A Short Defense of Allodial Lordship

If you were to open up a book that was relevant to the subject or perhaps a dictionary, you would find in
general terms, allodial titles is a property law concept. It exists only in isolated incidents contemporarily,
but I believe this is the first step to bringing ourselves back to the brink. An allodial title is one which is
irrevocable, transferrable, and has no conditions related to its use. There is no superior landlord, not
even the government which might have sold it to you.
See why it doesnt really exist anymore? It really is the stuff of kingship, where you do not have a
superior who makes your ownership of the land conditional such as as long as you pay taxes. And
whenever I advocate for an allodial monarchy, I do not mean simply for the king. Now, let me clarify.
Sure, in order to be a part of a kingdom or a citizen of a country, you have to have allegiance to that
state entity, thats how it works in todays world.
Well, believe it or not, this is a fairly recent invention, one I would love to relegate to the dustbin of
history. If you are a landowner, the state should not have any authority, regardless if you are gentry or
commoner, to take away your property. The only exception is if it was used as collatoral in a loan. Now,
the king or chief landlord has every right in the world to award lands or titulars that are conditional. If
you earned your land on your own and have reasonable right to declare yourself as a baron or earl, you
would be one in your own right. That means you did not receive it from the king and you have the deed
to the lands.
Believe me whenever I tell you that people who are responsible for their own property are more
responsible to its use and to the people their ownership affects, such as tenants who rent or sharecrop
on your land. You are responsible for their wellbeing, not that you dont also profit from their hard work.
What is the point of titulars and kingship? In simple and understandable terms, it puts a face to justice,
stewardship, and ownership. It makes someone hold responsibility. It isnt enough that we own our
property without dispute, we also need our government to be held to the same stringent understanding
of justice, ownership, stewardship, and more. But more importantly it puts a family front and center, not
just some politician.
Tell me, would you rather be judged by someone who has an interest in the opinion of those he rules
and who also has to pass on whatever situation to his flesh and blood? The ultimate reason for nobility
and kingship is that it gives rights where natural, not to appease the latest special interest group. No one
is above these codes of conduct, not even the king. Everyone will be responsible for how they act as an
individual. Your success or failure is your own and people will not care just because you are a minority.
Your merit will be the basis for furthering where you end up.
Here is where you tell me that those who inherit their throne do not earn what is theirs by birthright and
it is wrong to pass on the throne to those untested. First, those who could not retain power on their own
historically were forced to step down or install a regency of some form. Not even the king truly rules on
his own. Despotism is a myth. Even Nazi Germany was not truly a despotic regime. Neither were the HRE
emperors or the true Roman emperors themselves.

Kings are groomed from birth to rule. They are surrounded by aristocrats, nobles, gentry, all of whom
will educate him in the ways of war, diplomacy, stewardship, morality, and how to rule. With a system
where land owners of the kingdoms ethnicity being those who hold power second to the king (which in
reality is how all kingdoms work, regardless of what has been on paper throughout the centuries), they
have a vested interest in the happiness and prosperity of those who do not own land and themselves.
They have to live there. That is where the accountability really comes into play. Everyone has an address.
Everyone has to live in whatever they make out of their realm. What ruler wants to strip their country as
fast as they can, to leave nothing for their familial heir? No one! This phenomenon happens in republics,
democracies, anywhere that has an unlimited voting franchise.
Politicians have no motivation to not theive their country dry. Take the US for example. There is no way
to get rich without being a crook. Every modern era politician whose sole occupation was public service
that has a networth over a million dollars achieved that accumulation of wealth through trading favors or
worse state secrets. Since they cannot pass them on to their familial heir, what purpose do they have
in seeing their investment (in this case the economy and well-being of their citizens) multiplying in
prosperity? None. It does not affect them personally. We know that people who own their house treat it
better than those who just rent it. They have no interest in the property value increasing. The same is
absolutely true of politicians.
This conclusion of a return to real monarchy, where one rules instead of simply reigning is all due to the
current state of all modern day democracies and the Western world. If you are Caucasian, you know our
world is becoming increasingly complex and small. We are being pushed out by other ethnicities and
even amongst ourselves we have grown factional due to special interests, whether corporate or groups
of people. Instead of going through the list of the whos, I will instead just get straight to the why.
Nietzsche explained it beautifully in a combination of two of his works. To Nietzsches defense, he was
merely highlighting the obvious, not what his sense of morality was personally. He called it the slave
revolt in morals.
This can be an entire paper on its own so I will try to shorten it for the purposes of the overall writing.
Being an aristocrat, land owner, or wealthy or poor, frail, or weak was the moral associations set forth by
the warrior caste.
One was considered good, the other bad to be healthy, wealthy, and wise or sick, pitiful, and
uneducated was what made or broke you back then. The aristocrat saw that the world should be what
you made it, whether you failed or succeeded. The poor, as it is written and from what I have witnessed
myself is one where everything must be equal or fair as the poor determine it.
The origin of all the factionalism is those who are have nots seeking their revenge on what they see as
the ungrateful haves. The world is unfair, but if it wasnt. wed all be equally poor and destitute, as there
would be no allowance of one to be better off, for it would be privilege.

Nietzsche saw slave morality as fearful and pessimistic, arguing that from shifting the blame to the
system and those who were in power it allowed those without, in the spirit of equality, to overcome
their situation without hating themselves, by attacking institutions and law to gain special privilege that
otherwise would not exist naturally.
Subversion is what kills states, especially republics and democracies. By restricting franchise to only
those who own the lands collectively ensures they get to live in the country they design, which is fair in
the correct sense; in the hands of wealthy people who dont need to rely on anyone or any entity, who
are educated, who naturally have a right to what is theirs.
This doesnt mean that commonwealths wouldnt exist. A market economy would still exist as well.
Purchasing land that is up for sale can give you a seat at the table. Work hard and succeed, but do not
expect for anyone to owe you anything you did not earn with your own sweat.
What is a nation? It is a group of people that have common roots, ancestory, and traditions. It is
ethnicity. It is locality. That is what a monarchy will bring to you. A family, an extended family. And
where I come from at least, in the American South, family leans on family, helps each other and wants
them to succeed all together.
If what you were looking for was the majority rules, you will be disappointed. If you were looking for
minorities who wish to gain more power for themselves, I cant help you at all. Those who are most fit to
rule should rule. Those who own where they live, they should come first. No one should come before the
family. Whether that is your own, or the family that carries out its business as lords.