[Many months after publishing this, I realized it is a bit “autistic”]
Using the knowledge I have collected on the subject, I will attempt to lay out the theory of monarchy in the context of Indo-European religion. This is not an attempt to discuss the merits or demerits of such a political and religious system in contrast to, for instance, integral Catholicism, or even to presuppose that it could retake the entire West, but more intended as expository writing, should such information be useful in the future.
There is a tendency among us humans, especially those who are ardent humanists to overlook beauty which is living because it is not in any way a product of something uniquely ‘human’. Herein lies the difference between the so-called ‘culturists’ and ‘racists’. A ‘culturist’ appreciates the beauty of non–living things created by man — art, music, architecture, literature. He, therefore, seeks the preservation of culture, often against iconoclasm, religious decline, and degeneracy. A ‘racist’ on the other hand appreciates the beauty of the animate, living thing, not created by man, and recognizes that this beauty is a product of some amount of genetic isolation and natural selection. He, therefore, seeks to preserve the beauty of a race from influences such as miscegenation which would necessarily end its unique beauty.
Regarding the word ‘racist’, I use it in this article to denote a puerile label placed upon individuals wishing to preserve human biodiversity, not the view that all members of the same biological race are identical — which is clearly not true.
Iconoclasm is not just manifested in the destruction of the icons, statues, and stained glass windows beloved by Christian traditionalists, it is also manifest in the destruction of a racial type, or even the corruption of the natural beauty of the earth itself — something the anti-environmentalist ‘right’ needs to get a grip on.
This has caused a great rift I observe in the broader right. Those who value inanimate beauty follow suit in the tradition of various popes and Christian monarchs and those who value animate beauty — of the biosphere and living things follow National Socialist thinkers like George Lincoln Rockwell and William Luther Pierce.
I am bold enough to think that both animate and inanimate beauty is worth preserving. In no aesthetic sense am I an iconoclast. I value the preservation of a ‘civilization’ as a culture just as much as the preservation of any human race, which is in fact living and will continue to reproduce its unique beauty (and further refine its beauty) given the right conditions.
So I do not call myself a National Socialist or a ‘Western Culturist’. The error of the National Socialist is his lack of respect for organic cultural tradition (edit: this is common but not universal among NS), and the error of the culturist being his iconoclasm of animate, living beauty. I call myself a national monarchist in that I value both the beauty of inanimate human culture and animate natural race. And there are precedents to national monarchism throughout the ages –pretty much any monarchy centered around one people (as a biological concept of common descent) counts — Anglo-Saxon England, pre-Norman Ireland, Mediaeval Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, modern post-WWII Japan, and there are probably many more examples. There is no reason to assume as a culturist or traditionalist one must disregard biological race or ethne as the solid foundation of a nation, and there is no reason for a biological ethnocentrist ‘racist’ to assume that cultural tradition should be smashed to create some utopian society.
I have been watching small bits of the television series Outlander, which is mostly centered around the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, and it reminded me of a recurring fundamental theme of the neoreaction which I have perhaps insufficiently addressed. What we are trying to achieve is similar to what these Jacobites attempted, a restoration of the old order of society which was destroyed by the Whigs/liberals. At heart, I am a restorationist, and I am an ethnic nationalist. Though I am not a neo-Jacobite (I do feel it is a very romantic cause), I am certainly a restorationist of something much older, more permanent, and more general than Catholic monarchy; the tripartite aristocratic system of Indo-European societies. This, of course, includes monarchy and lower levels of aristocracy which all fall into the second function/estate. It also includes a first estate of priests (which can be Christians, pagans, or simply moral philosophers), and a third estate of free workers and merchants.
The fact that I favor this system is why I could never consider myself Alt-Right or a National Socialist; neither system is on the true right; they are incomplete, and really only responses to temporary problems.
Perhaps I am biased towards aristocracy because I myself have multiple lines of ancestry which were at one time aristocratic, including my paternal lineage which is most likely of Norman origin based on surname analysis (correction: my paternal lineage may not be Norman, based on Y-chromosome analysis), but I also recognize that democracy gives unfair advantage towards people of lower IQ who would use it to elect a simple wealth-redistributionist, and thus has some dysgenic effects. Democracy also creates a virtue signalling playground, and thus selects for the genetics of individuals who like to attract attention in such ways.
I think, borrowing from very early European monarchical systems among the Celts and Germans, that a monarch should, under necessary circumstances, be elected (probably by other aristocrats) from a royal family, so as to avoid being stuck with a mentally incompetent ruler who just happens to be heir to the throne.
Who would have the political power of an aristocrat? Possibly as in very early Germanic society, all land-owning men could be counted, who are ultimately vassals of the king. See these articles on the Germanic aristocratic order (1, 2 (see section on law), 3).
As for what ideology each monarchy has; religious traditionalism, ethnic nationalism, or multiethnic capitalism; it must ultimately differ between different states. One single ideology (religious, ethnic, or otherwise) will not fit with each and every group of people for both cultural and biological reasons (which are usually intertwined with each other). It is essential we understand this when trying to advance the concept of an aristocratic form of governance to the normies.