Among the disgruntled peoples of Europe and America, there is a tendency to grab at the lowest hanging fruit. The common disgruntled man immediately looks to the system of government in which he lives, and often time rightfully places blame upon it for his misfortune.  Then this man seeks out a system that is perceived to be better, that will fix his many woes.  Where does this man turn to find such a system? He turns to what the mainstream media, and Academics present as viable alternatives.

For this reason, disgruntled western man can only seem to choose from the pool of competing 20^th century systems of government.  If liberal democracy and its corporate capitalism doesn’t work, surely some variant of Marxism will.  Such a man will not give a fair shake to Fascism, because Fascism was swiftly militarily defeated and vilified by both the Communist and Liberal Democratic powers.  The fact is, all the competing political theories of that tragic century are all equally terrible.  What direction should the disgruntled man be directed to? The disgruntled man should correct the mistakes of the 20^th century, which emanated from enlightenment rubbish, and correct the wrongs that have and continue to wreak havoc on mankind. However, this correction should not include completely untested models, that lack in the beauty of natural order. Sanity must be restored, by a return to Royal Monarchs, which have a more proper aesthetic, and a more efficient system for governing than the prominent neoreaction theory of neocameralism.

Contrary to popular belief, by all objective observable criteria, Monarchy has been a resounding success.  Recorded history makes it evident, that Monarchy has been the predominant form of governing on Earth since at least 3,000BC.  What evidence is there that humans at large are so much more advanced, and intelligent than all of humans of the past? If Monarchy was such a menace to the Earth, would it have remained so dominant a force?  Liberal democracy is a mere speck, in comparison.

For example, beginning with the unification of upper and lower Egypt, monarchy led to nearly three millennia of stability since 3150 BC. Certainly, it was developed in pre-historic times, flourished in the Greek Bronze Age, in Rome between 700 and 500 BC, The Chinese states, and early medieval Western Europe.  The worlds greatest cultures and institutions, in every period, were cultivated and shaped by the Royal dynasties.  Even the Nubian Kingdom in Africa produced periods of continuous stability, one lasting for at least 900 years.  Until the pernicious lies wreaked chaos in England, the feudal Monarchs also produced stability.  There is no doubt that Monarchy built great things! As pointed out at Unqualified Reservations, the world’s most beautiful and impressive architecture were built under the royals’ watch.  One need only to compare the age of the Monarchs, to the age that followed.  The rise of popular government, whose various expressions fought for dominance, destroying much of the cultures they consumed, and leading to the most bloodshed in the planet’s history.         

 Why exactly was Monarchy so successful? First and foremost, it is a natural reflection on Earth, of the hierarchy of Heaven. The Christian teaching of man, being created in the image and likeness of God, also applies to the order of civilization.  Because mankind is created in His image, the most ideal form of government is that, of as a single head.  Just as the father is the head of the family, so the King is the head of nation.   Under a monarchial system, people are more inclined to reverently view the monarch as a dear relative, with a healthy blend of fear and adoration. 

Another factor for success, monarchs treated statecraft as the family business.  Thus, much care was given, to pass down a successful business down to the next generation.  Logical chains of successions bred stability with crises often at moments where succession was uncertain. Certainly, a poorly run state would be a huge burden to pass down.  Monarchs thus treated their work, as a duty, one in which they didn’t choose for themselves.  Yet they lived in the service of their nation. It resembled a healthy familial relationship, perhaps this why many far-left ideologies attack the family unit so viciously.  Additionally, monarchial governments were far less intrusive against individual liberties, and privacy, than the post-revolutionary regimes who claimed such things as their cause.  The revolutionary actors, as sincere as they may have been, did not foresee how the maintenance of a redefined sovereignty would lead to more intrusion and the negation of liberty.  

 Some contemporary fringe thinkers, seem to recognize the superiority of the old regime, over the current, but rather than advocating a return propose instead what is known as neocameralism.  In a nutshell, rather than adopting the family business model, its advocates favor the Corporate structure; a CEO and shareholders.  The shareholders would elect the CEO, who in theory would exert absolute authority over the government and its dependents.  The shareholders, would have the authority to depose the CEO, should the CEO become tyrannical or mismanage the organization.  With the shareholders having such powers, this system would devolve into simply a micro bureaucracy, with the shareholders essentially leveraging the most power and control. 

This was the reactionaries’ attempt to address the criticism often brought forth, about the turmoil surrounding succession plans.  However, all that this accomplishes is the conception of a new, unnatural, and utopian form of government that has never been tested.  One can look at the devolution of current tech firms into massive SJW goblins to see the danger of that view. It’s also highly unlikely, given the attitudes of men towards large corporations, compared to the preference shown towards family business, that they would adopt such a form of government.  The relationship between the people, and the CEO and shareholders, will be impersonal.  The aesthetics will not have the personal touch, which built the Western World upon beauty, and magnificence.   

 It is true that succession of authority is pivotal and crucial to the stable continuous royal monarch.  People living in the United States should know, as they endure a similar upheaval every four to eight years.  Monarchial systems would often only encounter this after a period of 25 to 50 years, but modern methods of fertility science should change that frequency of crisis. It is essential that a law of succession is established.  Such as the Russian Pauline laws, instituted by Paul I (1796-1801).  The Pauline succession recognized that male succession was preferable but allowed for females to succeed to the throne if the male line became extinct.  In a restored West, such a system would help prevent conflict and ensure that the line does in fact remain intact.  It would be acceptable, and perhaps a good idea for something like a corporate board to exist, for the sole purpose of ensuring that the laws of succession are adhered to.  This board should be Aristocratic, and a hereditary position. However, a traditional Church body which would conduct the coronation, could also play a role in that process. 

 It seems that Moldbug himself would prefer the Royalist Monarchs, but thinks that American sensibilities would be more suited to Neocameralism. The reality is, that Americans are still human, and still persons of European heritage.  Royalism, given its historical success and track record, is exactly what America and the West needs to restore it to its former glory. Reactionaries, and all those explaining governance futurism should endeavor to restore our ancestral heritage of beauty and magnificence.