a relatively tiny force of British soldiers was able to rule a huge Indian populace.

How is it that a single sovereign and his family are able to wield a mighty military tool which could obilterate him in a thrice?

So we find ourselves, at what ever angle we approach it, faced with a kind of hall and mirrors trick.
Some talk of sovereignty as the "ultimate authority which is accountable only to itself"; this sounds like God ... but is there anything on earth like this?
Is there any truly ultimate authority which is only accountable to itself?

We seem to be staring into the abyss of Power - a Power which eludes our grasp, whether we be monarchists or democrats.

I believe the problem is due to the absence in this discussion so far of one of the most important concepts in this connexion: that of OWNERSHIP.
I recall that Madison is supposed to have said something like; 'let he that owns the country run the country'.

"Rebellion is the distinguishing mark of the slave; let YOUR mark be obedience".
[Nietzsche, quoted by David Irving in his 'Hitler's War']

Indoctrination is unfortunately necessary in a multicultural system, where the use of auxilleries and mercenaries is rife - such as that of late Rome - and, I might say, of present day America.

However, I believe that in a healthy traditional nation, bound by blood, soil and honour, there is no need for such indoctrination. Rather the obedience to the sovereign is in the Blood, and culture is an expression of this; nay, a celebration of this.
See, for example Edmund Spenser's great 'Faerie Qveen'.

Generally, I would say that the Monarch/ Sovereign OWNS the land and the people therein; just as all things, monarch and all, are ultimately the property of the Deity.
Therefore, true 'freedom' is gauged not by license, but by closeness to the Sovereign as the etymology of the word 'freedom' implies.

I find the slogan "every man his own king" to be a rank anti-royal heresy.

The word 'king' is from 'kin', so he DOES represent the kin-dred Folk. However, I believe that God only deals DIRECTLY with kings and Leaders.
So I regard "the will of the people" as another heresy beloved of disobedient regicides and other disbelievers.


Regicide, that most foul of crimes.

---

In pagan Rome the Emperor was a GOD.

'Heresy' comes from the Greek, meaning to be able to 'choose'. The last thing we want is for the masses to be able to 'choose'! That is far too democratic!
[The word's origin, like that of 'kining', is not 'theory', but demonstrates the essence of its beginning, no matter what later perversions or adaptations occurred].

Pagan Rome persecuted the Jews and Christians because they would not accept the divinity of the Emperor!

This is the heresy I am talking about - the anti-monarchist heresy!
'Mon'- = one, '-arch' = ruler

"Christs may come and Christs may go, but Caesar lives forever".
[Ragnar Redbeard]

Christianity said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's", and so engendered the split between Church and State, between Pope and Emperor.

But to the Roman Emperor Augustus, the Emperor was ALSO Pontifex Maximus [a title now held by the Pope].

So, going back to the actual question 'where does sovereignty reside?', I say in this context that it must reside in Caesar, not in any Christ.

Similarly, with your point on 'populism'; I regard sovereignty to reside in Caesar and not in the vox populi.


Whose head on the coin? The People? God? or Caesar?

The sovereign's head on the coinage is very symbolic - the sovereign IS the nation by this very symbolism.

Indeed, many European nations were created by their royal dynasties, not vice versa.

'The people' did not create 'caesar', the Caesar created the people!

Just as the Creator formed the Universe!

A sovereign heals and makes whole and holy a people.

The nation is a wheel and the crown is the hub of that wheel.

A Sun Wheel.

The sovereign is the head and the heart of a people.

We are orphans without our sovereign.

When we look at the the Euro note, what do we find? - no sovereign heads: hence the EU has no proper sovereignty [while the USA is ruled by the masonic eye].

So ask yourself where does sovereignty reside?

Caesar's head, not Christ's head.

The king is deeply symbolic of Sovereignty.

This is why nations which have rid themselves of their kings have suffered crises of identity.

Clearly there is a problem when kingship is extended beyond the bounds of a homeland [as in the Roman and British Empires, for example].
Subjects of a monarchy must have deep spiritual/ racial and cultural links to that monarchy. Empires which overlook this will suffer rebellions and an internal loss of faith and even collapse.
Again, this also shows where sovereignty resides - in OUR king, not the king of another man.



Arthur Rex

Evola, in his 'Men Amongst the Ruins', has some interesting insights on our question, 'Where does Sovereignty Reside?'

He says;

"In previous eras it was possible to speak of the SACRED character of the principle of sovereignty and power, namely of the State".

The State's sovereignty is then a religio-political affair;

"For instance, the ancient Roman notion of IMPERIVM essentially belonged to the domain of the sacred".
[ib,]

Interestingly, he goes on to say;

"It is necessary to recognise sovereignty's attribute of ABSOLUTENESS ..."
[ib.,]

This Absoluteness must;

"Necessarily have in itself the decreeing power of something that represents the ultimate application. A power and authority that are not absolute, are NOT REAL AUTHORITY OR REAL POWER".
[ib., my emphasis]

This Power;

"Refers to a transcendent order that alone can GROUND and LEGITIMISE it in terms of a sovereign, autonomous, and UNDERIVED principle that is the BASIS of EVERY RIGHT WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO ANOTHER RIGHT".
[ib., my emphasis]

An 'Imperium' is the political expression of that Power and;

"The true Leader must embody and represent it".
[ib.,]

__________________

Is it possible that sovereignty could be based on a negation?

Where 'the people' lack the will to assert themselves and there, by neglect, create a vacuum of power - THERE does sovereignty reside.

Sovereignty lay in the passive weak-will of the many.

This negative entity is then taken up by the strong-willed, the leaders, the movers and shakers; they wield this sovereignty to their own ends.

So ultimately, power still resides in the leaders - if only by default.

This power is something that the mass of people cannot use; it is only the tool of the Few.

This is because power becomes dissipated when it is spread around among the many; it must be concentrated and utilised by an elite.

That's why monarchy is the most powerful system; here, power is concentrated into the hands of ONE MAN.

There does sovereignty RESIDE.

__________________

Hereditary monarchy has some real advantages.

It means that the leaders MUST have families [too many good people are content to go childless].
Also they must see to it that their children are groomed to take over and be good at the job to preserve the line.
The line then has an inbuilt sense of 'right' - the right to govern by Blood.
This is therefore a microcosm of the Aryan Race's right to govern as a Race, by blood.
Also, it means that Race is at the top of the agenda, as the Blood-Line is concentrated upon.

__________________