 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When the Emperor Was Divine" |
|
|
|
By Joseph A. Crisp II |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| ����������� In most republics there seems to be an unmistakable air of arrogance about the country, certainly not limited to but definitely including such supposed trailblazers as The United States and France. The general public seems convinced that theirs is the ultimate and most perfect method of organizing human endeavor the world has yet seen, and that they represent what all other countries aspire to, the mentality that all nations will be republics when they "grow up". Values are attributed to a style of government, revolutionary figures, real or imagined (lady liberty) become secular saints and some, such as President Lincoln, even have their effigies enthroned in massive Greco-Roman temples for the masses to 'worship'. |
|
|
| ����������� It is no wonder that when the French Revolution reached full force the Catholic Church came under a brutal attack by the republican forces, or that many Anglican clergymen condemned the American Revolution from the pulpits and that when the Bolsheviks conquered Russia, the Orthodox Church soon went the way of the Tsar. Following the victory of revolutionary forces in China, not only did Christianity come under attack, but Buddhism, Taoism and even the moral principles of Confucius as well. This was and is a common practice around the world because the republic consistently forms its very own secular state religion. |
|
|
| ����������� Up until the end of World War II the Japanese people believed their Emperor to be the descendant of the gods, and so a god himself by relation (it should also be pointed out that this belief was refuted only at virtual gunpoint). Many Japanese Americans continued to venerate their Emperor as a religious figure despite living in a country which he did not rule. After the attack on Pearl Harbor this coexistence came to an abrupt end. There are numerous examples of innocent people branded as traitors for simply being attached to their own native traditions. The vast majority were not well informed about and did not approve of the military government in Japan or their expansion in China and Indochina, many probably even adopted the American "religion" out of a desire to fit in, nonetheless, any attachment to their old beliefs, focused on the Emperor, was enough to warrant their arrest. |
|
|
| ����������� It had been somewhat similar during World War I. Simply having a German last name was often grounds for severe assaults. Any mentality out of step with the American mainstream was dubbed 'Kaiserism'. This was all the more ironic given that Imperial Germany had never harmed America, nor did they pose any threat whatsoever to the United States. Yet, the state "spirits" of liberty and democracy were summoned up and soon took the people to such ridiculous extremes of xenophobia that hamburgers became liberty sandwiches and kraut was named liberty cabbage. In Florida, several Lutheran churches were suspected of harboring sympathy for the Kaiser and even plotting to sabotage the U.S. war effort. |
|
|
| ����������� If monarchs are to have every aspect of their lives scrutinized and leered at by the public with a magnifying glass, why are our sainted republican figures not held to the same standards? In the United States it is well known that George Washington "could not tell a lie". Not so many are aware that while his army was starving and freezing to death at Valley Forge, General Washington was billeted in a grand mansion holding dances and tea parties, that he had a notoriously violent temper and could never tolerate criticism or disagreement. When looked at objectively his war record leaves much to be desired as well. And, he was one of the better ones. |
|
|
| ����������� Thomas Jefferson is perhaps the most famous Founding Father, and yet this man who wrote so passionately about freedom and equality lived on a plantation and owned altogether about four hundred slaves, some of whom we know today bore his illegitimate children. Ben Franklin was a notorious drinker and boasted that he had visited every whorehouse in the city of London as a young man. Although he could speak eloquently about freedom and self-determination, when his own son exercised his right to remain loyal to King and Country Ben Franklin disowned him and never gave him the slightest helping hand when his son became sick and poor, despite the fact that Benjamin had amassed quite a fortune by that time. |
|
|
| ����������� While republicans sit back and ridicule lords and ladies bowing and curtsying to the Queen, or generals in Thailand crawling on hands and knees before their King, in country after country they make demigods of their own set of founding fathers. If the Queen of England's children cannot manage their marriage we are deluged with doubts about the monarchy's survival, while in America the President himself being involved in affairs, cover-ups, fund-raising scandals and perjury actually causes his popularity to go up and incites many people to condemn the trial for costing too much money. We are told that the monarchy, any monarchy, is extravagant and costly, but never hear that Queen Elizabeth pays back virtually every cent of tax money she receives, for a lifetime of service mind you, while Presidents who serve a term of a few years continue to receive millions in tax dollars until their death for doing nothing at all if they choose. |
|
|
| ����������� In the United States, if there is one right above all others that is upheld as being sacrosanct it is the freedom of speech. And, despite having a rather rough history, this right is invoked for numerous causes, from criticizing government actions, wearing sheets and burning crosses, to covering images of the Virgin Mary in elephant dung and holding demonstrations in minority neighborhoods to shout the praises of Adolf Hitler. However, freedom of speech does little good if no one can hear you. An esteemed professor of history from the People's Republic of China once told me that people are perfectly free to speak critically of the Communist regime; provided no one is around to hear them. In this country, you may be able to say whatever you wish, but the mainstream news media certainly has no right to see that others hear you. |
|
|
| ����������� We can, of course, turn on CNN, Fox News or MSNBC and hear varied arguments about how the Democrats are more concerned about offending Muslims than defending American lives, or how the Republicans are carrying out a vast right-wing conspiracy to abolish free elections and seize total power, but one thing you will never hear brought up in all of these exercises of free speech is a thoughtful debate on the system of republican government itself. You will never hear a debate, virtually anywhere in the first world I would wager, considering whether or not the republican trend which took off in the 1900's has proven to be a good thing for the peoples of the world. |
|
|
| ����������� Why is this true? Because, while kings, queens, princes and emperors are seen as archaic relics of the past that must be tolerated until they can be removed and forgotten entirely, the republican ideal has become "divine" in the minds of the people who have used it to gain political power for themselves. As royalists we at least can well understand why this is so. For the modern politician, monarchy represents their darkest nightmare brought to life: a system of government in which the highest office cannot be purchased, or acquired through means of propaganda and distorting the facts, where the head of state is not susceptible to bribery or political manipulations. In short, it takes the politics out of government in at least one way or another. What could be more terrifying to a professional politician? |
|
|
| ����������� This is why the deified political ideology of republics will never be able to take the place of an old fashioned monarchy. Politicians have no principles. They will do any and everything they deem necessary to be reelected. The only focus of loyalty is on "the system", on the shifting trends of democracy itself, which cannot provide a firm basis of unity. They can only shout that their republican system is the best in the world because it is the will of the people. Yet, when the system fails, this causes a severe problem. Certainly no politician would have the backbone to tell the masses, "You were wrong". |
|
|
| ����������� Monarchy is built on something deeper. In a monarchy, your loyalty is not dependent on believing your nation to be the best, or on your monarch being the strongest or the wisest or the best looking. You love it because it is yours, because the tradition provides a link with the past and a feeling of participation in something that has been done for hundreds of years before you. Every people of every culture in the world have expressed their desire to believe in something above their own daily existence. In the Confucian empires of the Far East, from Korea to China to Vietnam, morality and virtue, while not always perfectly attained, were upheld as the standard of worthy leadership. In Europe, during the glory days of monarchy at the height of Christendom, monarchies were built on the foundation of Christian service and Church legitimacy. The republic, quite contrarily, is based on nothing more than popular opinion, and history has proven that there is no tradition, no belief and no system of laws which can stand firm once this form of political prostitution has taken hold. |
|
|
| ����������� The United States, hailed as the oldest "modern" republic in the world, can no longer claim by any stretch of the imagination to be a society of law and order. Consider this: the laws of the United States clearly state that perjury is a criminal act which demands punishment. Yet, even when President Clinton admitted his own guilt of this crime, he was not punished in any way. Why? Because he was simply too popular. Even morals are regulated by the government, and in our republic, can be changed according to their popularity. |
|
|
| ����������� Prior to the American Civil War, slave holders said that abolitionists should not be able to force their values on others, that the law clearly protected slavery and that each state in the Union should be free to decide if slavery was necessary for them or not. The abolitionists said that it was an absolute moral wrong to own slaves and that no one, in any state, should be allowed to do so, and if the law protected that, the law should be changed. Now look at America in 2004. Supporters of gay marriage say that the states should be free to choose if they will allow homosexual marriages or not while the opponents of gay marriage say this is absolutely immoral and should not be allowed in any state of the Union. The issue of slavery was decided by the principle of military might, the gay marriage issue will be decided by who has the most popular support. The politicians are momentarily on the fence because it is not quite certain which side can produce more votes. Once the majority can be influenced to support this, gay marriage will gain legal acceptability just as abortion has: by the order of the republic. |
|
|
| ����������� During the High Middle Ages even the mightiest monarch in Europe would not dare to presume he could dictate morality, for had he tried the Church would have surely hit him with an interdict and possibly even excommunication, absolving his subjects of their allegiance to him. Even the Emperor of China, at the grandest heights of the Qing Dynasty, the Lord of 10,000 Years, the very Son of Heaven himself, could not possibly have changed the Confucian virtues of what was right and wrong as such would have been taken as the clearest evidence that he had lost Heaven?s Mandate to rule and forfeited his throne. That is a height of arrogance which only the republic has successfully reached. |
|
|
| ����������� Here we finally see the great mistake of the republican-monarchy debate. It is the republic, in all its democratic simplicity, which creates cults of the strongman, which deifies the state itself, which exalts the republican system to such heights that it claims the authority to decide what should be considered right and wrong. Monarchies on the other hand, with all of their palaces, pomp, ceremony and courtly etiquette have always been confined to the exaltation of ideals only, of principles which are set and unchanging. It is only the monarchies which have understood that what is popular is not always what is best. Therefore, I remain quite pessimistic about the virtues of any society ruled by popular opinion and nostalgically think back to the days when tradition was sacred and the Emperor was divine. |
|