Once again, I have gotten into something of a scuffle in Mr. Wright’s place. I said that I think it is extreme, indeed, wrong, to say that you’d rather die than doff your hat to a monarch. My position is that monarchy is, in fact, not a wicked system of government. A republic may be a better system of government, but the fact that we owe allegiance to a particular authority does not make us all slaves.
I’m not going to recap all three threads, though I encourage you all to read the comments, particularly of the first thread. Here are my impressions of the whole thing, at least thus far:
– I actually don’t think Mr. Wright is doing a particularly great job. He repeatedly expresses shock that any American might hold my position, when in fact most of the founding fathers did. Most were quite happy to remain British subjects as long as they had what they thought was just representation in government. The Olive Branch Petition comes to mind.
– Basically, the impression I get is that he thought his ideas so obvious, he didn’t think it worthy to address. The consequences of his ideas, though, make slaves of all of our ancestors. This certainly would be news to our ancestors’ slaves, who I’m sure would be happy to be the sort of slaves as the people who owned them.
– When Christ says to give Caesar what is due Caesar, he is saying that we owe something to Caesar, that is, the emperor, that is, the monarch.
– I suppose the biggest issue is one of consent. Why am I more of a free man because I owe deference to a Republican government than I am a free man because I owe deference to a monarchical government, that is to say, a single man? I did not consent to live in this republic. My one vote hardly affects matters. I am currently living under the rule of a President I did not vote for. So why is being born under the rule of a monarch any less free?
Sure, I didn’t consent to having him as my ruler, but I didn’t consent to live in a republic either. Mr. Wright says that I agreed to comply with the laws of the republic. This isn’t the case – I must abide by the rules that make up the foundation of the republic whether I agree to or not. Otherwise I go to jail.
– I find his repeated insistence that one living in a monarchy cannot debate with one’s authoritative superior rather tiring. Well, we clearly are debating it. It reminds me of Zeno’s Paradox: Perhaps movement should be impossible, but I just walked through the door, so…
On a personal level: It is very tiring to debate Mr. Wright. Much as I like him, his pen is, at least from my perspective, unnecessarily vicious, and I myself tend to have a vicious pen. So far Mr. Wright has called me these things:
- “Pathetic”
- Claimed I had “the soul of a slave”
- I am “content to kiss my chains and manacles”
- Am “craven and pusillanimous”
- I am “not man enough to share [Mr. Wright’s] opinion on this topic”
- “Should not be a writer”
Now, considering that I have worked as Mr. Wright’s editor, posted many reviews of his books, and have communicated with him on his blog quite a few times, I will attribute his extreme insults of my character to his passion for the subject. I am, though, a little annoyed that the man whom I edited and who is in an anthology in which two of my stories are appearing is telling me that I should not be a writer. Luckily, I wanted to be a writer before I talked to Mr. Wright, or else this might be more disappointing. It is rather rude, though.
Mr. Wright seems to have the impression that I do not take part in the political process. That will be news to my dad, the former mayor and current town committeeman, for whom I went door to door for more than one election, and for whom I spent hour upon hour helping prepare campaign ads to be dropped on people’s doorsteps. It will also be news to the nice people in the voting booth I see each election. And to the committee I worked with when I was a part of the campaign for a certain candidate’s election to the position of governor – I made phone calls for him (and met the candidate personally, who eventually won).
So you can get why I find such discussions with Mr. Wright tiring. He is not content to let the issues be the issues, but somehow finds ways to personally and creatively insult me at the same time. While it would be unfair of me to say that he is not responding to what I say, it is also hard not to get angry at somebody calling you pathetic and craven when I have taken as much care as I think can be expected to be polite.
But really, take a look for yourselves. I have nothing to hide. If you believe I should apologize, say so. I have no issue with it.
Malcolm the Cynic 
I think Wright is actually a good man, but this is what liberalism does to good men: anyone who does not accept the liberals’ premises is a Low Man, less than human — simply must be by the internal logic of the liberal’s political commitments. You see this in SJW’s, you see this in tarring and feathering of loyalists in the time of the American Revolution, and you see it in Wright’s treatment of people who question his commitment to liberty as the foundational principle of politics. Simply expressing the possibility of having a moral obligation to obey and be loyal to a monarch makes you contemptible, less than fully human.
This demonstrates the point I’ve been making for years: that the liberal’s insistence on political freedom leads to equality, and that equality implies that non-liberals or people in the way of liberalism are less than fully human. “Fraternity” in practice means “if you will not be my brother liberal I will crack your skull”.
I think Mr. Wright is a good man as well, but I was also hoping he’d give me a little more respect than he has such now considering our communication thus far.
The internal logic of his liberalism requires him to disrespect you.
Q: What do John C Wright, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Karl Marx, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and modern SJW’s manifestly have in common? We can talk about where they disagree, but what is more interesting is where they agree. (I could have included other more controversial names as well).
What would they all agree about if they were confined into a small room together?
A: Contempt for genuine binding authority vested in an actual real man or real men; that is, a commitment – of religious vehemence – to the principle of liberty, political freedom.
Hi Malcolm, it’s Cryptid456. We’ve met before, at another blog. If I had known you had one of your own, I’d have shown up months ago.
I find your position…intriguing. While I would hold that freedom is one of our most important virtues, I haven’t given a great deal of thought to other forms of government, except in comparison to Republicanism.
When I think of monarchies, while my first thought is of King George III and the American Revolution. I think, logically, that’s the position that John C. Wright takes. Wright is a fascinating, complex man, but I do agree he can be a bit obtuse. Certainly, I do not believe that Republicanism is inherently more virtuous than a monarchy–perish the thought! All one has to do today is watch the news concerning the election cycle. A Republic allows wicked views to be exposed and circulated across the country. A monarchy can repress wicked views.
I am tempted to reference Voltaire–“I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it.”
But I think it goes further than that. When the Israelites grew discontent yet again, they asked for a king. They wanted a king so they would be like the other nations. And so, God sent Samuel to anoint Saul. And then Saul grew too concerned with his power and turned away from God. So Samuel had to select a new king. King David is described as a man after God’s own heart. Kings came and went after David, some good but more bad.
And then I remembered that it wasn’t just the Levites who were meant to be the scribes and priests in Israel. It was meant that Israel would be an entire nation comprised of priests, scribes, monks and holy men.
By no means should you apologize.
This all supports my point, though. God named David his anointed one, and gifted Solomon with wisdom. To say that those clamoring for their kingship had the souls of slaves seems self-evidently nonsensical to me.
Also, welcome. As it happens I have not yet finished a full-length Correia work yet – I’ve been going through Stephen Lawhead’s Pendragon cycle, which has been such a joy to read that I’ve been more or less totally focused on that. But all in good time.
“I find his repeated insistence that one living in a monarchy cannot debate with one’s authoritative superior rather tiring. Well, we clearly are debating it. It reminds me of Zeno’s Paradox: Perhaps movement should be impossible, but I just walked through the door, so…”
About this one, you may find wright answers to my own comments in the sic semper tyrannis thread helpful. He doesn’t seem to deny possibility of debating yours superior, but believes that is not meaningful in practice, because at the end of the day decision belongs to the superior anyway.
So what does this have to do with what we’re talking about? And why is the fact that Mr. Wright is a citizen, in theory, of a totally different country than my own relevant to his authority over me?
Okay, the website reloaded and I have to start all over again. Oh well.
Hi Malcolm, it’s Cryptid456. We’ve met before, on another blog. If I had known you had a blog of your own, I would have shown up months ago.
I find your position intriguing, to be honest. I admit that although I read a bit of John C. Wright’s blog, it tends to be on the mechanics of story-telling. His political posts can get very long-winded, for better or worse.
Anyway, I would say that you are in no position where you have to apologize.
Your post here has made me think a lot. Sometimes I think Americans cling to their earthly freedom so tightly, they wind up turning it into an idol.
I adore living in a country governed as a republic, but I have to say that in living here, we are routinely exposed to ideas that are, to be blunt, evil. A republic may have freedom of the press, as well it should, but that point remains. A monarchy would allow for the restrictions on the exposure of not just distasteful but evil things.
But therein lies the problem I believe. Can a man be truly moral if given that amount of power? Man is mortal, and prone to failure. I am reminded of the Israelites. They, seeking to be like other nations, implored God to give them a king. God refused, insisting that they focus only on Him. Eventually, God sent His prophet Samuel to anoint Saul. Saul grew too fond of his power and turned away from God. King David was a man after God’s own heart, but his actions caused disaster for future generations. Solomon was desperate for wisdom, but he too turned astray.
Then there’s the idea that the Israelites were never meant to have an earthly king. God intended the entire nation to be a nation of monks, priests and scribes. And if it weren’t for the Golden Calf, it would have been.
I’ve been quite puzzled as well. I’ve been a regular there since 2009, and this is only the second time hubbub of this level has developed among what is normally an excellent discussion community. I have wondered if there’s a generation gap present – you said you’re 21, I’m 26 – and while your questions seemed perfectly straightforward to me, all the other interlocutors made little sense most of the time. There has been much heat and little light.
While I do think you have a legitimate grievance from Mr. Wright’s intemperate rhetoric, still I encourage you to stick around his blog, and if it’s mutually advantageous, continue working professionally in SF with him. I speak as a man who has been a guest in his house, eaten his food, and played role-playing games with his sons. I’m puzzled as to what provoked this current eruption, but John Wright is a good man, and I believe his rhetoric does not reflect genuine contempt for you. I hope peace can be made swiftly.
Indeed I will. My interactions thus far show this to be an outlier – he did insult me rather grievously once before, but gave a handsome apology soon after.
The really funny thing is that I am not a monarchist. If you can make a brilliant case that a republic is a far better form of government than a monarchy, go to town. My position actually happens to be the same as the majority of the founding fathers: Monarchies can be valid governments that are legitimate authorities over us. That’s it. If you want to make the case that republics are superior, then please, by all means do so.
The only thing I’ll ask right now is – would Wright kiss the Pope’s ring?
I did try to draw a couple of parallels between his position politically speaking and common Protestant theological positions, but they didn’t seem to register. I dunno, I don’t seem to be very good at this whole arguing on the internet thing; folks usually seem to think my position is radically different from what it actually is.
You were quite right, and that section of the argument struck me as the most incoherent of all of them.
I was struck by the same thought. If one is so unwilling to submit oneself to a temporal authority, how are they able to effectively submit oneself to a spiritual one?
I suppose I’m in a bit of an opposite position. I’m a loyal subject of Queen Elizabeth (whether or not the current arrangement is anything approaching an actual monarchy is certainly up for debate), but personally have a more difficult time accepting an intercessor between God and myself, other than Christ, in the person of the Pope. I feel it takes some twisting of logic to hold the views Wright was espousing.
To Zippy’s incisive analysis re: Low Man, I can only add that classifying an interlocutor as a Badthinker is a common self-defense mechanism amongst liberals to defend against serious challenges to the worldview.
So it’s not personal, it’s instinct.
I have only posted on his blog once before and, indeed, had only discovered the man even existed earlier this year when a friend linked me to his wordpress. Myself being in the legal profession, a catholic and interested in writing (haven’t dared submit a manuscript to anyone, I don’t know where to begin and I hear nightmare stories about the industry), I have much to find agreeable about the man, what he thinks, what he writes about and so forth. but I had felt compelled to interject on this latest kerfuffle because of my own monarchist leanings.
I have only ever made note of Wright speaking as he has on this occasion, when addressing people like SJWs or other, similarly loathsome people who possess loathsome minds. It is where he uses his rhetorical flourish to augment his reasoned points and often to their best effect and make his posts a pleasure to read, even if you don’t wholly agree with every point made. This time his arguments are not coherent, his is the expression of bewilderment, alarm, and inquiring as to a person’s age and tribe of birth, as if by such means elciit some reason as to how anyone could find anything to disagree with in his most recent assertions by blaming his birth. I have seen him move the goalposts, I have seen him insult others, dismiss debate and argument, even to the point of arguing that Leichenstein is not a proper monarchy because its monarch, despite having actual power, cannot kill people for lese majeste. Which on its own is ludicrous.
I have seen this pretty much everywhere before, though I do not know nor will I speculate on the particulars of Mr.Wright’s passions regarding the matter, though I am disappointed that a man as learned as he is would act as he has on this occasion.
The consequences of his ideas, though, make slaves of all of our ancestors.
Not to mention a good number of saints, who were quite happy to show respect to their monarchs.
In fact, I’d say that the standard saintly approach to monarchy, insofar as we can talk of such a thing, seems to have been to honour and respect the monarch as far as was consistent with the duty to honour and respect God. It most definitely wasn’t choosing death over making a trivial gesture of respect.
Mr. Wright says that I agreed to comply with the laws of the republic.
I don’t see how that’s the case with republics any more than with monarchies.
I find his repeated insistence that one living in a monarchy cannot debate with one’s authoritative superior rather tiring.
Reminds me of an altercation recorded between the Roman Emperor Hadrian and a woman he happened to meet on one of his travels. The woman came up with a petition for something or other, only have the Emperor tell her that he was far too busy to listen to some random peasant woman’s concerns. “Then stop being Emperor,” came the reply. Hadrian stopped and listened to her petition.
OK, so it’s not technically a debate. Still, I think it nicely illustrates that in some monarchies even very lowly citizens could get away with a fair bit of lip. You can’t really generalise about monarchies on this matter; so much depends on the general customs of the country, and even the personality of the individual monarch.
“one living in a monarchy cannot debate with one’s authoritative superior”
But this is absolutely correct. A King can only be advised, not argued with. He is the Sovereign after all.
Political freedom, defined as deliberation about the common ends, is the purpose that people live in a society. So, it should be appreciated.
A king can and has been argued to hell and back. Most often by nobles but more than people think by commoners. For most of its existence prior to the revolution, any French subject could actually enter the palace on business to petition the king, Irish kings (prior to British conquest) were challenged regularly by their clansmen and lessers and even slaves in debate. In Byzantium, a land were a slave could become emperor, and all classes mingled around the chariot races, the sovereign can and did engage in debate with his lessers on a regular occurrence, often over drinks were tempers would flare. Even the Tsars of Russia would be petitioned and, in the case of one Tsarina, argued into abrogating a constitution which favored the noble aristocracy by a congress of common folk who were not eager to have an oligarchy utilize the royal powers. And these latter two were CERTAINLY not the feudal monarchs of Western Europe and possessed the plenitude of power.
A man’s sovereign is his sovereign but they are both still men, and you can fundamentally argue with a man no matter his station because he is a man, even if he is your lord. This has been the common understanding of western man since at least the Fall of the Western Empire, not the God king of barbarian despotates or the heretical nonsense of divine right.
That depends. What are the limits to his powers?
Again the limits were very dependent on where you are and the culture you have and, indeed, may not even be as clear cut as it appears. Take the Asian despotic empires for example, which are repugnant in their nature to pretty much any western man born after the reign of Constantine. They are what we typically think of when referring to all powerful monarchs who reign absolutely (when we’re not thinking of Western Examples at least), yet even here you had things like the old Vietnamese saying “The Emperor’s authority stops where the village begins”
And then you had the clannish monarchies of Ireland at the other extreme, which were nothing if not confederations (clans) built upon confederations (a tuathe) all vying for leadership of the greater national confederation (the high kingship), where the clan chieftain was chosen usually by election amongst the clan based on criteria and the local king chosen from the suitable members of the royal clan by the chieftains or ‘chosen cousins’ of the Tanistry system. Both had rulers, both wore crowns, both were obeyed in war and peace (or in the case of Ireland, in sport, which was a mixture of the two in pre-Christian times) and yet had not one wit in common with one another. In law nor custom nor even knowledge of one another.
Is one more monarchical than the other? Wright would believe so although frankly that makes no damn sense in the wider context of human history, not just in the Christian west but even when we take into account the rest of the world. Despite monarchy being the most common system of governance for all of human history there is hardly a single unifying trait to said system between times and places, (not even hereditary succession. The Romans were actually famous for the volatility of their succession disputes even when hereditary, which continued into the Byzantine era and is incomparable to the relative stability of the succession in hereditary kingdoms of Christian Europe. The same problem plagued Islamic realms to the point were the Kingdom of Jerusalem utterly fascinated the elites of the surrounding Islamic realms precisely because of the relative stability of its succession and its manner of Councillor government where the king consulted his knights on matters of Justice and lawmaking despite being, by all accounts, a kingship founded by conquest and strength of arms.) probably because unlike modern political theories it isn’t a ‘system’ at all, and the attempts to take one example out of human history and use it as the base example for all monarchy everywhere forever like some kind of platonic shape is an exercise in Descartian folly. Its as if I took the example of the Carthaginian republican system and judged all republics based on whether or not it had slavery and blood sacrifice and elder rule to be worthy of the name. Or more accurately, taking Sparta as the exemplar kingdom and Athens as the exemplar republic. I’d rightly be considered foolish for doing so.
Typically, in order to answer your question fairly, the limits to a king’s power depends greatly on the culture that produces said kingship, there is no one size fits all rule here. If you have a brutal culture, you will have a brutal kingship, or even a brutal republic. Just look at the Middle East in the modern era which has both as a rule almost without an exception (I say almost because Turkey was kind of sorta okay the last fifty years. So long as you weren’t a Kurd, Armenian or Assyrian). That much I think I can agree with Mr. Wright about, if you have a people weakened and fearful, you will have tyranny and loss of Freedom, just look at the modern police states in the West (lets be honest and call a rodent a rodent), no matter how shiny the bread and circuses they have access to. Compare this to medieval men, not just in England but in most Christian realms, the republics included (there were actually a surprisingly large number of free cities and republics in that era) who had many feast days and celebrations but the nature of these were not as distractions to lull them into false sense of security over their place in life. Not like the circuses of Rome that came before, or the distractions of these latter ages.
You can theoretically ‘build’ a kingdom, which is exactly what the Kingdom of Belgium is which is criticized as an artificial nation by many (though many monarchists defend it because the king, quite literally, is the ONLY unifying factor in that country’s existence and is actually the only reason it had a functioning government for a number of years when the parliament basically dissolved itself because of political squabbling). monarchies are actually famously good both as ethnarchies (as most monarchies tended to be by default, not out of racism but simply because that is how they came to be) and as multi-lingual and multicultural empires. Largely because the king is seen as a father figure, quite literally, in social contexts so that two men with nothing in common with each-other, still held a filial bond, this is best expressed in the Austro-Hungarian empire which, for all its faults and grievances of the various constituencies of the empire, did share a love of the emperor, if not necessarily a love of the empire under him.
This is my obvious bias speaking as a monarchist so take that into account when I say this, its why I think monarchy is the most human of governance we can devise because its very nature is to be a product of the specific genius of the people who produce it. It is not built, so much as it is grown. And its limits are the limits the forest places upon its great oaks.
Since when has political freedom been defined as deliberation about the common ends? And the purpose for which people live in a society is to achieve common ends, surely, not merely to deliberate about them?
What else is “political freedom” except freedom to deliberate about common good?
Pls see the first chapter of Belloc’s French Revolution.
Hrodgar:
Since when has political freedom been defined as deliberation about the common ends?
Ever since it has become convenient to do so for the [classical] liberal. Wright cooks up his own definition in the second post to support his stance, and quotes approvingly yet another definition in the third.
I find it intriguing how a Catholic can have the angry rhetoric Mr Wright is showing towards authority. How does he square the circle with our Monarchs whom are declared saints? Or with Thomas Aquinas and his opinions expressed in Summa about the issue? If those who bow to a monarch are slaves, he is devoted to a whole history of telling people to do just that!
The more I read Aquinas and Augustine, the more I think men like Mr Wright believe humanity has moved onwards and conquered parts of original sin. I’m with Zippy on this; Johns liberalism has gone to his head and makes him more confident on the matter than I think he has cause to be, like a rush of drugs and adrenaline.
Ironically, his whole argument is structured as an argument from authority, when railing against the idea someone might have authority over him. His logic is mentally revolting.
When I asked him how a king could be a Saint (as several are, as well as more than one emperor), he replied “the same way a rich man could be a saint”.
My next question was “So, you don’t consider it inherently immoral to be a king?”
He responded that of course he did, then asked me where he implied otherwise.
But…but…
Do I really need to say it?
Yeah. He has no grasp of natural law on the subject. This is all basic, BASIC, stuff. On a natural level a ruler is good, as long as he leads to the growth of common goods in his country. This is actually much easier as a monarch. On a spiritual level, Thomas Aquinas argued in favor of it on grounds that it most closely resembles the heavenly kingdom, and thus will aid man in striving towards it. However, Aquinas cautioned against it in that it is easily corrupted, NOT on it as an intrinsic evil. He argued the best government would have aspects of all.
However, the core is that all power comes from God. The Church holds that still. A Kings authority does as well; to rail against kings is to rail against The King of kings.
The church teaches that governments are measured by how well they keep souls out of hell and lead to heaven. Looking at Wrights own writing at Alt-right, he makes a case against himself for the middle ages
Pingback: On doffing your hat to the king and concrete shoes | Zippy Catholic
Malcolm,
If you do not mind, I would welcome your feedback (here) on these:
http://kingdomofedan.blogspot.com/2014/06/shopping-for-nations-short-entry.html
on the nature of government and monarchy
http://kingdomofedan.blogspot.com/2014/09/fads-focus-leadership-and-why-democracy.html
on some of the failures of republics
http://kingdomofedan.blogspot.com/2013/09/choosing-illusions.html
Hopefully a clear post
Thanks in advance
Hello and welcome.
Your posts are quite interesting. Please excuse me if I don’t reply for a little bit; it’s a lot to chew on. But you’re articulate and reasonable, and when I have had time to gather some thoughts I will respond.
I noticed you had an image of Blessed Charles I in your sidebar. You might be interested in taking a look at some old articles I wrote on the Saints and Blesseds, including three Emperors:
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Blessed-Charles-I-of-Austria
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/St-Constantine-the-Great-Equal-to-the-Apostles
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Blessed-Charles-the-Great
Thank you for sharing those!
(I actually found Constantine the most interesting, as I’m not sure how genuine his Christianity really was. The Church has its small t traditions, but I’m not so sure.)
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/12/16 | Free Northerner
Haha, you guys in favor of monarchy sound like Ignatius in “A Confederacy of Dunces.” He, too, was a smart guy. And he was anti-democratic and wanted to return to monarchy. (Yeah, a smart guy who argued like that is going to happen. And of course I suppose he thought that in a monarchy he would be one of the ubermensch and not put up against a wall.)
Description of Ignatius-“modern day Don Quixote-eccentric, idealistic, and creative, sometimes to the point of delusion.” and “a perverse Thomas Aquinas—he disdains modernity—he goes to movies in order to mock their perversity and express his outrage with the contemporary world’s lack of “theology and geometry.” “He prefers the scholastic philosophy of the Middle Ages and the Early Medieval philosopher Boethius in particular.”
Arguing for the monarchy is like me wondering what kind of weapons I would attach to my arms if I was a 20 foot tall killer robot. (I want a rotator canon on the right with power claw and flamer on my left.)
(Unless and untill God forbid, it all ends in blood and we actually do devolve into fractured kingdoms run by warlord monarchs with techno barbarian warriors. Let’s see how that works out. Wait– we don’t have to. Go to the really horrible places in Africa. Or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—know that owning a bible their can get your right hand not just cut off, but sliced off by 40 or 50 separate razor thin cuts. Yeah, MONARCHS—(the King is just looking out for his culture and people.)
Why don’t all you smart pro monarchy types leave this rodent police state and head over to some real, honest to goodness monarchies like they have in the Middle East—real philosopher kings just chillin with the homies. Or Charles II of Spain—his jaw was so badly deformed he couldn’t barely speak or chew. Indulged to the extent he didn’t have to go to school or keep himself clean. (Of course he was physically and mentally disabled and didn’t learn to speak until4 or walk until 8. But if he saw your girlfriend (or 8 year old son) and wanted to bone them they were taken away and royally boned by the retard.
Sorry, but Christ, you guys mentally masturbating about monarchy choke me. I really, truly hope you get to live under it.
Regarding Zippy at the top here saying Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan, et. al., all have in common : “Contempt for genuine binding authority vested in an actual man” (or “real men,” whatever that means–vs unreal men?) he is absolutely, positively right and I am one with that contempt–although I would call it fear or lack of trust in letting anyone have absolute power over me. Rather than be optimistic and anticipate that monarch acted like an authoritarian CEO who wanted the best for the country. Rather than Caligula. Cause you are gonna get a Caligula.
I would rather let a crazy chick I just met in a bar chain me to a bed in such a way that I was totally helpless than live under a monarch’s power.
Really, are these pro-monarchy guys paying dominatrix’s to dominate and humiliate them in their off hours? Where does this desire to be subject to absolute authority come from? Why do you want a King?
Take a deep breath, read the stuff real people are actually saying, talk to your therapist again, and then try and say something smart.