“One has met some monarchs that were good, some very good, others weak or bad. Some enjoyed honors and the love of their people to the end of their lives, others were beheaded. Therefore, not all of the monarchs were good. Monarchy itself, however, has always been good.”
So says the early 20th Century Romanian politician, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu in his autobiography, ‘For my Legionaries’, often quoted fondly by many on the pro-monarchist right. However, Codreanu’s views on monarchy diverged from the typical sentiment in the Kingdom of Romania at the time. During this period, the country oscillated between what was essentially a Constitutional Monarchy, with the elected parliament which featured a series of Liberal politicians controlling the government, and an absolute ‘Royal Dictatorship’ declared by King Carol II. The King had wormed his way back into power after having been disgraced and renouncing the title, certainly something which influenced the entire Romanian right’s views on how the royal institution functioned.
Humble in his origins, Codreanu railed against what he saw as the glaring deficiencies of elected government. He made the case that the multitudes had trouble understanding even the most basic laws that allowed people to flourish and survive, and were prone to inefficiencies and poor-judgment in their own lives, so how were the multitudes to be trusted in selecting leaders who would need to understand the greatest laws, those of nature? It was an exercise in counter-specialization, the idea that anyone could lead. “For making bread, shoes, ploughs, farming, running a streetcar, one must be specialized, is there no need for specialization when it comes to the most demanding leadership, that of a nation?” he scorned.
Seeing that the notion of an elite was not a conspiratorial enemy of the people, but rather an expression of a meritocracy in ability to govern, it was deduced that the country’s political failings were primarily due to its democratization. Incapable of governing themselves for the betterment of the nation (and he had an interesting concept of nation we’ll get to in a moment), the people needed a true elite, men with certain aptitudes and abilities. Contra this, democracy often raised the worst candidates to positions of power and elite status, charlatans lacking scruples, the immoral, and the greedy.
“When a state is led by a so-called “elite” made up of the worst, most corrupt, most unhealthy it has, is it not permitted a person to ask why the state is headed for ruin? Here then is the cause of all other evils.. immorality, corruption and lust throughout the country; thievery and spoliation in the state’s wealth; bloody exploitation of the people; poverty and misery in its heights; lack of the sense of duty in all functions; disorder and disorganization in the state; the invasion from all directions of foreigners with money, as coming to buy bankrupt stores whose wares are being sold for a pittance. The country is auctioned off”
It was Codreanu’s belief that rather than play by democracy’s rules, the natural elite had fled to any bastions of virtue they could find, and he saw the qualities of Romania’s past great heroes in his Legionaries, those who came out of the priesthood, industry, agriculture, the military, and notably dissidents from the nations Liberal universities (yes, they had those then too). From this stock, he felt that Romania could cultivate a new political class. While he favored letting the country be consulted by the elite, a measure to avoid disconnection with what truly mattered, he was resolutely against the public having a choice of leaders. Furthermore, the elite when designated, would designate their successors for the future, based upon the loyalty of the elite itself to the nation. The nation constituted all those Romanians presently alive, all of those who lay dead in its soil, and all those as yet unborn.
Things then take an interesting turn, as Codreanu rejects the principle of heredity which he sees as a reason for the downfall of the previous elite and the eventual rise of democracy. The Romanian elite and royalty on this view had condemned themselves via a long system of privileges through birth rather than merit which led to a lack of adequate culling of degenerate figures from the halls of power. He sums up the simplified duties of a good ruling class thusly:
“the role of an elite is: a) To lead a nation according to the life laws of a people. b) To leave behind an inheriting elite based not on the principle of heredity but on that of selection, because only an elite knows life’s laws and can judge to what extent people conform by aptitudes and knowledge to these laws. it is like a gardener who works his garden and sees to it that before he dies he has an inheritor, a replacement, for he alone can say who among those working with him is best to take his place and continue his work.”
There is certainly grounds for critique here. Codreanu’s vision takes a relentlessly optimistic view of the nature of man, even good men, elite men. The principle of heredity arises because of an organic desire to benefit our own children. This has drawbacks in terms of leadership, but it is unavoidable and such negative consequences can perhaps be remedied with social technology. I encourage everyone to re-read or read for the first time, this article by David Grant which provides an illustrious monarchical history, and some recommendations that are incredibly helpful.
Codreanu indicated that he wanted a much smaller gulf between the monarch and country’s elites, something Grant proposes, that the government imitate in some ways the feudal system of the High Middle Ages, which limits the actual authority of the king, while not turning him into a constitutional puppet. Theoretical and actual authority are not the same thing. You can in effect have an absolute monarch whose sphere of authority is not very large in practical terms because regional and other interests operate autonomously at the micro-level. The king remains the ruler of the nation with the ability to raise armies or taxes from the land under his control, but in terms of political rule, most of this is handled by the aristocracy. Grant also states the monarch should be of the same type as the elite, and personally, I think it may be best if the monarch is neither warrior nor priest. Warriors don’t necessarily make the best decision-makers during peacetime, and I think Evola’s critique of a ruling priestly caste is more sound than Guénon’s defense of the concept. Power in the hands of bureaucrats may not sound pleasant, but it has its merits.
With all this said, it would be a mistake to dismiss Codreanu’s proposed solution to the problems of a hereditary elite out of hand. Perhaps there is even some hidden social technology in his proposal. Suppose a cast-iron rule by which the monarch was to be designated from the elite, but could not be a biological relative. The king’s children would retain benefits, i.e – they themselves would be members of the aristocracy, just not the monarchy. Hemmed in by a caste distinction, people would naturally rise or fall to the top or bottom of their respective castes by a process of non-biological designation. The unworthy remain pencil-pushers. To fend off any kind of internal revolt, the monarch would need the support of both the warrior and priestly castes. It would therefore be in his interest to keep both happy.
Now, this is highly speculative. There’s no telling how it might function in practice, especially alongside my favored occupational inheritance system for the lower classes (children inherit the trades of their parents), but there is something to be said about a meritocratic autocracy by appointment. It’s just a question of squaring pros and cons. I don’t think believing in caste undermines meritocracy, it simply compartmentalizes it, something Codreanu unfortunately didn’t have time to formulate.
On this day in 1938, along with thirteen of his fellow imprisoned Legionaries, Codreanu was murdered by the military police during a prison transfer. This was carried out under the orders of the usurper king and his political allies fearful that the Legion was about to seize the throne. The callous and brutal nature of this act helped turn popular sentiment against the government, and was immortalized as the ‘Night of the Vampires’, the night Romania lost its most uncompromisingly defiant voice against the rape and desolation of its people. It would be hard to find anyone in history who gave so much for the crusade against Modernism. And yet, his work continues.
Rest in peace, Căpitanul.
> “Suppose a cast-iron rule by which the monarch was to be designated from the elite, but could not be a biological relative. The king’s children would retain benefits, i.e – they themselves would be members of the aristocracy, just not the monarchy. Hemmed in by a caste distinction, people would naturally rise or fall to the top or bottom of their respective castes by a process of non-biological designation. The unworthy remain pencil-pushers.”
This sounds almost exactly like the Venetian system. The Doge was, in effect, an elected king, with the electors being formally limited to the aristocratic class. There was a rule in place that no Doge could be directly succeeded by anyone from the same family, though there are, of course, certain names that one finds over and over in the list of Doges.
I’ve long said that for a good balance of attributes – liberty, stability, prosperity, staying power – it’s very hard indeed to beat Venice. Their system worked well for 1200 years until it was destroyed from the outside by Napoleon. When the French Revolution finally ends (and it hasn’t yet – we are still in it to this day), what worked should be restored, and copied elsewhere.
The Venetian System is certainly a very interesting oddity in history. Perhaps an Antidem penned SM article on the subject?
Consider the motion thirded.
I’m flattered by your suggestion, but at present I don’t feel that I know enough about he subject to be useful. Maybe once I finally get around to reading my copy of Lord Norwich’s history of the place.
A meritocratic elite selected from the Universities and a caste system for the dreary proles, democracy not influencing actual governing….But we have all this now, it’s chief defect being you’re not running it.
“While he favored letting the country be consulted by the elite, a measure to avoid disconnection with what truly mattered, he was resolutely against the public having a choice of leaders.”
We used to have an elite that consulted with the country through elections but that ended in 2008.
The elite we’d get would be Progressives, perhaps they’d be Christian or Catholic Progs but the irresistible impulse to meddle in every minutiae of life would remain.
Your chief complaint with The Cathedral is your not in Charge.
BTW Congress just opened Space…to Property rights of what’s there by mere possession.
How does this elite fit in when it takes 22 minutes each way to transmit to Mars?
As far as not being able to do anything in the practical sphere that describes not Americans but their elites.
As far as Romania Codreanu got his wish – his name was Ceausescu. He wasn’t a Democrat by any means. His manner of death was…
A) Caste system for all, and no universities at all, is far more preferable.
B) Consultations take different forms. To think consultation is only facilitated through elections is false. Local referendums are a good example.
C) “The elite we’d get would be progressive” – somehow implies that a non-progressive elite is impossible, which runs contra to all history
D) Never personalize critiques. I only charge that Reactionaries should control government. At the personal level, I am a non-factor, as is every other writer on these matters.
E) Science-fiction space commuting plays no part in this political analysis of ruling class functionality.
F) Not sure Caeusescu governed Romania according to the “life laws of its people”. You might want to read up on that. Also look up Ana Pauker.
Pretty much. Meanwhile, they look like a bunch of SCA goons my-ladying it up.
Very good article on a noble and interesting man. I have one thing to nitpick, however; Codreanu wouldn’t have been thrilled with being described as a politician!
Certainly correct, however it seemed prudent to indicate the official position he did hold, which was that of a representative in the Chamber of Deputies after the elections of 1931. It was largely just a show of force. Codreanu indicated he despised the job, particularly the way his impassioned pleas for the struggling Romanian people were ignored by the other deputies, almost all of whom detested the Legion because of their own financial interests.
I am concerned with America, not Romania.
What might be appropriate for Romania won’t be for America and vice versa.
If you consider the caste system appropriate for Romania do go and tell them.
If you consider the caste system appropriate for America please get back on the boat.
We actually have a caste system forming now, our Brahmans are Progressive as they mostly have been throughout history and that’s the most likely winner of rule of castes by elites. You simply can’t dispense with one’s own history anymore than you can with geography. We can however
And the lust for power from young and old neoreactionaries alike would mark them as still Progressive in essence if nothing else did, and so much does…
Ta.
“What might be appropriate for Romania won’t be for America and vice versa”
Mark Citadel argues otherwise, and his argument is superior to your lack of one.
“We actually have a caste system forming now, our Brahmans are Progressive”
Every society has some form of caste. America only differed in denying what was obvious, and so became blind to reality.
“as they mostly have been throughout history”
Fiction is no substitute for truth. Progs are a modern phenomenon. Rule by blood, sword and altar, is the norm.
“and that’s the most likely winner of rule of castes by elites.”
More fiction. The triumph of progressivism is an historical peculiarity. The conditions that created it can never exist again.
“You simply can’t dispense with one’s own history anymore than you can with geography.”
History’s already dispensed with. It’s in the past. We’re in the present. We forge the future.
“And the lust for power from young and old neoreactionaries alike would mark them as still Progressive in essence ”
You can’t read the minds of neoreactionaries, young or old. Leftists like you play this game. You imagine what your enemies are thinking, and then pass it off as proof. But imagination is no substitute for observation.
You fear neoreaction because it thwarts your desire for chaos. You want anarchy, you want riots, you want the break down of society and the mass murder that comes with it. The lust for blood from you revolutionaries marks you as communists in essence.
You see what I did there? But, I’ve given no less justification for it than you have for your slander against us.
“if nothing else did, and so much does…”
If you have proof of this, then show it. If you have an argument, to this effect, than make it.
Mysterious elipses are no substitute for argument. But then if you had any sort of argument you would have made it.
Instead you play games. You imply there’s some proof out there that shows neoreactionaries are progressives “in essence”. You imply, but do not show. You cannot show, because it does not exist.
Progressivism is built on the lie of human equality, the lie of perpetual revolution, of ever progressing to some undefined and imaginary standard of perfection.
Neoreaction is opposed to this. We want to end the lies, end the revolution, end the demagoguery and the chaos.
Progressivism is rooted in the idea that human nature is malleable, that reality is up to the individual to define. Neoreaction stands in awe before Gnon.
“Ta.”
What is this even supposed to be?
An imitation of a dental click?
Are you ‘tsk’ing at us? Or ‘harumph’ing?
Making vaguely disapproving verbal noises is an odd way to end a comment. But I suppose that’s all you can do, when you can’t defend your position.
“Mark Citadel argues otherwise, and his argument is superior to your lack of one.”
Catching myself here, Mark doesn’t argue that, sorry. He does restates some arguments of Codreanu’s that seem to be universal in their application.
“For making bread, shoes, ploughs, farming, running a streetcar, one must be specialized, is there no need for specialization when it comes to the most demanding leadership, that of a nation?”
Why wouldn’t that apply to America, as well as Romania?
I recognize different nations have different character traits and require different specific systems, however using this as some kind of excuse to ignore the writings and deeds of Reactionaries in other countries from your own throughout history seems… retarded. vxxc is American, but very little Reactionary philosophy has been written by Americans for obvious reasons. All nations at this point have had to grapple with the same enemy, Modernity.
“More fiction. The triumph of progressivism is an historical peculiarity. The conditions that created it can never exist again.”
True, although I wouldn’t say never. Just not for another several thousand years. The beginning of this epoch marks a spiritual cataclysm for mankind, predicated on very special variables being in place precisely to bring about the end of the World of Tradition. Once seen in its correct context, as a point on a cycle, it is obvious that the time of birth has passed. Once felled, Progressivism will not ‘bounce back’ or ‘reconstitute’ itself, because the only reason for its eventual death will be that it has exhausted its own potential, burned up all the oxygen as a fire in a sealed room. Things make more sense if you can view Modernity as a collective spiritual bluescreen rather than just happenstance of geopolitical events. It is an epoch of exception to the organic nature of man shaped by external forces, and as Father Sarda said, “We are in duty bound to resist their fatal contagion with all the powers of our soul.”