ROYALISTS and REPUBLICANS
The Republic vs Monarchy debate rages on, political commentator Joshua S Howes weighs in with a Nationalist perspective [5 Minutes Read]
Article by Joshua S Howes, host of Australia First
The ascendancy of King Charles III to the throne has been met with a variety of reactions from Conservatives and Nationalists in Australia, not all of which have been positive. As a result, I thought it best to outline the positions that factions within the right have taken, including the position of Australia First. Essentially, there are four perspectives. They include anti-Monarchist Nationalists, Monarchist Nationalists, anti-Monarchist Conservatives, and Monarchist Conservatives. For the rest of this article, I will define these respective groups, the opportunities (or lack thereof) that Charles III’s Kingship has created for them, and which faction I myself identify with.
Anti-Monarchist Nationalists aka “Republicans”
This faction is comprised mainly of members of the ‘alt-right’. Many proponents of such a position belong to a slightly older generation of the dissident right-wing, in these circles Neo-Paganism or Atheism enjoy a broader following than Christianity. In the absence of a Christian faith, their Nationalism creates a tendency towards modernism that spurns tradition in pursuit of self-determination and independence from the British. Think Jonathan Bowden or Morrisey, if they were Australians. Both possess admirable qualities, but nevertheless in the absence of any tradition, be it Monarchism or Traditionalism itself, the result is empty and hollow. Anti-Monarchist Nationalism is not limited to the alt-right however, many self described ‘Patriotic Socialists’ share the same position. Of course, this comes as no surprise: Socialism is inherently egalitarian and hostile to Monarchism, which in contrast propounds hierarchy and inheritance. In the United States, Haz from Infrared would be a perfect example of this. While there are fewer figures like this in Australia, @nedkellymaoist and @shagxon on Twitter come to mind.
Australian Republicans have much to gain from King Charles III taking the throne, not least of all because it increases the likelihood of the nation becoming a republic. Anyone will admit that he is less popular than his mother, despite 60% of Australians wanting him to remain King of this country. He has much time to ruin his reputation, and external events that would contribute to this are difficult to forecast. At the same time, the various right-wing subsets of this faction has greater cause for despair. To them, King Charles is marred by his association with the World Economic Forum (WEF), his assosciations with prominent Jewish individuals and of course, his own tiny portion of Jewish ancestry. Many of these above-mentioned concerns were not attached to his mother, which abated many fears for a time. Nontheless Charles’ coming to the throne has seen a rebirth of this alarm among right-wing anti-monarchists that King Charles will work to further cooperation between the WEF and the United Kingdom.
Monarchist Nationalists aka “Christian Nationalists(?)”
My favourite! This is where I would place myself and the Australia First movement as a whole. I am inclined to attach such a faction to the recent rise of a broader Christian Nationalist movement. This is due to the British monarch’s unique role as ‘Defender of the Faith’, a title that they have held ever since it was granted to King Henry VIII by Pope Leo X, ironically. Ever since then, the King (and sometimes Queen) of England has stood as an enduring pillar against secularism, atheism, and unfortunately for some, Catholicism. Specifically, the Church of England is supremely governed by this monarch. I can fathom no greater or more beautiful marrying of Christianity and Nationalism than the institution of the Church of England. It is a national Church governed by he who likewise governs the nation. Furthermore, if the King must be Protestant, and implicitly Anglo-Saxon, then it logically follows that his country must by necessity also be these things.
I would argue that Monarchist Nationalists have little to gain from Charles III becoming King. He is no more nationalist than his mother was, and is certainly less Protestant. Instead, there is good reason to believe that he privately holds a faith in Eastern Orthodoxy. Perhaps this could lead to a growing support among Orthodox Nationalists for the new Monarch. Those who would normally support the British Monarch for religious reasons however (that is to say, Protestant loyalists), are not so pleased. We can be certain that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II had a genuine Protestant faith, so her passing is a shame, no matter how inevitable it was. The only silver lining is that a new King means a new push for a Republic, giving us the opportunity to make our case for monarchy, and putting us and our ideas back in the spotlight.
Anti-Monarchist Conservatives aka “Boomercons”
This faction is comprised of your standard “boomer” conservative. Brainwashed by countless hours of Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder, the only appeal of King Charles III to them IS his consorting with countless Jews. But the rest of it - his environmentalism, his association with the WEF, his support of Islam, are all deal breakers. While this group is “conservative”, their disdain for big government and hereditary rule put them outside the camp of Traditionalists, meaning that not even Charles’ anti-modernism is attractive to them. As most of these types reside in America anyhow, the whole matter interests them very little, so they are perhaps the most indifferent of them all. As previously stated, many anti-monarchists tend to be non-Christians too. The only Australian who could potentially fit this description would be the little known Devon Tracey, otherwise known as Atheism is Unstoppable, who debated Nick on gun control many years ago. He hasn’t revealed his opinion of Charles though, so I shouldn’t be too hasty.
This faction of the “right” wins some and loses much. On one hand, as already mentioned, Charles is far less popular than his mother, increasing the likelihood for Australia to turn to Republicanism. That being said, most of this group consists of Americans, or Australians who have spat in the face of their ancestors by moving to America. Their losses then, are far greater. In their mind, King Charles III is an evil overlord, consorting with the WEF against his own people just as King Charles I consorted with Catholics and the Ir*sh to quell the Roundheads. While they find comfort in the fact that he’s sure to not rule for any longer than 10 years, they suspect that in that 10 years, Britain will fall even deeper into the gutter because of him.
Monarchist Conservatives aka “Traditionalists”
Finally, we arrive at the Traditionalists. Many figures in Australia represent this faction, including Tony Abbott, Cory Bernadi, and the late based B.A. Santamaria. The Australian Monarchist League would obviously be the organisation that as a whole best represents this group. This group is unfortunately dying out, and has been doing so ever since the supplantment of the Paleoconservatives by the Neoconservatives following the Second World War. Instead, they have been replaced by nationalists that are only a little less socially conservative than they were. They are of course attracted to King Charles III for his relentless traditionalism and outspoken support for the Temenos Academy and Sacred Web. These two organisations derive from the Traditionalist, or Perennialist School of philosophy, which propounds primordial truths in opposition to relativism and postmodernism. Significantly, Julius Evola, Steve Bannon, and far-right conspiracy theorist Olavo de Carvalho all associated themselves with the Traditionalist school, just as Charles does.
This group obviously has the most to gain, with Charles being far more openly traditionalist than his mother, outweighing any disadvantages that stem from his relative unpopularity. Speaking to a Sacred Web conference, Charles calls the premises of modernity false. He calls for a yearning for the sacred and the divine, and a defence of the past because it so treasured the sacred and divine. He argues that Traditionalist principles are as true now as they ever will be, in comparison to modernism’s false definition of reality. Instead, he argues, modernism is cut off from reality - subhuman, disconnected and deracinated. He criticises materialist science, asserting that it distorts our view of reality and prevents us from unlocking the knowledge of the heart. Information, he posits, is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom. With the loss of Traditionalist values and principles, we lose touch with perennial wisdom, and thus become unwise.
So there you have it! The four factions that the right have taken in response to Charles III’s Kingship. I hope this has at the very least allowed you to better understand which group you yourself most strongly identify with. It is along this grid that the battle lines of the upcoming Republican debate will be drawn at the second Albanese Ministry in 2025. Within the next two and a half years, each faction will be attempting to draw you into their corner. Consider who is in which corner, who you do and do not want to associate yourself with, and ultimately, what sort of man you think Charles is.
Joshua S. Howes is the host of Australia First, a YouTube political talk show. He streams every Wednesday at 8pm AEST.