One Ring to Rule Them All, Part First
Ayn Rand identified and described them in 1964, as both a condition and a threat. If you have a shelf of select references, her book of essays from 1971, Return of the Primitive is a must guide, for we have seen the process she described multiply and grow since the campus takeover at Berkeley in ’64, never quite knowing what we have been watching. (A noxious person, she is still very observant about the psychology of this time.)
Even Saul Alinsky probably didn’t realize how large the army he’d hoped to inspire could be raised—nor how muddled his own Marxist cause would become by the influx of new blood from succeeding generations, all from the same economic class, only subtly morphing with each successive one. He didn’t know how degenerated they could become, or the tools they could employ—by forces his own particular ‘ism had taught him to disregard, or may even believed didn’t exist.
Saul never knew that these creatures he was hoping to mold and shape in the 1960s would, in the end, forsake the substance of Karl, much as China has Mao, while still postering their rhetorical walls as well as their dorm rooms with Marxist liturgies— and, just like all those other ‘isms that had risen the past two centuries, would revert back to the worship of their original maker, a thing far more lethal, permanent and ancient.
I sometimes call this “maker” by a personal name, but it can just as easily go simply by “Ism”. But either way it is the One Ring that Rules them all. And bears no man’s name. Royalism works, for it all began with kings, the kings of 5000 years ago; Egypt, Sumer, the Zia of China, down to Macedon, Rome, and finally even the Christian kings, all who conquered, built, then passed on their conquests to blithering craven, self-indulgent children, who became so sated and corrupt that by natural laws they were finally thrown down and replaced by fresher kings, even Mongols, adding their lands and wealth to their own treasuries, only to repeat the process a century or two later, by the same natural process. Isms, as we now know know them, came very late in these cycles.
Just musical chairs, only, in the big picture, it was “All for nowt”, as they say in England.
But for the maker of the One Ring this was the perfect system for no matter how honorable and well-intentioned a king and his dynasty might begin, natural law would dictate that skid marks down the proverbial hill of survival would appear by the third or fourth generation, but always to be replaced by another version of this same king system, Royalism, thus keeping the One Ring’s power structure intact. Check the Old Testament Book of Kings, where only one in five kings did things that were “pleasing to God”. It was about the same with the Roman Empire, which was able to perpetuate itself for close to 700 years, the Zhou of China closer to 800.
But then in the Christian era there arose Feudalism, a refinement of Royalism, which, with the help of the Church, improved Royalism to a near perfect system because it formalized the system of land ownership secured by deeds, so that, even as Feudalism began to diminish as a political and economic system in the 15th Century because of the rise of the nation state (and the Great Plague), those kings’ and queens’ political power would slowly diminish into the 19th Century. Still, when the monarchy system was finally abandoned as a ruling force after World War I (1918) with the fall of the Hapsburgs’ (Austria-Hungary), Hohenzollerns’ (Prussian Germany) and the Romanovs’ (Russia) absolute monarchies, it would be 1100 years after the Church first christened the Feudal System as the property law of the land—yet still half the land of Europe was deed-titled to those royal families! They may have lost their heirlooms and royal prerogatives, but they retained their lands …and their rents. How rich? For instance, “Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom, and on the winning side of World War I, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land…one sixth of the earths non-ocean surface! The Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000), calculated at $5000/acre. (I think this is a bit high.)
On a smaller scale, to prove that even Marx-Lenin was unable to permanently undo this system outside of the USSR-proper, and how the ancient ‘ism outpaces the modern ‘isms, Bulgaria’s German appointed-king in 1918, Boris (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) was murdered in 1943, and the country turned into a Soviet satellite state in ’46. But when the Communists were thrown down in 1992, his son Simeon II returned from exile to Bulgaria to find his family’s ownership of their lands intact. He was elected prime minister 2001-2005.
(I have one of these original posters, when Simeon was a baby, from 1937, shown here with his sister, Marie Louise. If you’d like it, approx 24 x18. Just contact me at Tektrans@msn.com and make a fair offer.)
The whole point of understanding Royalism is to know that no matter how much they kill one another off, they will always be replaced by another version of the same royal-ism.
As I said, if there was a Satan this is the sort of thing its success would be based entirely on human frailties, all the evil things men pursue and do unto one another; greed, selfishness, pettiness, pride and self-love, wrath, envy, gluttony and sloth, any combination of which can guarantee the collapse of even the finest and most moral of families, usually in that three generation time span. The variations are too many and too delicious for any person or plan to come along and derail.
Rushing into the 20th and 21st Centuries, almost all the wealth and power of the world is derivative of that original wealth, not just in terms of the power of the dollar it generates, but in its sense of privilege, status, rank. In England they might think of their nouveau rich as ne’er-do-wells but may knight them anyway, allowing them to carry around that MBE, OBE or CBE after their name, and that Sir or Dame in front, from rock stars to successful business men and women, but most of those those titles are passed onto their children, (well maybe not for Sir Elton John) none of who will likely ever darken the door of a public school again, as dear old Dad, Sting, (Sir Gordon Matthew, CBE) the son of a hairdresser and milkman once did.
A permanent leg up.
A de classe new class of children arises, which two-three generations down the road, might just change the landscape of a nation. And not necessarily for the better.
(Hold this thought, for it will be the subject of the follow-up to this introductory. I have photos, even.)
Although they didn’t know it at the time, the arrival on the scene of the United States, 1782-1787, shook the foundations of this royal world order to the bone, for it was 1) created entirely by commoners, and 2) was based on their right to acquire property and make improvements to it, buy and sell, all based on their natural abilities. I’ve talked about these things for 10 years or more in these pages.
This was one of the most catastrophic twists in the Royalist world order, so don’t let them tell you otherwise.
If you reread the Declaration of Independence about Natural Law and peruse Thomas Paine’s Common Sense about what really is the natural law of common sense, (both of which also belong on that reference shelf) and acquaint yourselves with the thinking behind the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, then you will understand why the very existence of the United States threatens the very core of thinking about top-down government which had been the Law of World Government since the pharaohs, the One Ring.
“It’s those g-d’mned commoners’ ability to chose their own government class from among themselves”, which I’ve heard from the American “Illuminati”, right and left, since I was in college (at the time of Ayn Rand’s Berkeley.)
You can understand why they cannot co-exist, for one, by design, wishes to destroy the other, while the other, through natural law, wished to rescue them.
Actually, this has been known probably since 1787, but it was the Royalists’ thinking who first understood its implications. Those who are threatened are always alarmed first. And almost from the beginning. Karl Marx was just one of the early notables to go out on a limb to define the “disease”, knowing nothing of America, he wanted to tear down Europe first. It would be at least a century, maybe more, before America even knew our system was a target. As I mentioned, even Saul Alinsky didn’t know what kind of dynamite he was playing with, nor did Ayn Rand fully understand what sort of thing she was undressing.
We had to see the third generation first.
(I’ve put a limit on the length of my articles in the hopes I can keep the attention of GenXers, more especially millennials, those who have yielded to the “cellular cirrhosis” of media, so want to get onto the next step in this argument that addresses them directly.)
Time may be short in 2021, for those resurgent powers, somewhat restructured, feel they may have found that demon seed that can kill off this “freedom seed” planted in America. It begins with the simple notion that “Government itself should become a Royalist sector” and that the key to bringing the herd to its knees are these by-now millions of expendable cannon fodder produced by the gaudy wealth of their culture.
