‘Neo-Monarchism’: Sacral Kingship in the New Age

One of the more interesting concepts that has presented itself in recent years is the resurgence of monarchism, the idea that a society should be led not by a democratically elected representative (who one is almost never able to trust except to do the wrong thing), but by a leader selected by natural law and the will of the folk. It is not surprising that we are beginning to see this sort of thing again, as in Scotland we have been bereft of capable leaders since the Renaissance, though the power of the king was becoming increasingly restrained and bound to the will of parliament.

Today in the United Kingdom, designating oneself as a ‘monarchist’ is usually taken to mean support for the British royal family, and also support for the Union (which is based on the extent of the kingdom and includes all lands in which British folk are the majority). However, the problem with this identification is that not only are there serious issues between the British folk and the ‘British’ state, but also with the royalty themselves. As the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is almost completely subject to the will of parliament, though they still retain the power to veto anything put forward by parliament. This does not happen, however, as the concept of democracy means that the will of the parliament (which represents the interests of the merchants and plutocrats, as it always has) is seen to be more legitimate than the will of the monarch, and so the monarch can only realistically act as a puppet of parliament and not as a free agent.

In the Medieval and Renaissance periods, the parliament mainly represented not only the interests of the nobility, but also increasingly of the merchant class who were becoming more powerful because of the connection that had been forged between trade, loans and war. In the Dark Ages, war was done more for the sake of glory and honour, to avenge insults and to expand territorially for the sake of one’s folk. Once the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms has been established, kingdoms such as Northumbria began to expand not for the sake of territorial expansion, but for tribute.

Extracting tribute as part of the terms of surrender to a defeated foe had always been a feature of tribal warfare, but during this time it became the motivation for going to war in order to sustain a growing economy. As the king became a more secular figure with the conversion to Christianity, the profit motive began to dominate warfare. This did not change with the idea of divine kingship being reintroduced by the Normans, as they expanded territorially in order to gain subjects and tax them, which was a development from earlier tribute collecting and made the conquest permanent. It is worth noting that William the Bastard was not a legitimate heir to the English throne because he was Norman rather than English. Harold Godwinson was chosen by the English nobility, and was naturally a more suitable candidate than either William or Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, after the death of Edward the confessor.

This is a rather different situation from the earlier Danish and Anglo-Saxon settlements in England, as they involved the migration of new folk to Britain and the need for their own leaders. The Norman conquest was only possible because William recruited Flemish and Breton mercenaries by borrowing from money-lenders, and so did not need to raise an army from among his own people (the other Norman nobles were not interested as they saw no benefit from the risk of invading England). This was repeated during the English Civil War in the 17th Century, as Cromwell invited the money-lenders back (who had been expelled in the 13th Century by Edward I) in order to finance his war and defeat Charles I.

This sequence of events in British history has led to the situation of our current monarchy, which has been under the heel of the merchants ever since the parliament under Cromwell committed regicide by ordering the execution of Charles I. From then on, war was fought for the sake of expanding trade networks and monopolies, and the king would merely remain the head of state rather than leading his men into battle of his own volition. Nowadays, the only purpose of the monarch is to act as a tourist attraction and a celebrity by being a sentimental reminder of the former power of the British Empire, in addition to acting as the head of the Anglican Church and the Commonwealth of Nations (which is essentially the current form of the British Empire as a trade confederacy).

With this in mind, the identification with ‘monarchism’ is problematic as this would imply retaining the monarchy in its current form, which is essentially non-functioning. I therefore propose the term ‘Neo-Monarchism’ as a way to describe a position which acknowledges the role of the monarch and sacral kingship, but does not apply to the Modern monarchy. By this I mean the rejection of succession based on primogeniture, but on natural talent and suitability for leadership. Ideally, this would result in the passing of the crown from father to son, but this may not be possible if a more suitable candidate appears. I also suggest that the role of monarch should be closer to the Ancient Teutonic role of erilaz (‘earl’) rather than the kuningaz (‘king’), as the latter was a secular general elected by the warrior caste, as opposed to the former being divine royalty who is chosen by the land and the folk. The concept of Neo-Monarchism may also apply to those of our folk in lands where the concept of monarchy has never existed, such as in the United States or other former colonies such as Australia or Canada.

In this instance, it would be possible for other nations to have their own monarchs, as opposed to acknowledging the authority of the Modern British monarch. Personally, I do believe in maintaining the Union among the British folk, although the system of monarchy should be reformed drastically. In particular, the concept of ‘high kingship’ is appealing to me, since it implies that each tribe or nation would have their own kings that are then in allegiance with a high king, or ‘king of kings’. The lands of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland having their own monarchies would ensure accountability among leaders to their people and erase the problem of having to all share the same monarchy, which is always based in England.

The issue of accountability is another great advantage of monarchy over parliamentary democracy. Because the leaders of the democracy are elected as representatives of the people (and therefore the people that vote for them are theoretically the ones in charge), the responsibility rests on the people themselves. Since most Modern people do not wish to accept responsibility, it is claimed by no one, and this enables the oligarchy of politicians to evade accountability due to their interchangeability. A common excuse given by representatives of political parties after coming into power when something goes wrong is that the cause is the fault of the previous administration, thereby implying that they did not cause the problem and so it is not up to them to solve it.

In this way, individual MPs can also refuse to fix certain problems f they were implemented by a previous MP, and they are usually unwilling to do anything about it because they are backed by the same banks and corporations that are usually causing problems through over-regulation and financial interest. When power and responsibility are all placed into the hands of a single individual, it is easy to see who is to blame when things go wrong, and everybody else is simply following the guidance of the monarch and so it is clear that in such circumstances the monarch has to accept responsibility; either fix the problem or hand it over to somebody more capable. The parliament is the Modern equivalent of the Teutonic Althing, which actually included all male members of the folk and was much more local than centralized as a Modern parliament is. A parliament at the level of our Modern one should only consist of regional kings, as the stooges of banks and corporations have no place making decisions on behalf of ‘the people’ of Britain.

In Ancient Scotland, kings were usually coronated on a sacred stone, which represented their marriage to the Earth Goddess and the union of king, land and folk. The folk were the ones who worked the land, while the king led the folk and who was in turn bound to the land. This ensured that everybody knew who each was accountable to, and that each party was engaged in mutual exchange and respect. If the population of a tribe grew too large, then a section of the tribe would elect a kuningaz (which where the word ‘king’ comes from, but in its meaning is closer to ‘duke’) and conquer territory to gain land. This is inevitable in societies that are dependent on agriculture, and cannot realistically be avoided unless population control is better managed. Thus, the role of the king is to maintain balance, to act as a mediator between his tribe and the gods and to provide for his folk. It is not the person of the king himself who is important, but his ability to fulfil the position to which he is appointed. Genetics play a huge role in these requirements, which is why it is necessary to employ eugenics in the selection of a king and queen.

The importance of the queen is also not to be ignored, as she represents the Goddess. She holds the power that is to be wielded by the king, and his attitude towards his queen will reflect his attitude towards the land. A king who does not respect women cannot be expected to perform properly, though if possible he should always act as the monarch. A queen should only be considered to perform as the monarch in the event of an emergency and if there are no male alternatives. Such was the case with the Iceni queen, Boudicca, who was considered the most capable leader to fight against the Romans because she was married to the king (who was killed by the Romans).

It also follows that showing kindness to one’s folk is also important (the fact that the concept of ‘subjects’ applies to a conquered people rather than one’s own says a lot about our current monarchy), but also in remaining steadfast and doing what is right rather than what will please others. A monarch is also notably different from a dictator, in that a dictator seizes power through might of arms or through constitutional reform upon acquiring power through democratic means. A monarch is chosen through none of those means, as they do not involve either the land or the gods in their consideration. It is upon the basis on natural law rather than state law that a monarch is chosen, and so the monarch is considered to be one with the folk rather than above them.

In essence, Neo-Monarchism is anti-Modern and anti-democratic, as its ideas only apply outside of the concept of Modernity and are reliant on the capability of leadership rather than ‘the will of the people’. The mob cannot be entrusted to lead a society, and it is for this reason that the tyranny of the majority under which we currently live is much worse than the tyranny of one man. A single king can be replaced, but if nobody is accountable, then our society’s problems remain unsolved and will lead us to self-destruction. In this sense, Neo-Monarchism also rejects autocracy, as the monarch cannot have so much power that it interferes in the personal life of each member of the folk. The power of the monarch is general in nature, and acting as a micro-manager will only lead to bad results, including resentment among the populace. This is why a monarch appoints others to be in charge of smaller management tasks.

Neo-Monarchism is in fact corporate in nature, although in the sense of the tribe or nation being a corporate body as opposed to a business venture. In order for the ‘body’ of society to function, it must have a head to direct its movements, and one person to act as the head while enabling the other parts of the body to function automatically. The particular people in charge of our society today do not see themselves as part of ‘the people’, but as a separate entity that intends to rule all peoples. We are in desperate need of transparent government, and the only way to achieve that is to adopt a system that has a holistic attitude to the Earth and to the folk, rather than acting as a parasite on both.

Wulf Willelmson

Folkish Tribalism: Beyond ‘Right-Wing’

In a time when expressing pride in one’s ancestry and heritage is looked upon with suspicion because it conflicts with the concept of all races being ‘equal’, the world of politics can seem like a frustrating and hopeless place. While leftists and centrists seem to harbour feelings of at best apathy and at worst hostility towards their own people, the so-called ‘right-wing’ sphere of the spectrum offers only an older, ‘laissez-fare’ attitude towards capitalism and a vague, ‘civic nationalist’ populism that still unquestionably supports Israeli interests, modernity and statism. The term ‘far-right’ is now more of a catch-all term for unpopular political opinions and is associated mainly with fascism or White supremacy, but can also be used against folk who oppose multiculturalism, support racial nationalism, or who simply hold contempt for the current order of things, and is avoided by most people for fear of the dreaded ‘R’ word. The banks and states of the world have supported each other to ensure their complete domination of the planet. The systems that they use to administer their control are focused on sowing division and mutual hatred between peoples, to ensure that they remain focused on fighting each other and not those that consider themselves ‘elites’.

The state in particular has become bloated by bureaucracy, especially when extra layers of government are added to administer a larger region, such as within the EU or the US. Taxes are unreasonably high in order to continue supporting expensive military projects, such as nuclear stockpiling, development of drone weaponry or selling weapons to countries that fund ISIS like Saudi Arabia. Huge sums of money are given as subsidies to wealthy energy companies to continue with the destruction of the environment and holding back the development of technology to reduce energy consumption, as opposed to the expensive and intrusive ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ energy, such as windfarms and huge hydroelectric schemes. We also waste so much on economically unproductive and patronising ‘foreign aid’ to countries which have such corrupt political systems themselves, that the money invested simply enriches the wealthiest in those countries. The only useful things that the state could exist for would be to fund public transport and provide an actual living wage to folk (as in a regular allowance given to a citizen); two ideas which are completely alien to most politicians who prefer to privatize essential public institutions and waste money on ‘welfare’, which keeps people completely dependent on the state when they are unemployed, while corporations offer most of the jobs available.

The cycle of debt means that all of the money that is borrowed by people and their government feeds into the banks who are constantly consuming the world’s financial resources. However, they do not simply keep the money that they solicit, they invest heavily in leftist social movements, which merely serve as ineffective opposition to capitalism, because they are funded by the same people. The dichotomy of ‘right-wing and left-wing’ is based on the assumption that economic models are the same as social policies. Capitalism and socialism are not the only options, but since they receive all of the funding, they have each narrowed their differences and become barely distinct from each other. ‘Corporate Socialism’ is probably the best description for the political system in most countries today, especially in the West. This system is an authoritarian expression of centrist politics, akin to Leninism, Stalinism or National Socialism. Like fascism, it is a fusion of capitalist economics with socialist policies, but instead of being focused on the strength of a nation, it exploits their weaknesses and continually strips humans of their civil rights as we are de-humanized and are seen as slaves by those who have the most financial power.

The economic foundations of our political systems are rooted in globalist financial interests. Modern capitalism supports a system of usury practised by the bankers, while modern left-wing politics have become dominated by Marxism, an ideology fermented by the Zionist Karl Marx. His conception of politics was that industrial society was detrimental to the workers who earned a wage because they were being exploited by the European ‘bourgeoisie’ (who would have not existed as a social class had we not an industrial society as a result of capitalism), and should be overthrown to establish a socialist regime, where everything is controlled by the state in order to create a ‘communist’ society where everything is collectively owned. Aside from the obvious flaw that the state will not willingly grant power to it’s citizens if it has control of everything in a society, Marxism is known in sociology as a ‘conflict theory’, which is usually interpreted as theory that addresses conflict within society. However, the effect of such theories (along with feminism) is rather to cause conflict, by creating a dualistic, black-and-white conception of reality where one set of ideas is intended to replace others, and so they simply function as secular religions. However, unlike a religion based in spirituality, this way of thinking sees humans as quantifiable and mechanized, acting like robots instead of children of Nature.

Nothing is more sacred than our bond with Nature, and as we can see when we study her laws, we see that there is no equality. The fate that befalls each organism is based on its inherent capabilities and there are clear winners and losers. Yet each one has its place and the world is less interesting without each of them. Morality is a human concept but also has its place, the only area where equality has any merit is in law, and it is telling that while equality is pushed in areas where people are not (such as in the differences between races and genders), one place that is made completely unequal by capitalism is the legal system. Let me be clear in saying that when applied outside of man-made laws ‘equality’ means ‘the same as’ or ‘equivalent to’. When applied in legal proceedings, it is useful as an abstract concept to make sure that the outcome is fair, but in all other cases its purpose is to enforce uniformity and conformity, where differences of origin are ignored and differences of opinion regarding this are shunned. Even then, the law cannot consistently enforce equality, as it is simply common sense that foreigners have a different set of rights than natives (such as the right to vote) to ensure that the society remains in the hands of the people that created it, though this is now a concept that is increasingly discouraged by our society and seen as ‘xenophobic’.

Racial homogeneity in a society is essential to maintaining stability, as competing cultures will rip a nation apart. We can see that this only causes discord, as it is obvious that ills such as racism only occur when different peoples are forced to coexist within the same society, inevitably leading to conflict of interest. It is not because people are just stubborn and refuse to accept what is supposedly good for them, as our lying media and politicians try to convince us is the case, which is of course try to make us feel guilty for not willingly giving away our land and our right to self-determination. The reason that traditionalist views are often considered ‘right-wing’ is because Marxism is based on being an adversary to a singular view of society, and so the aspects that characterized monistic societies (where society is seen as a complete whole) were cast in opposition to this, such as ideas about cultural and genetic distinctiveness and the sovereignty of individuals belonging to a nation.

The state is not something that can be relied on, it has become so tyrannical and hostile that we cannot trust those who uphold it anymore. To try and change the system is fruitless, as its sole purpose is to maintain its existence. Revolution is counter-productive, as the system is based on violence and coercion, so any attempts to violently replace the government will only result in a new tyranny. Troy Southgate’s ‘National Anarchism’ is a good first step towards a more gradual process, as he espouses the concept of autonomous racial communities that govern themselves. This is coupled with the call to grow your own food and think independently, which based on the concept of the ‘anarch’; that is to say, a sovereign individual. Building a tribe can only work if there are individuals who are able to stand on their own two feet and are capable of making their own decisions. This does not necessarily need to apply to everybody in the tribe, for women, children and other dependents would usually fall under the guidance of the family head, who may be a matriarch or patriarch depending on the traditions of each particular tribe.

The main problem with the term ‘nationalism’ is that it implies support for the ‘nation-state’, paving the way for abusive ideologies such as fascism, therefore, we should simply dispense with this outdated concept and focus more on man’s natural state of organization; tribalism. The average human is only capable of knowing around 150 people well enough that they can trust them, and so it makes sense for societies to be organized based on a smaller unit. If millions of people are forced to act as if they are all able to work together, they end up not acting in their own benefit, but that of their rulers. The tribe (or clan) is based on kinship, which is one reason why family organization is so effective; it ensures trust and mutual interests among its members. Ideally, all members are of the same ‘folk’, which means that they share a mutual genetic and cultural heritage and will therefore be more likely to act in each other’s interests voluntarily and have a common understanding with each other.

The reason that ‘racism’ seems so prevalent is because it is often only framed from a negative perspective, which is defined as hatred towards or between different races. This occurs when a state has no racial basis and is defined purely in geographical terms, leading to competing cultures and mutual antipathy within a country. The term ‘racialism’ however, can be used to describe a more neutral or positive idea. ‘Racialism’ used to mean what ‘racism’ means now (a term coined by Trotsky), but can now be used to define something different. It solves the problem with the definition of the term ‘racism’, which, according to most definitions, means that races are considered distinct from each other and can be ranked into a hierarchy based on their attributes. The first part is essentially a correct assumption, but it only results in racism if applied to a state system, because the nation can only consist of one race in order to survive. If the idea of a nation is separated from the idea of the state, it means that no race has priority over another except in their own communities. The practice of racial hierarchy only occurs in societies which are imperialistic, while multiculturalism emerges later as a symptom of a collapsing empire and worsens racial relations, rather than resolving them as the imperial state struggles to maintain itself.

To the state, individual people are simply economic units; to their family, they are considered essential members of each other’s lives, provided that it is a healthy family. This is a system that works for all races and under such a system they will have more agreeable relations. It also closer to the left-wing in other ways, as despite the fact that tribes do own private property, including possessions that have been found or made by an individual; productive land is communally owned by a tribe, while marginal land is common to all people in the area. Though conflict is always inevitable, it is best when there is no threat of one people destroying another through conquest for the sake of extortion. We can see with the existence of ethnic enclaves that peoples do not naturally prefer to be with those of another kind (that is, the natives of the land they have migrated to) more than their own, and to deny this and act against it is only going to worsen the racial problems that we face today.

Unfortunately, because we live in a multicultural society, all of these ideas have been deemed too close to racism to be acceptable, and the conflict simply continues to the benefit of the rich. As a former socialist, I remember thinking such thoughts to be reprehensible myself, because I was deceived into thinking that my race alone was responsible for our society’s problems. All of the peoples of the world are suffering under the heel of selfish materialists, and much of this is caused by them trying to take away our inherent connection to each other and to our land. One reason why the need for racial and gender equality is pushed so hard these days is because they distract from the true, financial and legal inequality between people within all races. Our relationship to each other is horizontal, not vertical. We should not be ranked based on superiority and inferiority based on arbitrary reasons such as wealth or status. Each individual is the centre of a ripple that extends first to their family, then to their folk, then to their species, and then to Nature. We must not see our morality and our identity as being defined by someone else, but as something which is within us and a part of us.

Folkish Tribalism is an idea that favours true diversity by allowing all races to exist within their own space on the planet, and implies voluntary auto-segregation rather than the uneven segregation employed by a state that cannot favour two different groups equally by virtue of automatically belonging to one or the other (or even a separate group altogether that wishes to pit two sides against each other).  The sociopaths that run the world want us all to merge into one homogeneous ‘non-race’ because it means that we will have no reason to resist their control over us. We would have no basis on which to identify our own place in the world, and all of our personal sovereignty that goes with it would disappear. It’s about time we took the responsibility to take control of ourselves as a people and discover our purpose in the world around us through remembering our heritage.

Wulf Willelmson