The greatest failure of Democracy is in empowering the incapable and immoral. This brings these wretches into an unfair conflict with moral and just people over power. Armed with this evil, the immoral slash at righteous good, before good knows what hit it. Democracy breeds naïveté towards the human condition, leaving these good and upstanding people vulnerable; easy victims for those devoid of conscience and virtue; those who always seek out material wealth no matter the cost.
But how do you identify such wretches of society? Firstly by vice alone; not that any man is vice-free, he should at least aim towards virtue (to err is human), and not be completely consumed by vice. If a man is drowning in vice, he has fallen to the insatiability of material pleasure. This is a bottomless abyss which cannot be filled; a hole in the heart which swallows up girth portions of dopamine-releasing debauchery, always leaving the degenerate madman in search of his next exposure. You cannot have a functioning civilization under such power dynamics. One must imagine this as akin to having a nation run by drug addicts. How would that fare? Not well. In the past, degenerates didn’t exercise their de jure political power, even with communists and socialists pleading with them and recruiting them: degenerates simply did not care.
Now, degenerates realise that they can use this political power to fund even more degeneracy than before, and so these parasites drink deeply on the civilizational lifeblood. They grow more numerous each day and have no will to stop. They will drink until there is no more, and having been so bound to the host, will wither and die. Because in the end, these degenerates are dead anyways, logically any alternative proposition, so long as it results in their survival (assuming a desire to reduce or avoid death) is preferable to degenerates having power. Outside of the degenerate urge to destroy, nothing is gained by handing them power. Billions of lives hang in the balance. Much of the developing world relies heavily on the high productivity of the industrial power farms in the more developed world, without which starvation on unimaginable scales would sweep across the planet, resulting in untold chaos and an unfathomable loss of life. It would be immoral to allow so many such a horrid fate for the cause of rampant vice. If one has a heart and soul within them, one must do whatever one can to prevent this disaster.
So how do you know if you are right to act? What can you draw upon to willfully move with purpose? If you fail to figure out a way, you will soon be standing in the ashes of a billion souls and asking their ghosts if it matters. It depends on what you value. When Balian of Ibelin asked what Jerusalem was worth, Saladin replied: “Nothing…Everything.” (line from the film Kingdom of Heaven). Jerusalem itself was not any sort of strategic location and held little material value. However, the immaterial value of the city, the spiritual value, was priceless. Why? An objective measure cannot discern this, yet objective, secular science lays claim to revelation and truth. Still, the account is immeasurable, unquantifiable, and lost to science.
This is the reality in which we live, and the power of Jerusalem is in its narrative space. It is a civilizational reference point, a real physical place on the compass, and cannot simply be copied or reproduced. It is authentic so long as the narrative persists, and like a candle in the wind, mankind trundles forth with it in hand, navigating the darkness; the lonely light pressing forth through aged and cracking hands, while demons hiss and spit at the flame, trying as they can to beckon a shadowy gloom. Should one be passive towards such demons? No! “Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” -Dylan Thomas
We, the capable, must be strident, and vociferous in our goals! We mustn’t allow the drowning shadows to eliminate our progeny! Passivity is our death by suicide! Jarring though it may be for our spineless, faint-hearted postmodern types to suddenly hear, we must begin to judge accurately and violently throw aside our rose-tinted glasses. The enemy appears strong and sings a loud tune, but it is a farce driven only by vice; they sound like they sing for power but cry out for release from their suffering in chains. Their sounds scream through their mortal coils and beckon forth the good and noble for righteous Justice! If you wish to be Christ-Like then start doing his work and face those prisoners of material degeneration.
We elect our leaders at every turn, and each vote is a secular prayer for absolution, and in return, we are rebuked and punished for our naïve weakness and frailty in failing to solve our own problems. We cannot blame the politicians, we the electorate are to blame for we too are incapable. We no longer choose leaders based on their virtues but instead based on our vices. We damn ourselves from the start with a weak will and with faithless hearts. Before we can hope to clear out the corrupt democratic system, we must clear out the democracy within ourselves. That being said, any human body run by a committee (like a democracy) would be in much the same state, close to death. It will take the will of the mind to repair the degenerate chaos, to make whole the body and nation. A Monarch, a human head of state as the face of the country is preferable and more ideal than this mob-rule “democracy”. Even if we consider that both a mob and monarch can be corrupt, evil, immoral, or unjust, it is far simpler to right a wrong King, than an unruly, incorrigible mob. But lo! Must the King be imbued with moral knowledge and know he can be held to account by a higher power? Yes, and a mob can never be. It is a necessary part of power for it not to create itself as a simulacrum of God. Woe to those who have faith in mobs, for it is a short and brutal life in the worship of materialism, whilst a King is never wanting for he owns all, thus making his nation a reflection of him, while the mob is an indignant abyss.
Even the filtered and curated history that we are permitted to view shows a cycle from mob to Monarch, wherein the nation gains wealth and power, to the point where the mob gets uppity and deposes the Monarch. This kills real prosperity and so this mob surfs the corpses of their ancestors to ruin. Arriving there they discover themselves in a worldly hell, and eventually, one great man comes to rise into power and in this apocalypse they become King. True this man is King of the Ashes but a King nonetheless, and from his direction and drive things to improve. This drive from below, a King of Ashes and then the King of Marble, is essentially possible because the King possesses the moral and ethical strength to do so. Where Kings fail in history, they fail because they act immorally and do not think about the greater national project. They succumb to the mob desires, the animalistic, anti-civilizational forces which the mob cannot repel; only man can, even though a man is weak and pathetic, lowly, wretched, without reference; despite this, it is the only way forward for advancing civilization. There is a reason why people used to pray for Queens and Kings.
It is not in our nature to reject temptation. We are evolved or have an instinct for gluttony (ceteris paribus). The more accessible we make the objects of our desires, the more we must possess the will to reject excess and needless waste. Not because we don’t want it, but because it weakens us, it exposes us to ruin; whether by our own hands or from outside. The psychology of the mob is not one to reject plenty, it is not one to self-moderate, and so will nearly always give in to excess. The unwillingness of the mob to sacrifice for the greater whole is evident. Even when one mobbite democrat sacrifices (as rare as that may be), it is done to signal complicity and virtue towards the mob, with genuine self-sacrifice being rather absent. It is simply not performed if the performance is unseen, and as society descends further, it will be performed less and less, soon not at all. In contrast, a King can say no, a King can say enough is enough and end whatever nonsense is present once and for all.
The capacity for a King to say enough is enough, whilst a mob is incapable, establishes the two as eternal rivals. This is, however, mostly one-sided with the King eventually being run off by the mob, to begin the descent, and then the King arising once again to rebuild and bring civilization back into ascension. This, the historical narrative within a cyclical vision of history, establishes the Mob as the narrative antagonist, with the King playing the protagonist who rebuilds from the ashes. This of course assumes that the cause of civilization is positive in our view. I admit this is not everyone’s view, but for the most part, it is mine. That being said, the linear or Whig view of history is clearly wrong. Things do not, and never have always gotten better. Things wax and wane with the ebbing and flowing of will and desire. For that to change we would need to change human nature, which so far has failed. But if descent and collapse is inevitable, due to the deposition of the King, could the collapse be halted with a Herculean effort of will through the enthronement of a talented Monarch, thus avoiding the stages of collapse such as the loss of knowledge and custom, the swimming in the ashes from which a King would arise anyways? Could we avoid the inevitable by thwarting the slide mid-way? Perhaps we can. Perhaps that’s impossible. But whence has it been tried before? Could it be a civilizational shortcut? Or short circuit?