Potemkin wrote:The truth is that guys like Victoribus Spolia and his ilk are basically just bourgeois liberals who want to look edgy and to offend the trendy centre-left liberals by praising Mussolini and claiming to want a restoration of hereditary monarchy. In other words, they're just trolls.
Way to throw a fellow pipe-smoker under the bus bro.
Let me be clear that I am not alt. right
in the deeply centralized sense because my views regarding race, religion, and the nature of government are no longer welcome and so I am now more comfortable in the larger umbrella of the American "New Right."
I affirm the divine and natural right of kings, but I do think they are vastly different as to the manner in which they execute their interests from dictators, so I don't think you are being fair here.
The Catholic-Libertarian and Monarchist Kuneheldt-Leiden in his work, "Liberty or Equality?" argued that natural hierarchy is a greater preserver of liberty and therefore vastly different than other dictatorships that were designed as a necessary evil in order to guarantee great societal equality via a squashing of individual liberty. Indeed, he would argue that libertarianism can only be preserved through Monarchy. One example he used was that if Louis XIV had prohibited alcohol as the "representative government" had in the United States, he would not have been able to implement it and would have likely been executed immediately.
The reason, is because the purpose of a monarchy is to guarantee social hierarchy and tradition while rendering the basic function of government more efficient for the ultimate ends of protecting the people. It has NEVER been in the interests of monarchies to micro-manage or to become too burdensome. This is entirely different with the approach of "dictators of the proletariat" (or even democracies) which must micro-manage in order to get bring the proletariat to the point of true self-governance via a freeing them from their natural disadvantages of being religious and poorly educated, etc.
Likewise, this differs from fascist dictators that act in a restorative manner to cleanse the people of their accumulated decadence or racial impurity/weakness.
In general, even if the powers I outlined as technically being the prerogative of the monarchy were actively pursued, which would satisfy me, this still would not hold a candle to the powers vested in communist or even fascist dictatorships.
Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not a libertarian (and therefore disagree with Kuhnheldt-Leiden on much), for I am very much a pro-intervention as a paleo-colonialist and anti-free trade as a neo-mercantilist, but even this view is still vastly less micro-managing that a planned economy as we saw in ether Stalin's soviet union, Mao's china, or (to a lesser degree) in the states of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.
So I think the comparisons are somewhat misleading, Yes I believe in a strong man, but this is out of a spirit of needing a natural heirarchy and true patriarchy, not to micro-manage all of the tha affairs of every individual in a society out of some process of collective evolution, whether marxist or racialist.
“The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.”
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
- G. K. Chesterton