The Obligatory Aristocratic Fool

I recently watched another episode in the “Sharpe” series about the battle of Waterloo. It amazes me how the gods of political correctness and revisionist history worm their way into everything. In this episode there is blatant manipulation of historical fact, in order to make those with hereditary right seem almost semi retarded. The main target in this episode was the Dutch Prince of Orange. He was portrayed as completely out of touch with reality, making tactical decisions that caused several massacres of his men. His nickname among the British was “silly Billy”.

The historical perspective is quite different. The Prince of Orange served in the British armed forces, he was respected by the British troops because of his courage and was called “Slender Billy” by them. He was even wounded in the battle of Waterloo. He would later go on to concede to the liberals in 1840’s, something I am not thrilled with myself.

It seems that the vast majority of films made in the west are compelled to show at least one nearly sub human aristocrat, either drunk with power, or a 3 year old boy in an adult man’s body. Yet, who won the battle of Waterloo? Who beat back Napoleon from Spain? An aristocrat and military genius named Wellington. Who were the officers who scoured the globe by land and sea to make the British empire what it was? Aristocratic officers did this.

Likewise, we have many officers, government officials and politicians, all the way up to the presidency, who have been incompetent fools in an elected system as well. Aren’t people complaining that Congress is out of touch with America? Those are the same congressmen who are elected by the “people” and “for the people”.

People being people, I am certain that there were aristocrats who were power hungry, cared nothing for those under their command, were corrupt or sexual deviants. It seems to me that we have just the same amount of these people in a democratic government, all you need to do is read the newspapers.



3 thoughts on “The Obligatory Aristocratic Fool

  1. Democracy is utterly insane as a system of government. That is plain as the nose on your face to anybody not willfully blind. I think opposition to monarchy is not just a manifestation of the current zeitgeist though. Plato did not approve of it. The danger of too much centralized power is rather obvious. Aristocratic rule is, I think, wiser. Also more natural to human nature. My formal and informal education leans toward the natural world. This leads me to tend to turn to sociobiology for insights into human government Wolf packs and lion prides with usually less than a dozen or so members can be ruled by an alpha male. Baboon and chimpanzee societies are too large for that to work. There may be a monarch, but he is supported by a group of powerful males. No American would claim that the US of A has ever been a classless society. Our Founding fathers did intend the republic to be ruled by an aristocracy. It just was not expected to be purely hereditary. For monarchy to be successful I think it needs to be a system with the monarch as first among equals. As a side note I think this was what the Eastern patriarchs, prior to the East/West split, expected to see in the church. They were willing to accord the Bishop of Rome his due honor as first among equals, but not willing to yield complete submission to him. Rule by elders is also a natural state for humans. It is, I believe, a common form of government amongst hunting and gathering societies. The two systems can be combined. At local levels villages and neighborhoods can be ruled by elders with the local squire presiding. National problems are likely better handled by an aristocratic strata. There are obvious problems with possible exploitation of working class people by an aristocratic class. Which is exactly what is happening now all over the West. In Europe and the USA it is the current liberal elite supporting unrestricted immigration. Working class people are not supportive of losing their jobs and culture to foreigners. An answer to this problem can be found in the traditional rights of commoners. You could not shoot the king’s deer or cut trees in his forest. You could gather nuts and berries and firewood though. Perhaps even shoot a few rabbits. An unbiased judicial system would seem to be a key factor here. How do you adjudicate who has what right or authority ? Once again the 21st century western world shows us how not to do it. Voters in many US states have voted into effect laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Liberal elitist judges have then overturned those laws.

  2. The Roman system seems to have advantages to me. In times of peace decisions were arrived at by a Senate vote. Thus allowing for consideration of varying viewpoints and much discussion. in times of crisis a dictator was elected. This allowed for a greater rapidity in decision making and more focused execution of those decisions.

  3. My apologies for my excessive comments. I have a thought , then forget to include it in a comment. Just wanted to mention that rule by elders is the system of church polity amongst Presbyterians. This has some slight aristocratic flavor. The elders are supposed to be men who are knowledgeable in the doctrines of the church and have shown in their lives they are worthy of being entrusted with leadership. It is sometimes considered the model for the representative government intended for the USA in our constitution. It was also a system familiar to those with Celtic ancestry, such as myself, who formed a major part of the original American population then and in fact still do today. Most of them were Presbyterian. We are a fractious, contentious people. Quite individualistic and not easily ruled. The evidence of history shows that this system is easily perverted. That has happened in the political realm and the ecclesiastical world. In the political realm the expansion of voting rights to all sorts of unqualified people in the name of equality is a primary cause of this decadence, I believe. Within the church it may be a matter of catching a contagious disease from secular society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s