A Letter To American "Conservatives"

brucelewis.com ^ | 2008.05.23 | Bruce Lewis

[B-Chan]

[Note: The following rant is addressed to those Americans who consider themselves to be Conservatives. Of course, they are not; they believe that individual Liberty is the ultimate value, which makes them Liberals. (American "liberals" are likewise misnamed, and are actually socialists.) True Conservatives hold Duty to be the highest value, not Liberty. — BL]

My dear American conservatives:

You have cried out, and I have heard you. As the Obama juggernaut rolls on, and as the Republican Party flounders to field as a viable candidate a man who one advocated granting amnesty to foreign invaders of our country, cries of despair have begun to rise from your camps.

In reply, I say: save your whining for someone who cares.

"Oh, if Obama wins, the country will be controlled by the Democrats!" you cry. Well, so what? That's what the People want, right? Surely, all you believers in representative government would never want to deny the People their choice of the candidate that represents the things they believe in, would you?

THIS is why I'm a monarchist: because sometimes, the People are wrong.

Representative government is dangerous. It only works when the People are educated and intelligent enough to comprehend the issues, when they are sophisticated enough to see through the web of lies and propaganda spun by the political parties, and when they hold the values and mores of the Judeo-Christian worldview exclusively. None of this is true of the current United States population. Most people are damned fools who should no more be trusted with a vote than a chimp should be trusted with a machine gun. Most people are incapable of telling propagandistic shit from fact-supported Shinola. Most people, while nominally Christian, are actually pagan hedonists with no greater moral code than "if it feels good, and it doesn't hurt anybody in a way I can't rationalize, do it". And yet my little boy has to grow up in a country whose laws, military, and nuclear weapons are controlled by a gang of professional pirates chosen by whatever miniscule percentage of this slack-jawed populace remembers to show up on Election Day.

(Please note: I count myself among the slack-jawed populace. I am an unemployable, clinically-depressive Japanese cartoon voice actor, for Pete's sake.)

Yes, in our great country the People choose the political leadership, and the political leadership represents the people. But who represents the Nation — the culture, the values, the things that make a nation what it is? Under a monarchy, that is the role of the Crown. In a government "by the people", the answer is nobody.

So I will thank you all to please pardon me if I don't stand up and wave the flag this election year. All this (or any) election means to me is an opportunity for a new crew of rapists to show up and bend me and mine over the ol' prison bunk. No matter which dribbling assclown gets elected in November, abortion will remain legal, income will remain taxable, borders will remain porous, and the global Islamic jihad will be kept politely at arm's length instead of being smashed with a mailed fist, as it ought to be.

No matter who wins the election, America loses. But that's what we wanted: a free republic, where the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Too bad the governed are a bunch of morons.

[B-Chan]

Food for thought.

[marron]

Too bad most royals are slack-jawed inbred chimps I wouldn’t hire to run a convenience store.

[2ndDivisionVet]

"Too bad most royals are slack-jawed inbred chimps I wouldn’t hire to run a convenience store."

Just as Senator Barack Hussein Muhammad Obama (PBUH) heard his name mentioned in President Bush's Knesset speech, even when it wasn't; I hear you describing Britain's Prince Charles, even though you never said his name...

[wastedyears]

Does he mean liberal in the sense of the Founding Fathers.

I use a lower case ‘l’ for a reason.

[B-Chan]

A person who holds individual Liberty as the supreme value is a liberal.

[B-Chan]

Royals may be inbred and slack-jawed, but at least they are born from a centuries-long tradition and raised for the task of governing and representing the Nation as a whole.

Politicians, on the other hand, are amateurs who survive our Darwinian political process by being as ruthless and unprincipled as they can be. The bigger a bastard one is, the better one will do as a politican in a republic or democracy. Both systems are tailored to select for the best con man, not the most capable leader.

Please do not make the mistake of identifying Europe’s current crew of debased “royals” as true aristocrats. Most of them are no better than the scum over whom they supposedly reign. There are, however, true nobles left in this world, and someday God will raise them up to pick up the pieces of Mankind’s disastrous attempt at self-deification.

[Lancey Howard]

Not a bad rant, except that our government WOULD work if the political class took the Constitution seriously. Unfortunately, the Constitution was destroyed once the polticians realized that they could use it to extract money from some citizens and use that money to buy the votes of other citizens, and THAT scheme was fully enabled once people found that they were actually encouraged by the scumbag politicians to use the government to vote themselves other people’s money.

Ahh well - - it was all downhill from there, and the toilet ain’t done flushing yet.

[B-Chan]

The progression from high-minded ideals to crass opportunism is inevitable in any system of representative government. It's akin to Gresham's Law — over time, bad voters and politicians will always drive out the good. Sound money, money based upon a standard of value (e.g. gold) holds its value over time; money based upon itself (fiat currency) becomes corrupt and loses value as time passes. Just as money requires some immutable standard in order to retain its value as a unit of exchange, human government needs some immutable source of authority in order to retain its value as a method of organizing society. The traditional Western form of government — monarchy — provides this: an immutable Source of Authority (the Almighty), who establishes Princes among men to govern them (cf. Rom. 13).

[marron]

If you’ve found a human prince you’re prepared to serve, nothing stops you from serving him.

I would be curious who concretely that might me.

And if you’re not serving him, why not?

[B-Chan]

There isn’t a real, functioning Christian monarchy in the world right now, that’s why. The Revolution’s victory is total. Even countries that have legitimate monarchs have succumbed to the Revolutionary virus.

Someday, God will raise up a Prince who will restore Christendom. Until then, I will respect the authorities He has placed over me — whomever they may be.

[Neoncon]

So, how will we know if your anticipated king is legitimate or just a charlatan? I’d say most of the monarchs of history were anything but benevolent. Henry VIII cut his subjects off from the sacraments and sacked the monasteries just because he couldn’t get an anullment. Louis XIV was a shameless philanderer who used his position to sleep with other men’s wives. Representative republics and constitutional monarchies aren’t perfect, I know. It can be difficult to persuade your fellow citizens, but I don’t see any other way to make the government accountable.

[Neoncon]

Are kings ever wrong?

[metesky]

There are, however, true nobles left in this world, and someday God will raise them up to pick up the pieces of Mankind’s disastrous attempt at self-deification.

Name a few so that we can get to work on killin' 'em off.

[Bobarian]

A person who holds individual Liberty as the supreme value is a liberal.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. Your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness.

[Mmmike]

Yes, a disciple of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

[onewhowatches]

Someday, God will raise up a Prince who will restore Christendom. Until then, I will respect the authorities He has placed over me — whomever they may be.

I, too, am convinced that will someday happen. And his throne shall be in Salt Lake City.

[FredZarguna]

Food for thought.

No. Not even chewing gum for casual consideration.

Monarchy is incompatible with liberty: only the sovereign has true liberty. That is why popular sovereignty is the only possible choice for a liberal in the classical tradition. Moral systems founded in altruism are fundamentally corrupt. The idea that we should give up our choices for the "greater good" to a self-appointed autocrat -- even a perfect one -- is just another name for slavery.

History provides numerous arguments against monarchy/autocracy/despotism. Failure to heed them gets lots of people killed. If you won't heed the lessons history teaches, take a page from current events. This is the only argument against monarchy (even a purely symbolic one) that a sensible person needs to see:

[Revolting cat!]

OH, please. The Republic of Monaco is a monarchy, as are other states where citizens enjoy liberty.

[FredZarguna]

The Republic of Monaco is a monarchy.

Like the Peoples Republic of China is a Republic?

PLEASE yourself. If you have no voice in your own political destiny, you aren't free, you're a slave, and your King can kid you all he wants. If you're dim enough to believe him, that doesn't take the yoke off your neck; it merely makes you a stupid, ignorant, or sleeping slave, but a slave nevertheless.

[Revolting cat!]

Living where I live I have no voice in my own political destiny, as ytou put it. Oh, I do have an illusion of having a voice, but, as it stands, my one vote doesn't count for anything, my representatives, from the city councilman to the U.S. Senator do not represent me, the judges free dangerous criminals and declare that pderasts can merry, etc, etc. A wise monarch is better than a Congress filled with fools!

Keep in mind that Milton Friedmnan wrote his classic book Free to Choose about Hong Kong (among other things) under the British rule.