Are Monarchies Re-Asserting Themselves?

There is a noticeable increase in the profile of Royal Households.

King Charles the Third has placed himself at the centre of the Great Reset. As someone who has been outspoken on many topics throughout his life, he has seemingly decided to involve himself with an undertaking that, on the surface, promises to address some of the issues that have been of the greatest concern to him. However, rather than being there for validation or decorative purposes, it is possible that he is ‘hiding in plain sight’ and is actually a central figure in, or even the primum movens of, the entire project.

After the First World War, in the shadow of the new democratic behemoth who was now writing the rules for international diplomacy and arbitrating European lands and interests, the royal households of Europe took a back seat as a prelude to their coming extinction in a more egalitarian world, but, despite several attempts at revolution in their respective countries, the majority were not deposed, the most significant throne vacated being the German Kaiser’s, many remained in situ as figureheads. And, crucially, the aristocratic, corporate and religious hierarchies that underpinned their power and their wealth were not dismantled. The situation was very similar from a certain perspective to an absentee landlord: people were still paying upwards to the capstone of the social pyramid, yet the personages at the top were determined not to appear themselves or be seen to govern.

Jim Rikards, the American economist who has had a fair degree of accuracy diagnosing the economic ills that have beset western economies over the past ten years as well as often correctly predicting the ‘cure’ applied by central banks and the economic establishment, wrote in one of his books of attending a dinner held by a rich, aristocratic Italian family that keeps a low profile, where he related a striking Italian woman told him the secret of the family’s wealth: one third in land, one third in gold, one third in cash. There are many families like this all over Europe. They have dropped their titles in everyday life in order to not draw attention to themselves in the democratic age, however, they remain propertied, rich and secretly influential. Have you heard of the Savoys? The Wallenbergs? These are families that have garnered wealth over multiple generations - far richer than Bill Gates or Elon Musk - who are still aristocrats of an old order that silently remains in place like the stone walls of a colosseum, within whose confines of influence the hurry, bustle and play of corporate capitalism is played out as democratic freedom.

Surprisingly, Russia is in the vanguard of this royalist resurgence and has, not without some irony, provided the most obvious indication of this movement. There has been a conscious intention in Russia to remedy Bolshevik dialectical materialism by moving forward to a ‘post-post-modern state’, as Dr Joseph P. Farrell calls it. Russia has included Tsarist symbols in their flag; the guards in the Kremlin dressed in the garb of the Tsar’s old regiment; the Church has been given greater prominence - Putin has rebuilt the magnificent church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow and is restoring cathedrals and churches across the vast land - and there has been an emphasis on a return to Slavic culture, including nationalist Slavic writers like Dostoyevsky, Rasputin and the modern Alexander Dugin.

This is not all. The bodies of the executed Romanov family during Putin’s reign were found, dug up and re-interred inside the Kremlin in a ceremony that was part of a National Day of Repentance for their unlawful murder. Grand Duke Mikhail Romanov’s marriage to an Italian noblewoman was front page news and broadcast on television and elected members of the Russian Duma discussed the installation of the Romanov family as a constitutional monarchy, creating an entirely different structure of power within the state, since this executive function carries with it an often unrecognised authority - the ability to consent to laws, governments and to prorogue parliament.

Russia may be considered an anachronism since to many observers it is still recovering from the humiliation of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the re-imposition of an old identity might be sensible politics in a nation with the potential for greater fragmentation. Nonetheless, this reversion to the trappings of monarchical government is not isolated to that country alone: Germany has rebuilt the Kaiser’s old Imperial Palace on the original grounds, albeit it currently parades as a museum of ‘brotherhood and friendship’. Head of the former imperial family, Prince Georg Friedrich Hohenzollern, is quietly negotiating with the federal government of Germany the return of once imperial household lands in Westphalia. Meanwhile a movement exists in the country to exhume and return the remains of Kaiser Wilhelm the Second from Holland to Berlin, next to Prussia’s greatest king, Frederick the Great.

Concurrently during this extended period of recidivism, the German army has slowly restored Prussian military traditions such as marching with the Bell Tree and the Bundeswehr sent a goose-stepping colour guard to Canada that conducted it manoeuvres to the musical piece titled ‘Prussia’s Glory’. ‘Patience it will be ours again some day’ is the motto of German revanchists currently living in Polish Silesia, formerly a part of Germany, who helped fund the Re-unifier of West and East Germany, the antecedent Chancellor but one to Angela Merkel, Helmut Kohl, was a man who systematically and with little fanfare restored old Germanic traditions to the country (including unilaterally recognising Croatia in the 1990s, an old World War Two ally).

(It is a question as to whether the monarchy every did fully relinquish power or simply rule from the shadows. On the completion of the French campaign by the forces of Adolf Hitler, the Fuhrer received a telegram congratulating him from Kaiser Wilhelm the Second saying ‘you’ve done it with my soldiers’. Make of that what you will.)

Japan still has an Imperial family. It is still an empire in name, and in economic fact, if not in terms of directly ruled territory. Before Fukushima, Japan asked if the Emperor could visit China’s Forbidden City - a request refused, but still replete with symbolism. It unnerved the Americans who issued a threat that Japan would regret such a move; and then came Fukushima and a new government led by the now assassinated Shinzo Abe - a man who started the re-armament of Japan. The inauguration of the new emperor Naruhito, an ancient Shinto ceremony forbidden to be viewed by strangers, was recorded and broadcast on the internet, an inconceivable enterprise during the long post-war period of attrition when the emperor was merely a distasteful bulwark against the greater evil of communism for the occupying Americans. Shinzo Abe, still alive at the time, during the rite gave a deep bow of submission and reverence to Naruhito; the Emperor’s subsequent appearance in the Imperial Box at the sumo wrestling was greeted with the words ‘Bonzai!’ from the cheering crowd. The message from the royals was clear: we are still here. A further recent sign of burgeoning assertion of Japan as Old Japan in a modern world was its refusal to be bullied by the US and proceed with its purchase of Russian oil, not in dollars.

What do all these diffused points mean? Taken separately, multiple purposes could be interpreted; examined collectively beside the unanimous acquiescence by them to the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset and its social and corporate aims, the outline of another plan starts to take shape: the plan being the re-establishment of Royal Thrones throughout the world hand in glove with an elevation of aristocratic society that would be consolidated under a system of bio-tech feudalism, a move which would see the Enlightenment’s political off-spring wiped from the slate of history.

To implement this, they look to imitate the subsuming policies of a united Germany’s first Chancellor. In the later 19th Century, Bismarckian Germany was under pressure from socialists and revolutionaries who wanted to turn Europe’s most industrialised state Red. To circumvent this and retain the three-tiered social structure of Kaiser, aristocracy and people, Bismarck incorporated many of the Left’s demands into his programme for government. A state education for all, welfare and expanded health care were all part of Bismarck’s offer to the German citizenry and in doing so he dammed and calmed the coursing resentment and dissatisfaction that swept the People alongside reformers and those calling for revolution.

Through their penetration of government and their inclusion of ‘stakeholders’, which in many cases are the pathetically, quiescent, spineless and avaricious unions, the professional bodies of government officialdom and ‘humanitarian’ charities, the World Economic Forum - a front for other foundations, corporations and extra-territorial interests which themselves are cover for the incredible wealthy families of Europe and America that have accumulated inter-generational wealth for centuries in many cases - have appropriated the Left and pulled the teeth of many on the liberal Right, thereby removing much of the opposition on the field. The only ones remaining are the mainly Libertarian Right, the very, very few clear-sighted on the Left and those pro-human, pro-freedom individuals of no fixed political abode, who are now confronting the towering feudal edifice, once-thought vanquished, of aristocracy, church and monarch, who themselves, through long years of acquirement, wield many corporate state assets and hold sway over the techno-scientific-military-industrial establishment.

In this situation, it is quite conceivable that the new society being born, as far as the royal households are concerned, are primed to accept, at the right moment, the ascension of their throne to the apex of political power publicly, suborning, as they do so, all other institutional actors to inferior positions.

It is a strategy based on the assumption that the People cannot rule themselves. As the democratic and socialist revolutions of the Twentieth Century unfolded, it is quite possible to view powerful, ensconced families concomitantly vacating the realms of public prominence - except the high class gossip magazines which they kept fed for those aspiring to, and incidentally buttressing, the hierarchy - in order to give the tumultuous democracies, with their competing interests, their self-conscious individuality, their health issues and their inconsistencies of parties and policies, enough rope to hang themselves, until ‘saved’ by the return of God’s Appointed.

Narcissists, of which there are plenty at the head of royal families, do not combine well with power. Their reasoning tends to build complex justifications in one direction only with one inexorable conclusion - monarchy supported by other slightly less powerful families is the best form of government. Obesity and physical slovenliness, our poor education systems, our lack of manners, our intellectual and spiritual poverty, our rapaciousness, our injustice, ultimately, as Alexander the First of Russia believed, our sociopathic, uncouth natures need to be walled-in to protect society, nature and not least ourselves; and it requires a King or an Emperor as a redemptive figure to solve these problems, such is the logic of monarchy.

Perhaps, at another time, this reasoning could be dismissed as self-aggrandising, socially regressive nonsense, but now, with the failures of liberal society all around us - progression to gender ideology and irrationality? - and the careful placing of economic, cultural and political power in the hands of lackeys, the reasons have a seductive power for many and are backed by the arsenal of hierarchy.

Yet the Royals are not reasoning their way or plotting their way to pre-eminence by way of a top-down counter-revolutionary coup: they are using the legal framework of corporations to build and hide incredible wealth that if or when the official takeover comes, it will have been established as a ‘fact on the ground’ long before.

Serco, the UK PLC behemoth, is touted as having strong links to the Windsor Royal Family. It is a regular beneficiary of ‘no bid’ contracts in the UK and the United States which make it a global company earning billions, in all areas of life, at all levels of the state. The most ‘impressive’ aspect of its model is that it works very much like a monarchy: the actual work is sub-contracted out, allowing Serco to take a cut for each contract with no expense or liability. It is a scheme of giving money for nothing to favoured beneficiaries. No one ever inquires why this company with alleged Royal links receives hundreds of billions of taxpayers money: if true, it makes the UK a de facto nepotistic, near monopoly of the once Saxe-Coburg House. Thus can the government become denuded and the actual tendrils of power are gathered in the private hands of an Old Money Families.

Presently, even the visible world of wealth illustrates the schism between rich and poor. Like feudalism in France, the wealthy live in magnificent chateaus while the peasantry have a subsistence existence in hovels; uneducated, no mitigation for illness, no opportunity for advancement, living at the whims of the master and the mistress. The assumption of the neo-feudalists is that this docile, stratified existence is all our distorted natures are capable of achieving and in this reduced state of humanity we shall find some sort of animal happiness - they may, in the 21st century compensate us with comfort and painless deaths, admittedly. Although, they will before then have reduced our intelligence with poisoned injections, gross educational standards and curricula, and toxic food, just so we can play the part of stupid, insensate masses all the better.

Whether Royal Thrones can re-establish themselves or not depends on our ability to evaluate how we are living our lives and make reasoned decisions on what our response to this power grab should be. Do we want to embrace a new Renaissance and continue with the Enlightenment, despite the setbacks, or do we wish to succumb to the nameless, valueless, powerlessness of the individual peasant and live like ants in some communitarian collective overseen by a bio-tech apparatus that is the foundation for the oligarchy and Kingship above us?