LETTER FROM BARRABBAS

Ronald,

I find it very odd that Jason (Anarchy Magazine) is suddenly realizing that all his 'I'm more Anarchy than thou' crud flew back in his face. Pompously defending pedophiles and Narcos! Such idiocy does nothing to promote anarchy and social revolution; he damaged it, if anything. Thanks, Jason!

I think Marc is being very unreal in his monarchist idealism in that he never mentions the tyrants in history, who have been monarchs! Like Spain's Pedro the Cruel or Ferdinand of Aragon, Russia's Czar Nicolas (deposed by the Bolsheviks) or Ivan the Terrible. France's Louis XIV, England's Henry VIII or Bloody Queen Mary among many others. Good Queen Lady Jane only lasted 9 days! Monarchism is no guarantee of social justice, as these examples prove. Also Nationalism/Patriotism has more often than not been at the root of many a genocide, ethnic cleansing, let alone World Wars.

Marc also attacks the Ruling Class of Corporate 'Robber Barons' and yet at the same time excuses the idle rich and says the Monarchy will protect their security?!?! Glaring contradiction! He then says the people have a 'direct say' in matters - but then expounds on 'Representative' Democracy which is not the same at all. We have this already and it does not 'represent' any of us!

Although I agree much with Marc's attacks on the Republic, his 'monarchism' is severely flawed and unrealistic. Most people would never accept it, let alone understand it! How does Marc 'claim' a throne anyway? I don't see his 'logic' for that at all…..

I believe the only reason Marc believes change will come without violent civil war and social revolt is because he's had a soft privileged life in affluent coastal Orange County. He has not ever suffered at the hands of the Robber Barons' state! It is stark reality that the Ruling Class will not ever go down without a fight. They will fight tooth and claw all the way down to the End. I wish it were not so, but wishful thinking is a mistake on this. Mr. Miller's 'Liberty Soup' recipe will be more the case, than not.

And once again I must point out that not all Kings were of any kind of 'Royal Lineage!' In Ancient Scandinavia they were always chosen, sometimes each and every year - as the 'Legend of the Green Man' tells. I do find interesting what Marc informed us about the Monarchy of Poland - something unique there. He needs to research and present more on these two subjects above mentioned, instead of 'skimming' over this stuff.

Barrabbas/AV13
P.O. Box 581
Mountain Ranch, CA 95246

RESPONSE TO BARRABBAS

By Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin

Thank you for your letter, I welcome the opportunity to clarify what I mean by my actions and declarations. I understand that my position is different, and because of the history of the country, there is a sense of unreality about my proposals, but much of that is merely a byproduct of accepting the current conventional "reality" being peddled through the institutions of the republic. First, monarchy in one form or another has existed in the human society probably as long as there have been human beings. To select a few that are glaring examples of monarchy at its worst does not negate the purpose of monarchy in an aboriginal society. However, it is important to recall that what Europeans call monarchy and royalism, is in many other societies chieftaincy. That is why Pocahontas was referred to as a "Princess," even though she was not accorded that title in a way that other native American aborigines would have accepted; what she was, was the daughter of a chief. The institution of chieftaincy, on the other hand, developed universally with unique characteristics based on local, geographic and political circumstances. Therefore, what was normal in one locale, may have been alien in another.

The monarchs Barrabbas mentions were particularly odious, and were the driving force behind much of the revolutionary fervor two centuries ago that leveled western civilization, and rebuilt it in the image of the outlaw. Perhaps Barrabbas glorifies the outlaw, as revolutionary society has by embracing the revolutionary creed, but the intolerance this has bred is the source of our modern social dissolution. Part of this creed is the article of faith (faith, because it must be accepted without historic proof) that progressive social movements by definition had to be republican in nature, which automatically excluded the monarchist constitution that had prevailed in Europe for four thousand years. The only problem for the revolutionaries was the fact that the common people, the masses, LIKED the traditional ways. While the revolutionaries who set up the republic have succeeded in separating the American people from their roots in the ancient constitution, and deprived them of their God given rights, through the vehicle of the republic, it is still possible to restore the ancient constitution.

Before moving on to the definitions of nationalism, I would first like to address the specific monarchs that Barrabbas raises up as examples, that he concludes are reasons for the rejection of monarchy as an institution. Pedro the Cruel and Ferdinand of Aragon were rulers of a country that had just undergone the reconquest of Spain from the Moors. This was a bitter struggle that marks Spanish culture to this day. To some extent, the kings of the reconquista were warriors and warlords set against a society under constant siege, and in fear of total eclipse by the Moslems. Extraordinary measures were engaged in, as they are in any war. This does not justify anything, but it explains the actions of men like Pedro the Cruel and Ferdinand of Aragon. Russia's last czar, Nicholas Romanov, did not want to be emperor of Russia. He was unprepared, and put into a position that even a great man could have faltered in. That did not make it morally right for the Communists to murder the Czar and his innocent family. If one is guided by any moral code at all, murder is absolutely defined as not moral, and since revolution starts with murder, it ceases to have creative power.

Ivan the Terrible was the first Czar. He was the first czar of a country that had been under the yoke of the Mongols for two centuries, under a wing called the Golden Horde. When the Golden Horde invaded and conquered Russia, they celebrated their victory by dining on a platform erected atop the dying bodies of the Russian nobility. The Russian state existed only at the pleasure of the Mongols, who exacted tribute, and appointed its rulers from among the Russian nobility. This was a state that was run using terrorism. When Ivan the Terrible became Grand Prince of Moscow, he led an army that defeated the Golden Horde, and liberated Russia. But Russia had already been marked by the Asiatic influences of their Mongol overlords. Again, this does not justify the actions of the Czar Ivan, but it puts them into context as the actions of a warlord pressed by extraordinary circumstances.

Louis XIV, Les Roi Soleil (the Sun King), became king of the largest state in Europe, at the end of the Wars of Religion, which had disestablished Germany as a state. The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation had a powerful impact on Europe, because in the medieval world more resources were dedicated to the after-life than real life. The Catholic Church was the center of medieval European civilization, as was the Roman Emperor (who was also the King of Germany), and the evolution of a secular society that was disassociated from the Catholic Church was the beginning of the modern era. Louis XIV ascended the throne of a country that had been internally divided for about 100 years, divisions which the Crown of France had overcome in the reigns immediately preceding his.

Louis XIV was an absolute king of a country that was beginning to become a nation-state, as was Henry VIII, whose father, Henry Tudor, (Henry VII) was the first king after the Wars of the Roses. Both men lived under extraordinary circumstances that required extraordinary responses. (Henry VIII, mind you, ruled England without a standing army, with nothing more than an ordinary bodyguard, because the people of England were tired of disorder, and were willing to cooperate with the constitutional government of England). Mary Tudor, however, known as "Bloody Mary," probably had some emotional problems due to her childhood, which contributed to her fanatical Catholicism; but there were many fanatic Christians at the time, Protestant and Catholic, and Mary was not an isolated instance. This does not justify what she did, but it helps to put her reign in context. It is important to understand that what Mary did, no modern monarch could do, because the institution has progressed to a constitutional model that has passed control of the government to an elected parliament. But these kings and queens set precedents that contributed to the constitutional history of Anglo-American law, and therefore their actions are subject to scrutiny by constitutional scholars.

As for Lady Jane Grey, or the Nine Days Queen, she was more of a pawn than a real actor, and her cousin, Queen Mary, went to great lengths to save her life. Her father conspired with the Protector, who was part of the Regency Council set up to rule while Edward VI was a minor. When Edward VI died, however, their scheme to proclaim Lady Jane queen backfired when the populace acclaimed Princess Mary as queen. What these events do illustrate, however, is the way by which a royal crown is constituted, and the fact that the people are intrinsically involved in the process of raising up a monarch, or a monarch's successor. Initially, Lady Jane was pardoned; but when her father was implicated in a second plot to put Lady Jane upon the throne, Queen Mary was faced with a government that insisted upon the execution of the teenage girl and her husband, the son of the Protector.

Monarchism is not a guarantee of social justice, because no institution can guarantee social justice. Social justice is a value that a society must aspire to, that institutions embody because the people as a community embrace that value. If a people are not committed to social justice, then their institutions will not pursue social justice. However, it is important to understand that the republic has changed the boundaries of definitions, so that justice under the republic is not the same thing as justice under the ancient constitutional kingdom. For example, for the first 75 years of the republic's existence, slaves were denied their freedom under the Constitution of 1787, on the basis that liberating the slave was to deny the owner of due process!

The desire for social justice transcends temporary things, like institutions, and must begin in the soul of the individuals who constitute the society. This is because injustice can show up in any way imaginable, and every local area has idiosyncrasies that would make it impossible for social justice to be defined in exactly the same terms in all human societies. Common decency, however, appeals to human beings universally, and therefore, it could be said that common decency could be the defining characteristic of social justice. But in the final application, decency itself must be applied by local people to their own conditions; it cannot realistically be imposed from outside. The only exception is cases such as the Holocaust, when the violation of basic human rights was so clear, that no person with a conscience could look away.

Genocide, ethnic cleansing and world war had their origins in the colonial conquest of the New World, which saw the aborigines as pests and nuisances because they could not be enslaved. The aboriginal Americans were "removed" from the land as systematically as the Nazis removed the Jews from Europe. They were forced on Death Marches in which whole nations perished, and they were often confined to barren "reservations," where they died from starvation and disease. This so settlers could carve up their homelands, and start the "real estate market." The driving force in the New World was profit, not freedom. When the Founding Fathers wanted independence from Britain, it was so they could exploit their slaves and plantations without limitations, and keep the profits. The Revolution was never meant to infer that slaves should expect freedom. The republican system of government that the revolutionaries invented, likewise, was not meant to actually guarantee the freedom of the ordinary people, but instead was meant to guarantee the security of the holdings of the Founding Fathers, who were mortally afraid of slave revolts. Genocide and ethnic cleansing have no real relationship with true patriotism or nationalism; instead, they are an ugly side-effect of colonialism, under a false pretense of nationalism.

Nationalism is what the nationals make it. The nation cannot exceed the level of cultural development of its constituent members, the people of the nation. While atrocities have been committed in this century in the name of the nation, and patriotism to the institutional leaders of the republic, what I am asserting is that those atrocities should be attributed to the republic, and its fundamental nature, and not to the American people. The republic brings out the ugly side of people because of its emphasis on social control, and punitive legislation; and because it has routinized the embezzlement of the national wealth of the American people, who languish in poverty and the middle class, while corrupt institutions transfer their wealth to the most unworthy people under the sun.

My candidacy for the kingship represents the revival of an alternative to a corrupt republic, that is a dynamic challenge to it. It stands outside of the conventional political system, that is constantly being managed by spin doctors, and fixed and rigged by political professionals. As a dynamic force, however, our effort is guided by the social forces of our time, and is therefore shaped by them. We hope to change the institutions of the society through the empowerment of individuals, who we know are guided by the fundamentals of common human decency. Through this moral force, we can change the society without physical force.

What Barrabbas views as a "glaring contradiction," is actually an appeal to all sides to join the national family. The American kingship embodies the ideal of the nation having cognizance of itself as an extended family, and that often means that parts of the family have to make peace with other parts with whom they have disagreements. The peace of the family takes on a value of its own, and constitutional monarchy involves a constitutional process by which all human beings possess legal and political rights to freedom, that does not exist under the republican system of government.

The United States, today, under the republic, does not have "representative democracy." The republic is a system of government that gives control of the nation's resources to corporations, who give hand-outs to politicians via lobbyists. The president is the point-man for these corporations, as their chief policeman. The republic is the Mother of All Corporations, which is why the media constantly calls the president of the republic a CEO, and the nationals of the country "shareholders." The truth, that the republic is like a gigantic plantation, is quietly sidestepped, especially when anyone asks questions about the legitimacy of the Constitution of 1787, and the Founding Fathers.

While we all resent the Robber Baron class, they were not the only parties in America to come into possession of private property. If we are going to offer a viable alternative to the present social system, we are going to have to be reconciled to protecting property that was rightfully obtained under law. But this opens up the real underlying challenge of a royalist restoration, because implicit in the idea of a reconciliation of the various American peoples, to form a true American Nation, is the pre-requisite of a period of national recognition of the wrongs done to the various ethnic groups of America, with some genuine effort made to restore trust by acts of compensation. This is very important, because there are families and individuals alive today, who have wealth that is directly attributable to the work of particular slaves, whose descendants are very much alive, and impoverished. If Germany can pay off reparations for the war; certainly, the United States can compensate those its police force kept enslaved for a hundred years. However, to suggest to the descendant of a slave or an indentured servant, that their ancestors' contribution can be repaid in money, is to trivialize their contributions to America. The real heritage we all share is our patrimony as Americans, our right to be American nationals under the ancient constitution, in which our civil rights are not the gift of the Republic or the Bill of Rights, but which are the gift of our ancestors to us, as a FOLKRIGHT.

Monarchism is the central institution of the ancient constitution, that is the heart of the tribal community. Barrabbas suggests that the "people would never accept it," but that is what the "experts" say every time some populist movement comes along, that actually is picked up by the average people because it embodies what they truly love. People don't pass on the vitriolic rhetoric of upheaval and revolution, because it is negative and terrifying; they pass on what is positive, and empowering. People are protective of their friends, allies and loved ones, even in the dysfunctional society of the republic, which turns human beings into commodities.

As for Americans understanding the principles of monarchism, I did not invent the institution. The institution is thousands of years old, and the creation of my claim to the American throne has been carried out in accordance to those customs and traditions that are consistent with the ancient constitution. These traditions, however, have been adapted to fulfill the value requirements of Americans, even though they have European and British roots. That means that Americans, in particular, will understand the monarchy as we are restoring it. The bottom line is that something that has a history can be understood; something that is invented out of whole cloth has to be explained.

I cannot deny the fact that I have enjoyed some privilege in my life, being born a prince. I have, however, operated homeless shelters, and I have deliberately lived on the street, so that I could understand the plight of the most destitute victims of the republic. I predicted the Anti-Republic Riots of 1992 that broke out in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Detroit, Seattle, etc. And it is true that the all-powerful Republic of Abe Lincoln will not go down without a fight; but I would offer that the fight is on moral grounds, where the Republic has no footing.

The czars of the republic cannot imagine a world in which the republic no longer exists; but we have imagined that world. The American monarchy will be restored because it will embody an escape for average people from a republic that views them as a resource. The ancient constitution that is restored by the restoration of the monarchy, recognizes that the civil rights of the people are inalienable, as original rights, which the monarchy, with its original rights, must protect. The constitution exists only as a consequence of the existence of those original rights, which exist as a result of natural powers. Natural powers are such things as the power of speech, and the power of movement; these natural powers necessitated that legal rights come into existence, so that the exercise of these powers would be accepted in the community. The anchor of this universe of powers and rights is the constitutional monarchy.

What alternatives are there? A republic that views its police power as its core purpose? A new system of government that Barrabbas wants to invent, but hasn't gotten around to yet? Some hypothetical, theoretical utopian idea, that because it comes from one person, it automatically works to make that person a supreme leader, so that the republican nightmare is merely transformed into a really gruesome social experiment, in which millions more die needlessly? The monarchy is not my idea. I did not invent it. The precedents that guide the monarchy are centuries old, and all are grounded on a sound legal basis. I have acted to restore the American crown with the advice and consent of American nationals who have sworn fealty to the authority of my chieftaincy. And while I have restored the Crown, and act provisionally as regent, I have acknowledged the ultimate legal right of the American people to elect the king, by issuing a manifesto that has clearly created a process for the investiture of a restored monarchy in the United States. The point is to actually win over the American people to the promise of a renewed country, and the hope of a civil peace. The rhetoric of hell and brimstone and civil war is exactly what the average American is terrified of. Instead, a national movement to restore the integrity of the government can serve as a spearhead for a general strike, that would force the republic into a constitutional crisis.

In ancient times, all the German chiefs were elected. But I think Barrabbas misread my comments on the raising of non-royal persons to the rank of kings. What I said was that this did happen, by the election of non-royal individuals to the office of king that had originally been created by the acclamation of a prince of royal blood. Successions were often made by adoption, so that the non-royal individual was "adopted" into the royal family

But aside from that literal process of the legal adoption of the successor, there was also a popular mythical connection between the greatest of kings, and the least, so that the kings of England were conceived to be the successors of King Arthur, and the election and anointment of the king to the throne represented a continuity with that ancient heritage. The kinfolk were always very important in the tribal Germanic kingdoms, and the principle of a hereditary succession had its roots in the primeval practice of the tribes, of selecting their chiefs from particular clans. Each chief was elected, from a selection that was often restricted to several clans. In Hawaii, there were five or seven families, that were the main royal clans of Hawaii. Every tribe had this basic division that existed from the most remote times, except for those few that were hunter gatherers, where clan organization never went higher than the father and mother.

The Anglo-American constitution, the ancient constitution of the United States, however, no longer observes the tradition of a strictly hereditary succession. Since the establishment of the principle of the supremacy of Parliament in the ancient constitution, it has been a recognized principle of law that the sovereign is accepted based on a statute of parliament, fixing the succession in a royal house of the parliament's choosing. That makes it possible for a parliament to elect myself, or any other candidate, monarch of the United States.

The restoration process requires a legitimate claimant to give assent to the writs that would summon a legal parliament. While a member of the British royal house is out of the question, my royal blood and American nationality make me eligible to provisionally restore the Crown, act as regent, and to preside over the process of convening a National Constituent Assembly to restore the Crown, and elect a lawful parliament that has the authority under the law to recognize the acts of the Assembly. Through this process, a non-violent social union can be achieved that can literally break the republic down through aggressive, passive resistance.

The role of the monarch is fundamentally ceremonial and symbolic, yet in these ceremonies and symbolism is the emotional loyalty we have for our community, above partisan divisions. The republic gains its strength from seeding the suspicions and hostilities that make the ethnic divisions in America real; the American kingdom gains its strength from giving life to the ancient king's peace. It is asking a lot to suggest to Americans that republicanism is despotism, that the president of the republic is devoid of morality, and has been the paragon of immorality. The media builds up the cult of the president, failing to mention things like the fact that in an Indian language, the word for president translates into "Burner of Villages." The American people can stop the dictatorship of the presidency, but they have to renounce the fascism of the republic.

To renounce the fascism of the republic, we must recognize the legitimacy of the restored civilian, constitutional monarchy, because there is no menu of options. The wave of history is moving in the direction of moral decency, and compensating for the wrongs of history. The republic embodies a backwards-looking institution that is characterized by police power, and brutality. The American kingdom that we are restoring bears the promise of freedom, whereby people will be entitled to do nothing but fulfill their own purposes. This may not meet the radical chic requirements of Barrabbas, but it is time tested.

The big lesson of the Alternative Movement of the 1960s and 1970s was that love is the power. Today this sounds hackneyed and cliche, but the bottom line is that people share what they love, and a political movement based on positive ideals has legs. Political movements based on upheaval and resentment turn into Nazi holocausts, that burn themselves out; like Robespierre, like Hitler. They self-destruct, even if they have temporary success. By creating a creed, you have to create a police to enforce the creed; that was what the Revolutions were all about. The media in the United States is fully dominated by politically correct protectors of the civic creed of the republic, a republic that has exposed itself to be venal, opportunistic, and criminal. The republic holds out a vision of people that is essentially bad, that police are always needed because people are inherently bad, and only the restraint of police keeps people from doing bad things.

The alternative, the restored ancient kingdom of America, on the other hand, does not hold that the people are evil, it recognizes that they have rights, legal and political rights, and it observes that the people are moved by decency, so that it is not alarmed that the people have rights. The kingdom has no creed, it is guided by nothing but the law, the law of the ancient constitution, a law that is knowable by all the nationals of the realm. This is important, because the law belongs to the people. Under the republic, the law belongs to the republic: written by lawyers, to the benefit of their clients, corporations. This essential difference makes the choice every American has to make, that much more significant, for the American individual is now faced with the question, shall this country be a kingdom or a republic?

Marc Eric Augustus Rex
REGENT OF THE UNITED STATES
KING OF ELY-CHATELAINE