CHOOSING BETWEEN FASCISM AND CLASSICAL MONARCHY (important post) I think that on

CHOOSING BETWEEN FASCISM AND CLASSICAL MONARCHY

(important post)

I think that once you ‘lose hope’ in democracy and equality and return to hierarchy, you have a range of choices available. National socialism on the one end and classical monarchy on the other.

The ‘good’ in national socialism existed in their use of nationalism, aesthetics, and the creation of rituals and festivals – the kind of ‘religion’ that replaces otherworldly mysticism with real-worldly art in all aspects of life. This was genius. But while Germany had created the next flowering of Europe (after Italy’s renaissance and England’s scientific enlightenment), and brought european civilization to it’s highest achievements therein, national socialism overextended itself like most religions do, into “purity” for its own sake.

Moreover, National socialism was dependent upon finding a leader who can do good. Classical Monarchy is dependent upon a leader who prevents people from doing bad. It is very hard to do good other than build monuments (which is what monarchs do). It is very easy to prevent harm without doing harm, which is what monarch’s do.

So, IMHO, it is better to have an aesthetic monarchy IN GENERAL, and call out the fascists in time of economic and political war. In other words I think it is useful to constitute both a military, a police force, a judiciary, and an aesthetic ‘priesthood’ that maintains purity.

And let them work together to suppress evils of all kinds. In my opinion, natural law can be used to allow the policing of aesthetics. If that is the case, then culture can be policed just as information is policed. This form of policing merely limits the bad without limiting the innovative.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine