The Dork Enlightenment

The Reaction has taken some hits lately, not the least being that its enthusiasts are a handful of RPG players who read Carlyle and Chesterton and pound out blog posts from their parents' basements.

I tend to dismiss such attacks, and then I come across stuff like this.

An actual KING? I doubt Americans or anybody else outside the Arab emirates could have a king if they wanted one.

In the first place, WHO would be King? The bloodlines are hopelessly tangled if not completely corrupted by intervening democratic and revolutionary acts.

In the second place, who would CORONATE the American king? The Lutheran-Missouri Synod? The Mormon Tabernacle? Oprah? Joel O’Steen? Archbishop Jose’ Gomez?

In the third place, a king is the head of an ancestral family who owns his people’s land and their State in allodial title. America has no ancestral people. All competing public claims to the output of the American people, their territory, and the State apparatus would have to be completely extinguished, and the dial reset to Zero, in order for there to exist a set of State privileges to which an extremely forceful and ruthless individual could lay claim and bequeath to his posterity.

Bottom line, I don't see monarchy breaking out anywhere in the near or further future. If we're lucky we get a military coup or populist dictatorship.

I've plowed this ground before.


I'm a monarchist and I mainly agree with you. The chances of a classical monarchy popping up in the United States are somewhere between slim and none. And I think that was Slim on the last flight to St. Petersburg. We are stuck with a republic and need to make the best we can with the cards we have been dealt. A few quick improvements that could be made would include...

* Raise the voting age back up to 21 with an exception for active duty military.
* Limit the franchise to tax paying citizens.
* Require prospective voters to pass a basic civics test.
Scotsman said…
I am an republican (and it should go without saying a small 'r' one), but I can understand why some gravitate toward it as an alternative. It was one thing when the US was one of a tiny handful of republics in the world and still believed in what used to be called Republican Virtue, but now republics have become the 'default' government and have lost their appeal as a result.

I have to admit though, I find the whole internet monarchist thing incredibly LARPy and they are rightfully mocked. It isn't a real movement, but an internet/crank one. Their monarch is a strawman and a fantasy that they project their hopes on. There are no prospective monarchs waiting in the wings, ready to answer a call from the people. Their modern day descendants are just another segment among the globalists, who believe neither in divine right nor republican virtue.
Very sensible John. All we're really needing to do is get governance back to folks who have a stake in preserving the place, not mercenaries feathering their own nest.

I would add, repeal every Constitutional amendment after # 13.
Northern Refugee said…
If I am not mistaken, the Dark Enlightenment is merely a realization among many think people that the current universal franchise welfare state is a disaster and is doomed to fail. As such, they are trying to jumpstart a discussion on what comes next and how to get there with minimal social dislocation. There is some nuttiness out there. However, wouldn't Larry Auster, John Derbishire, Steve Sailer, etc, count as DE writers? How would you characterize yourself?
Yes to all that. But the monarchy thing is a huge strawman, so I felt compelled to clear the air on that.

Like John, I'm a monarchist at heart, but the circumstances by which a true monarchy could be formed are so spectacular and remote, it is hard to see anything like that happening.
Anonymous said…
"A few quick improvements that could be made would include..."

Even a couple of aggressive Court-stripping bills passed by Congress on hot-button issues would probably get the ball rolling. Since Brown v. Board, SCOTUS thinks it both runs the country and has a mandate for insane egalitarian leveling. Giving them a few blunt reminders that they're not in charge should slow down the March of Progress long enough for sane people to make repairs to the ship of state.
August said…
The chances are low, but I am available, and I don't look anything like the pathetic excuses for world leaders the Democrats and Republicans are about to try and foist upon us. Just say no to voting and put up a sign with my picture on in your yard instead. Declare the lower shelf in your refrigerator to be part of my non-contiguous realms. I will revel in the ridiculousness of my position, unless of course it suddenly gets deadly, and if I find myself the king of the hill, I shall simply endeavor to keep all the bastards off of the hill until they forget about the hill and go do something else.
As for my coronation, I need the best reality show team- any actual sacramental sort of thing would be a private affair; this is America and she needs spectacle.
The overwhelming spectacle of my coronation will cement my position as the most eligible bachelor in these distracted states, so it will be rather elementary for me to use DNA in order to sort through tons of potential mates. We can't go back, but we can aim in the right direction, and get there faster with out niggling problems like hemophilia.

This will, of course, cost a lot of money, and fail badly, but it would be fun to stick it to the presidential candidates & press.
Unknown said…
I see DE as mostly anti-democracy and believing in differences between men and women and the races. What's so terrible about that? It just seems common sense.
August said…
I was curious and started reading Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World- Anissimov had quoted extensively from Evola on his blog.
Evola appears to view the king as a mystical being- almost a channel of sorts, of whatever is 'above' to us mere mortals here on Earth.
So, that's how, I suppose, Anissimov gets his hopes up- that there is secret path of enlightment,you receive the mandate of heaven, and heaven gives you the victory you need.

I like monarchy, but I see it maybe working in a city, among people at least willing to intermarry with each other and cohere into 'a people.' Governance above the city level is usually bad governance.

Here's my older post on monarchy. The starting point for monarchy is it's the First Family of the Families. We are a long way removed from that way of thinking.
Anonymous said…
Yes, you're right regarding kings. These people misunderstand the concept of a king, which as you point out connotes a relatively close, familial, ancestral relationship between subject and king. These conditions don't even exist within the various races and ethnicities in America themselves, to say nothing of America as a whole. Furthermore, America is a continental sized landmass, hardly the scale of a kingdom where a relatively close connection between king, subject, and country persists.

What these people really have in mind is an emperor, not a king. Emperors rule large landmasses inhabited by various nations through state power. An emperor isn't the father of some foreign nation he rules over in his empire, nor does he pretend to be.

So while there won't be a "King of America", it's certainly possible that we could see an emperor, and American politics and executive power have arguably become more imperial over the years. But there's no reason to believe that these people are going to like any emperor that ends up ruling America.