I have often wondered what impact a religious conversion in the English royal family would have. Say Prince Harry becomes a monk of the SSPX. I'm not naive enough to think that it would lead to mass conversions in Britain but it would be interesting to see the different reactions in the media, the public etc. Would be a powerful statement at the very least. Your thoughts?
@The Queen is certainly a very devout Christian, and always has been (as is appropriate for the head of the Church of England).
As for other members of the 'Royal Family' - well, it doesn't really matter, except in the case of the heir who - whatever he is - isn't an orthodox Anglican Christian.
The media response would - as usual - be some combination of ignoring, deploring (as evil), explaining-away (as self-interested), and ridiculing as insane any sign of traditional Christian devotion on the part of any public figure.
I could actually see a monarchy taking power in some Euro countries---it just needs a few more stairsteps of economic collapse for the population to become receptive enough to it. There is a reason why lots of countries resist strongly the physical return of their old royal families. They represent an alternate elite in waiting.
Imagine the return of a king who tells his people, who are angry due to being racially replaced and economically milked at the same time:
No one should ever dare to hurt you again! Though you betrayed my father's father, I will redeem the land for your children's children.
I don't quite understand your last paragraph. Who could, and how could they "impose" a Christian Monarch (admitting that they would find one) on an unchristian people? And more mysteriously still, why should that end in being a short-cut to Antichrist? Would you care to explain a little?
@SDR - A Christian monarch might seize power, or somebody who has seized power declare themselves a monarch.
The Antichrist danger is that Christians yearning for a Christian monarch would be ripe for deception by someone who would go along with the appearances while subverting the reality.
@Jehu - yes indeed, and in many instances this would be the only thing that could save them from parasitic democracy on the one hand, and gangsterism on the other.
In the post above I intend to distinguish between a monarch who is a Christian but a more or less divided/ fragmented society; and an ideal Christian monarch of the Byzantine or Russian style - with the societies and all its activities unified in a Christian life.
BGC, If a Christian monarch takes power in a divided society, and has at least a strong plurality of support, this is what will happen:
His beliefs will become mainstream and hegemonic, because they are high status by definition. The local SWPLs will fall all over themselves to prove that they were Christians all along.
Most of our opponents are weak willed and only want whatever gives them the most status points. They will flip in a massive preference cascade if they see anyone's 'Strong Horse'.
@Jehu - a Christian monarchy will very rapidly degenerate if the society is not really Christian (I mean mostly, not 100 percent, obviously): people 'going along with' a tough Christian regime isn't the same thing.
However, I accept your point that if there are sincere Christian leaders, then non-Christians may take their beliefs seriously, and consider them carefully, which isn't the case at present (except in Russia, perhaps).
There are lots of factors. For one thing, the mega mass media would need to be demolished since it is powerfully and intrinsically leftist...
BGC, If you're the monarch, in any real sense, you basically control the media and the means of acquiring status. Honestly you don't need a terribly heavy hand as a censor to neuter the leftist media. Their biggest tools are authorial affirmative action and histogram distortion. Crack down on that---and generally, to turn a leftist show into a reactionary show requires very little effort, just a shift in casting---and you're golden. If you want to have any practical freedoms, you have to shut down the entrepreneurs of social status.
AM, Histogram distortion is the effort to warp the public's perception of what the frequency of types of events or the distribution of various characteristics are. A related term is 'authorial affirmative action'. It's the reason why the average person in the US thinks 25% of the population is gay. An entrepreneur of social status is someone who is attempting to change the means by which society confers social status. For instance, a society might consider piety and upright behavior high status, and money low status. Someone in that society who attempts to change those parameters is a social status entrepreneur. All of these concepts are pretty tightly linked. One way (in fact the most common one) to raise the status of a group is to repeatedly depict members of it as having high status (they don't even have to be depicted sympathetically, just with high status), which takes you right back to histogram distortion.
The central problem is that people are prone to generalize from fictional examples, especially if they're from movies, TV, or the like. Histogram disortion and authorial AA hack that vulnerability of the typical mind egregiously.
27 October 2012 at 00:31
Anonymous said...
good thoughts. Christian monarchies need to take the Christian part more seriously. The Liechtenstein royal family is actively trying to eradicate Christianity from the Principality while spreading Islam. They state as much on their website. Sad times.
11 October 2015 at 17:36
*
A Christian monarch is chosen by a Christian people: chosen, that is, by 'acclaim', which is spiritual, and not by vote-counting election nor by any such formal process.
This is why there cannot be a fully Christian monarch without a Christian people: there cannot, for example, be a fully Christian monarch in England now.
*
Thus, monarchy ought not to be hereditary as a principle, although sometimes there may be an hereditary succession.
One sign of a good Christian monarch is that they do a good job of securing their succession - they ensure (if possible) that there is a clear and suitable candidate for their own succession.
By this criterion, many monarchs have failed - either they put forward an unsuitable candidate for their own succession, e.g. merely because he happens to be their eldest son; or else the succession is left uncertain and contested.
By this account, our present Queen appears also to have failed, since - although she is indeed as exemplary a Christian monarch is is attainable under the present nonsensical pseudo-system - the default candidate for succession, her eldest son Prince Charles, is clearly not suitable, and would be rejected by the disclaim of any such real Christian monarchists as may remain.
*
In England, the possibility of a good Christian monarchy was destroyed by the devout puritans embracing republicanism and after the civil war committing regicide (of the martyr King Charles the First), then creating a republic and imposing a dictator (Oliver Cromwell).
In response, after the Restoration the Stuart dynasty enforced a strict hereditary principle of succession, by imposing an unsuitable monarch (King James II) who was rejected by disclaim, and which led to the degeneration of British government into the oxymoronic concept of 'constitutional monarchy'.
*
The monarchy of England is now fatally impaired, and we are therefore condemned to live under un-Christian forms of de facto republican government - which have devolved to become ever-more aggressively anti-Christian.
So, the impossibility of a truly Christian government is one of the fundamental difficulties under which Christians must labour in these end times.
The consequence does not, of course, prevent salvation; but limits sanctification - and renders the earthly Christian life necessarily less complete than at some points in history, lacking in its potential fullness.
This is something that modern Western Christians simply must accept and work-around as best we may; and if we try to short-cut to a fuller Christian life by trying to impose a real Christian monarch on an un-Christian people, it will merely turn out to be a short-cut to Antichrist.
"What is Christian monarchy?"
12 Comments -
I have often wondered what impact a religious conversion in the English royal family would have. Say Prince Harry becomes a monk of the SSPX. I'm not naive enough to think that it would lead to mass conversions in Britain but it would be interesting to see the different reactions in the media, the public etc. Would be a powerful statement at the very least.
Your thoughts?
23 October 2012 at 12:44
@The Queen is certainly a very devout Christian, and always has been (as is appropriate for the head of the Church of England).
As for other members of the 'Royal Family' - well, it doesn't really matter, except in the case of the heir who - whatever he is - isn't an orthodox Anglican Christian.
The media response would - as usual - be some combination of ignoring, deploring (as evil), explaining-away (as self-interested), and ridiculing as insane any sign of traditional Christian devotion on the part of any public figure.
23 October 2012 at 13:10
King Bruce I. I like it.
23 October 2012 at 18:35
I could actually see a monarchy taking power in some Euro countries---it just needs a few more stairsteps of economic collapse for the population to become receptive enough to it.
There is a reason why lots of countries resist strongly the physical return of their old royal families. They represent an alternate elite in waiting.
Imagine the return of a king who tells his people, who are angry due to being racially replaced and economically milked at the same time:
No one should ever dare to hurt you again!
Though you betrayed my father's father, I will redeem the land for your children's children.
24 October 2012 at 00:06
I don't quite understand your last paragraph. Who could, and how could they "impose" a Christian Monarch (admitting that they would find one) on an unchristian people? And more mysteriously still, why should that end in being a short-cut to Antichrist? Would you care to explain a little?
24 October 2012 at 02:11
@SDR - A Christian monarch might seize power, or somebody who has seized power declare themselves a monarch.
The Antichrist danger is that Christians yearning for a Christian monarch would be ripe for deception by someone who would go along with the appearances while subverting the reality.
@Jehu - yes indeed, and in many instances this would be the only thing that could save them from parasitic democracy on the one hand, and gangsterism on the other.
In the post above I intend to distinguish between a monarch who is a Christian but a more or less divided/ fragmented society; and an ideal Christian monarch of the Byzantine or Russian style - with the societies and all its activities unified in a Christian life.
24 October 2012 at 05:32
BGC,
If a Christian monarch takes power in a divided society, and has at least a strong plurality of support, this is what will happen:
His beliefs will become mainstream and hegemonic, because they are high status by definition. The local SWPLs will fall all over themselves to prove that they were Christians all along.
Most of our opponents are weak willed and only want whatever gives them the most status points. They will flip in a massive preference cascade if they see anyone's 'Strong Horse'.
24 October 2012 at 17:59
@Jehu - a Christian monarchy will very rapidly degenerate if the society is not really Christian (I mean mostly, not 100 percent, obviously): people 'going along with' a tough Christian regime isn't the same thing.
However, I accept your point that if there are sincere Christian leaders, then non-Christians may take their beliefs seriously, and consider them carefully, which isn't the case at present (except in Russia, perhaps).
There are lots of factors. For one thing, the mega mass media would need to be demolished since it is powerfully and intrinsically leftist...
24 October 2012 at 18:33
BGC,
If you're the monarch, in any real sense, you basically control the media and the means of acquiring status.
Honestly you don't need a terribly heavy hand as a censor to neuter the leftist media. Their biggest tools are authorial affirmative action and histogram distortion. Crack down on that---and generally, to turn a leftist show into a reactionary show requires very little effort, just a shift in casting---and you're golden.
If you want to have any practical freedoms, you have to shut down the entrepreneurs of social status.
24 October 2012 at 20:59
Jehu: Please explain "histogram distortion" and what "entrepreneurs of social status" are. Thanks.
25 October 2012 at 19:20
AM,
Histogram distortion is the effort to warp the public's perception of what the frequency of types of events or the distribution of various characteristics are. A related term is 'authorial affirmative action'. It's the reason why the average person in the US thinks 25% of the population is gay.
An entrepreneur of social status is someone who is attempting to change the means by which society confers social status. For instance, a society might consider piety and upright behavior high status, and money low status. Someone in that society who attempts to change those parameters is a social status entrepreneur.
All of these concepts are pretty tightly linked. One way (in fact the most common one) to raise the status of a group is to repeatedly depict members of it as having high status (they don't even have to be depicted sympathetically, just with high status), which takes you right back to histogram distortion.
The central problem is that people are prone to generalize from fictional examples, especially if they're from movies, TV, or the like. Histogram disortion and authorial AA hack that vulnerability of the typical mind egregiously.
27 October 2012 at 00:31
good thoughts. Christian monarchies need to take the Christian part more seriously. The Liechtenstein royal family is actively trying to eradicate Christianity from the Principality while spreading Islam. They state as much on their website. Sad times.
11 October 2015 at 17:36