What would a modern monarchy look like? This is a question I ask myself regularly, so much so that I yearn to ask others in the hope that they can add new information, bring resolution & clarity, and catch blind spots & oversights. I have found a few people that have done this, but usually I am met with complete incapacity to even consider the notion, and the few who can always deem it impossible or excruciating. There are a number of impediments to engaging the question for those to whom monarchy is little more than an academic concept or a fairy tale in a history disconnected from reality. One of these is the idea of Elites who retain full control of the levers and gears of society and at the same time have only goodness, beneficence, and kindness for the Common Man at the heart of their character and purposes. This is far more often the argument deployed against neo-monarchy, even more so than the idea of a King. If given the space and freedom to speak plainly, most people describe a Benevolent Dictatorship when asked to outline what a “perfect government” would look like, and a Benevolent Dictator is indistinguishable from a Good King. People can easily imagine Kings, but they cannot envision a Virtuous Elite. Why?
Occidental Moderns cannot conceive of an elite that is anything more than greedy, shallow, cruel, self-serving, short-sighted, and destructive. This is the meme of wealth, status, and power possession as a crime. The meme itself is reinforced, time and again, by media and entertainment. The Children of Moderns cannot conceive of a bad guy, an evil person, or an antagonist that is not phenotypically aristocratic, powerful, or moneyed. This is due to about a century of poorly written movie scripts, as well as the majority of what passes for literature these days. This is evident from a simple review of movies and books from the 1950s forward. Suffice to say that the lack of a virtuous elite, in fiction and reality, is a product of a failure of imagination and a failure of culture, respectively.
Can there be a virtuous elite, and if so, is it capable of doing things an un-virtuous elite cannot? Progressives, moderns, postmodernists, bureaucratists, leftists, commies; they all despise the very idea of a virtuous elite. All of their efforts are underpinned by the repetition of a simple mantra: there is and can be no virtue in the Elite. It’s a sad and unavoidable irony that our society’s elite, who see themselves as more virtuous than Jesus could ever be, simultaneously believe that any other elite, and even (maybe especially) themselves, cannot be elite, at least not as a group, in general, or as a baseline characteristic at the personal level. The reason for this, the inability to conceive of a virtuous elite as well as the failure to be virtuous elites, is, as always, too much Karl Marx makes Jill a retarded boy.
But it's rather obvious that there can be, and indeed has often been, a virtuous elite. The modern world is a parasitic growth that inhabits the corpse of an old man who was once, long ago, the offspring of a virtuous elite. There have been many cycles of virtuous elites, as well as less than virtuous elites. A study of human history, as granular or general as the student may wish to take, is basically an episodic story of how virtuous elites could become, and then how quickly or slowly their progeny could fuck that up1. A virtuous elite is an incomparable power structure, one that vastly outweighs the sum of its parts. It can make and break societies, cultures, languages, and religions, and it can do this intentionally or accidentally. A virtuous elite can inspire the poor just as easily as they can persecute them, but it should be noted that the reverse is not true. This is a critical aspect of any elite: how do they feel about the poor/peasants/workers/villagers/etc., and how does the reality of these kinds make the elite feel about things in general? You can see the incredibly destructive results in current year of an elite that looks at the poor, pretends they are a mirror, and then pulls out a scalpel so that it can "get busy saving the world." The world was a better place, indeed it became a better place, when the elite looked at the poor and saw them as both a problem to be dealt with and an opportunity to do things. This was not always good or successful, but where it was successful, it was almost always good for both groups and, most importantly, the progeny of both.
A virtuous elite cannot help but be motivated by the standing and well-being of their peasants. The elite exist as an involuntary byproduct of the existence of the peasantry over time2. It isn't a chicken or egg discussion, because the peasantry is a chicken that lays both good and bad eggs, and has absolutely no say or control in the matter. The poor can act upon the elite, but they cannot act like the elite. Put another way, no matter how many tools you hand to a child, they will not magically turn into an adult. A child must become an adult over time, and in the case of Society, the time it takes a peasantry to become an aristocracy is measured in generations at minimum. Parenthetically, a healthy Society is all at once a preborn baby, an infant, a toddler, a child, an adolescent, a young adult, an adult, an elder, and a cadaver3. To say the peasantry is "like a child" is merely a statement regarding capacity, tendency, and willpower. It is not an insult, but it can be a painful observation, a bitter truth. No matter what childless demi-sexual authors say, children are not adults. Thankfully, in the span of a human life, children can, and often do, become adults, though this is not guaranteed. Sometimes, there are children trapped inside adult's bodies, and the results are very destructive. Treating the peasantry like they are, or have, the capacity to be elites is likewise destructive. It is not a failing of the child that they are not yet an adult. The failure is for those who are responsible for handing out tools. If you try to get a child to be an adult or do adult things, and expect any kind of outcome that is positive or beneficial for anyone involved, you are either hilariously stupid or just plain evil.
On the topic of The Elite, above is a previous essay I think you should read, but I want to put the core of it here because, and I am just finding this out now, many people *GASP* don’t click links. I know, I am having a hard time even typing it out. Nevertheless, here is a list of observations/questions that can help ascertain if a given elite is virtuous.
[…] The list is unfinished, and the degree of conformity will denote baseline virtue as well as level of developed virtuousness, but it is not definitive at this moment how many, or individually how much:
In general, children's most important valuable icons, elders, and inspirations are their parents or what their parents symbolize.
There is a universal quality of sacrifice to any endeavor deemed worthy of investing oneself in.
It is relatively easy to find a contribution to general well-being and neutral progress in any given endeavor.
Things of beauty and value are commonplace, expected, cherished, and defended.
Art and creative endeavors have a timeless quality as well as universal accessibility among the educated, well-informed, hardworking, and skilled; art and creative endeavor bear a connection to the land and peasantry that is either positive or neutral.
There is a pervasive sense of order, or a general but vehement opposition to disorder, pervading every facet of society.
There is a minimum of doublespeak, maskirovka, and implicit deception in the lexicon of the people at every level of the social strata, but particularly the leaders and aristocrats.
Getting people to be destructive, whatever their caste or class, requires great effort and much convincing; when convinced, the level of destruction is almost limitless.
Getting people to sacrifice for future generations based on what their own ancestors deemed valuable is relatively simple.
Projects and endeavors that will not be complete in the lifetime of the initiators are not rare, nor is it very hard to find support and resources for them.
There is a minimum of vilification of anything that has a high level of mystery or ambiguity in terms of history; there is a veneration of any element of the past that could be construed as better or "above" the modern capacity.
Higher human concepts and proclivities, such as honor or dignity or faithfulness or strength or brilliance or skill or complexity, are not the exception but instead the rule.
In general, wealth is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself.
In general, the pursuit of wealth is not seen as an act of greed, but is seen as a worthy but dangerous physical and spiritual challenge.
Those of a warrior inclination are just as ready to kill for something that they are also willing to die for; the things that are worth killing and dying for are well known and well spread throughout society.
The warriors of society are obvious in terms of status, bearing, and presence.
The bedrock memes of society are old, trusted, protected, and deep.
Skillful acts that require time, dedication, effort, and risk to the performer are universally respectable within reason and understanding.
There is a general understanding of what should be praised and protected, as well as a general acceptance of what should be denigrated and avoided; this is something that is pervasive through every level of society, regardless of the reasons why or the detail to which those reasons are understood
Beauty that leads to success is left to its natural position, not corrupted or squeezed for every last drop of financial gain; the act of squeezing beauty for greed is treated with derision, revulsion, and pity.
Appreciation, laud, and respect are rendered as a gut or impulse reaction, not guided and shepherded by tastemakers and influencers.
Ambiguities are external to society, and the conceptual boundaries that are relevant are explicit and definitive.
The society is simple in nature and complex in effect.
Society's luminaries are known but obscure; celebrity status holds no attraction to the best in a given field, nor does society demand celebrity behavior of them; they are at once highly desirable and unapproachable.
The presence of any type of known repeat offender of either letter or spirit of both official and unofficial rules is universally abhorrent.
Virtue does not guarantee goodness or rightness. Virtue is the widespread impetus to do good and do what is right. Further, virtuousness demands a desire to extinguish corruption, deceit, and waste.
So, there it is. I believe there is a lot of utility in this list as a measure of things that were, things that are, and things that might or should be. I think it could be expanded, and I am sure it could be perfected. Please consider this an open invitation to anyone4 to respond constructively and productively, and that includes anyone that wants to systematically dismantle it. I am great on podcasts5 and feel much more in my element with the spoken word, but I am happy to engage in print as well. This is not a desperate attempt to expand notoriety and following6, rather it’s an earnest desire to make headway on The Elite Question, as I feel that it is the most important, non-3Q question. You can reach out here or on Twitter if you’re interested, and don’t hesitate to nominate someone you know or like, or don’t know at all or hate, and I will hound them until they relent or block me. We need to answer this question.
I think it is precisely because Marx and Engels were the archetypes of un-virtuous elites, and knew that they were, and knew that it could never be otherwise, that they built such an effective ideological structure for finding their coreligionists, making them feel good about being societal & civilizational cancer, then giving them a game plan for perpetuating their bullshit.
I first wrote this in 2021/22ish, and the book by Costin Alamariu has added a lot of clarity for me on the subject. I don't think his (massive) contributions to the topic negate what I have written here, but they go quite far beyond my essay, both backward & forward in time. You really should read it, but here is an excellent review by a good friend of the ‘stack, and my criminally brief summary of his position on Elites specifically is that a Society forms when an invading force/entity that outclasses the conquered in all categories stays and manages the population instead of exterminating or obliterating them and moving on.
This is a magical thing that deserves its own essay; someone should get on that.
with an IQ over 105
A happy side effect of having a face for radio
I dare you not to subscribe. Hitler both does and does not want you to subscribe. Stick it to Donald Trump AND President Kamala Harris by subscribing. SUBSCRIBE TO THE FREE SUBSTACK OR I WILL FLOAT AND RE-SINK THE LUSITANIA.
I think that a fundamental aspect of a proper and virtuous aristocracy is a sense of responsibility tied not only to a land or property but also to “serfs” and employees.
This is a bit of a personal assessment and tale from my family, so at the risk of sounding overly sentimental: my grandfather on my paternal side during a period of relative economic depression in my country took in a family and employed them paying them in food and lodging but also later salary, technically this would be illegal however given the circumstances the situation was overlooked, he then helped that family to get on their feet, paid for the education of their children and taught them how to make good monetary decisions, now 2 generations later that family who was then homeless due to the depression now owns 3 homes themselves and their descendants have been working and still work for my family, in fact some of them were my maids as a child.
I think this sort of action my grandfather employed was the correct course of action and a big reason he was and still is respected to this very day in my state, he helped people in a way where they would later help themselves and thus everywhere he went people would obtain better conditions in their lives, and he himself would often profit from helping those people, he grew wealthy and was rather workaholic(to the point he quite literally died of overwork related stress a month after he retired) but he never saw wealth as an end in itself but as a means to an end, he taught me that when you help others in contracts of mutual benefit everyone’s lives get better, and he was no push over either being an avid boxer in his spare time and working as what essentially is the equivalent of an attorney general in my country.
To me a virtuous aristocracy would be full of people like him.
Surprised you didn't mention noblesse oblige.
I'd be fine with just that.
But, we seem to instead have the opposite.