A STEEL-cameralist Manifesto Part 4C3: American Fascism (A Feast Of Fascism).

1: Introduction.

2: Formal Cause.


3: Material Cause (Caste analysis).

3A: The Soldiers (Guns).

3B: The Merchants (Gold).

3C: The Priests (God).

3D: Fascism and Caste.

3E: Napoleon V Hitler.

3F: Soldiers and Fascists.

3G: Communism, Tranzism and Caste.

3H: Harvard: the “HQ” of the Tranzi Empire.

3I: Summary of the Primary and Auxiliary Castes of the Three Fascist Systems.

3J: Neo-cameralist and STEEL-cameralist Castes.


4: Efficient Cause.


5: Final Cause.

5A: Fascist Imperial Energy.

5B: Fascism: Form and Reality.


6: A Note on Fascism and Left and Right.


1: Introduction.

Today, we will have a feast.

A feast of fascists.

In this post, we will try to provide a more systematic classification of the similarities and differences between the three fascist systems.

The three systems are:

1: Tranzi (Trans-national-progressivism).

2: Communist fascism.

3: Nazi and Italian Fascism.

We will analyse and draw distinctions using an “Aristotelian” analysis.

What we mean by “Aristotelian” analysis is analysing political regimes using our, specially re-purposed, four causes of Aristotle.

Formal cause refers to the regime’s political structure. Material cause refers to the castes that make up the regime. Efficient cause refers to how the regime implements its vision. Final cause is the end for which the regime acts.


2: Formal Cause.

The first question to answer is what is the political form of fascism? There are three possible political forms: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

Firstly, none of the regimes were monarchies in the sense that the regime were rule by one (we will address the concept of dictatorship shortly) and that even if this one – king – died or was killed, the line of succession was absolutely clear and legally formalised.

Fascists are not formalists.

Secondly, none of the above regimes were aristocratic. By aristocratic, we mean rule by both the few and the best:  men from “distinguished” families – distinguished in war and statecraft, that is.

That leaves us with democracy.

Not quite.

Since we accept the truth of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, direct, majoritarian democracy is impossible; this tells us little, however.

Formally, fascism is democratic – in the sense that it claims to rule in the interests of “most” people; certainly, the “common” people – as opposed to aristocratic, financial or religious elites.

In reality however, fascism means rule by a one-party-state oligarchy.

In terms of the formal cause then, all kinds of fascism share two essential properties:

A: a Political Party with the goal of capturing and permanently controlling the state.

B: a dictatorial, “scientific” bureaucracy that runs the state.

Thus, TUJ writes that:

The 20th century has been the century of scientific dictatorship….. bureaucratic dictatorship

Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were one-party states but in America it still has a two-party duopoly with nominally free elections. This has helped disguise the fact that in reality, as opposed to form, American is a one-party-state.

All three systems involve cults of personality around their respective leaders and these leaders operate, with varying degrees of absoluteness, on the command principle.

One of the features of Tranzi fascism is that the Kabuki theater of presidential elections allows for the continuous re-creation of a cult of personality. A new cult can develop every eight years or so (think Trump; Obama; Reagan; Kennedy).

After Hitler, there would never have been a Nazi leader that could have caused such excitement again but with the Tranzi system the great leader with “hope and change” emerges time and time again and time again.

Nevertheless, the focus on dictatorship – least prominent in Tranzi fascism – obscures the fact that all  fascist systems created a vast bureaucracy that, in America’s and the Soviet Union’s case, would have outlived each dictator and is of far more consequence long-term.

For instance, it is likely that Nazism, had it survived, would have developed into the same kind of faceless bureaucracy that took shape in Communist Russia or that now exists in the European Union.

In summary, we can say that all three systems share the feature of what we can call “totalitarian democracy” or “bureaucratic dictatorship”.

The key difference – perhaps the most important difference in terms of the formal cause –is that the Tranzi state is deeply informal and well camouflaged with the media, NGO’s, charities, and Foundations exercising vast informal power outside the formal state, which the majority of people do not know about and do not understand.

Tranzi fascism is foxy.


3: Material Cause (Caste Analysis).

Material cause refers to the caste of men who rule.

We go with a simple model of three key, politically important, castes: Soldier, Merchant and Priest (Guns, Gold and God). What’s missing is “worker” or “peasant”, but they don’t rule and never will.

No caste rules alone though; thus, a dominant caste will always have to have an auxiliary caste. In the past, some states developed a formalised system (such as Confucian China) with each caste placed into a functional hierarchy.

Throughout most of history, just like today, the castes that are the most politically important and the castes that both need and often don’t want each other is the Soldier and Priest caste.

This is how it should be:


Not this:

Let’s begin with the Soldier caste because there is a common presumption that fascism corresponds to the “Soldier” caste.

3A: The Soldiers. (Guns).

What we mean by a regime of “soldiers” is that the actual, existing, military becomes the state. This can happen either via conquest or coup d’etat. Model examples of “soldier” regimes would be Julius Caesar’s; Napoleon’s; Franco’s and Pinochet’s and to a lesser extent Chiang Kai Chek’s; Park Chung-hee’s; and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s.

The Soldier regime is led by a high ranking officer (usually the head of the army or a general) with other officers serving as the regime’s Elites and Essentials. In a Soldier regime, the Elites and Essentials have all attended military college and, crucially, have all spent most of their career in the military.

The crucial distinction between a Soldier regime and a fascist one is that fascists are “professional politicians” who, via democratic means and methods or violent revolutionary ones, gained political power as members of a political party with a pre-established ideological platform.

Usually, a Soldier regime results from a political crisis.

The main focus of the regime is to restore order, stability and the economy.

The jointly necessary and sufficient set of conditions for a Soldier regime is that it is led by senior, currently serving military officers and founded on conquest or a coup and governed in such a way as to restore peace, security, law and economic development.

Napoleon’s early regime 1800-1805 is a prime example.

3B: The Merchants (Gold).

We find it doubtful that there has ever been a pure “Merchant” regime in history.

First, what do we mean by Merchant?

We mean a man who makes his living via buying and selling or making and selling. The Merchant caste ranges from shop-keeper to merchant banker. It is important, however, to distinguish between a car salesman and a stock-jobber on Wall Street – between entrepreneurs who live by their wits and white collar men who work in large corporations as managers . “Corporate man” or “the manager” is closer to the Priest/technocrat caste than that of a true Merchant one.

The reason that a pure Merchant regime has probably never existed, and in fact may well be a political solecism, is that Merchants, by necessity, are not interested in politics intrinsically. Merchants are interested in politics only instrumentally.

In other words, they are not interested in political power.

This is quite different for both Soldiers and Priests. Soldiers (senior officers) are political men intrinsically (war is politics and politics is war) and out of necessity (to gain and maintain their position).

Priests, without doubt, are the most political of all castes. Priests-live-for-politics; they are political to their finger-tips – totally different from Merchants.

David Priestland argues that there are two types of merchant: soft and hard. Soft merchants (bankers, stock-jobbers and corporate chieftains) are usually big-time “bobos”. Hard merchants, such as shopkeepers, farmers and owners of small and local businesses are your “small c” conservatives.

Soft merchants occupy the auxiliary position in Trazi fascism but they were extirpated under Communism and they essentially cut a deal with Nazism.

The big corporates and big banks, on the other hand, love the state and the state loves them. These merchants make their influence felt by throwing money at politicians like the way men throw money at strippers or making politicians drop to their knees begging for money and favors.

Hard merchants went with Nazism and Italian Fascism and they initially supported the Tranzis. Today, most hard merchants tend to vote for the “right” parties.

If a “hard “Merchant regime were to arise, it would probably look something like Anarcho-Capitalism.

Anarcho-Capitalism has never existed and probably never will.

Historically, merchants have generally not had decisive influence and it is only with the emergence of modernity that merchants have been able to make their weight felt.

Commerce is not the driver of history; conflict is

3C: The Priests (God).

The Priest or sage is today’s technocrat and professor.

The essence of priestly rule is that they rule via ideas: religious, philosophical or “scientific”. In other words, priests rule via intelligence or reason or what Thomas Sowell calls “articulated rationality”.

Examples of priestly rule abound and have been the most prominent form of regime-type in history. Confucian China is the set-text example. The Catholic Church of medieval Europe would be another. Today, there is Shia Iran and the European Union as prime case of priestly rule.

The jointly necessary and sufficient condition for a Priest regime is the following:

1: A complete ideological system – metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, law and economics, war and diplomacy – that provides “legitimacy” for the holding and wielding of power.

2: Selection of priests via “merit” based exams after a period of ideological indoctrination or study. (Again, think of Confucian China.)

3: Real power is held by priests who staff the bureaucracy such as today’s civil service and judiciary and who thus decide what the rules are, when they apply and to whom and how.

3D: Fascism and Caste.

What caste were fascists?

We answer that:

Fascists are Priests.

Fascism, as a system, is a Priest regime.

None of the fascist regimes were soldier regimes.

This makes sense for Tranzi fascism, but not Nazi or Italian fascism surely?


Recall the jointly necessary and sufficient conditions for a soldier regime:

The jointly necessary and sufficient condition for a soldier regime is that it is led by senior officers and founded on conquest or a coup and governed in such a way as to restore peace, security, law and order.

Of course, Italian Fascism did indeed have a large number of ex-military officers among the senior leadership and Mussolini was once a soldier. However, they were professional politicians long before they held power and many of them had academic or professional backgrounds such as in law. Unlike the Communists, they were not proles but nor were they aristocrats – they were not “officer gentlemen”. In Fascist Italy, the military did not become the state.

Again, it is true that out of 15 Italian Fascist Party Secretaries, at least 8 had military backgrounds and most of them were former officers – low-ranking officers. Thus, while Italian Fascism is the closest to being a soldier regime that fascism came it still does not fit our classification.

What about the Nazi regime?

Hitler did indeed serve in the military – but as a corporal; crucially, for our classification, he spent the twenties and thirties as a professional politician. Hitler, as we saw last time, was a prole and despised the Prussian military and the aristocracy.

Hitler, horror of horrors, was a Priest.

Hitler, with his Mein Kampf and his “table talk” make clear that he fancied himself a philosopher. However, as Leddhin once pointed out, Hitler was more in the tradition of the sage-priests; in particular, Hitler was in the tradition of fiery priests like Martin Luther.

A compare and contrast exercise with Napoleon and Hitler should make things clearer.

3E: Napoleon V Hitler.

Family Background.

Napoleon: minor aristocracy.

Hitler: proletarian.


Napoleon: military school.

Hitler: civilian schools.

Early Ambitions.

Napoleon: soldier.

Hitler: artist.

Early Career.

Napoleon: officer, Corsican Freedom-Fighter and General.

Hitler: a failed artist who became homeless.

Defining Early Moments.

Napoleon: conquers north Italy; conquers Egypt and conquers France via a coup d’état.

Hitler: volunteers for the military and serves with distinction as a runner in the trenches (Hitler received the Iron Cross); after the war, Hitler becomes, first a failed putschist and is imprisoned; later, he becomes a successful, professional politician with the desire to re-fight the last, lost war.

Political Leadership.

Napoleon: implements a largely peaceful and wide-ranging counter-revolutionary re-organisation of the state; restores Catholicism as the state religion, emancipates the Jews, reforms the legal system and restores law and order in France. Made himself Emperor and married into the European ruling elite and would have founded a dynasty via his son had he not been defeated.

Hitler: launches the most radical revolution in human history; imprisons, persecutes and kills opponents – including Christians – and genocides the Jews and would have carried out another genocide against Russia had he won the war. Ruled as dictator and would have left a leaderless, totalitarian and genocidal political party in control of Germany, Europe and beyond after his death. Never married (until just before his suicide) and died childless.

Military Leadership.

Napoleon: commands his own, massive (Grand) army and crushes all opponents repeatedly for years and conquers most of western and central Europe with the most consistently greatest display of military genius in history; nevertheless, he is eventually brought down due to his ill-fated invasion of Russia.

Hitler: Hitler’ Prussian military invades and conquers Poland and then France – military weak and ill-prepared nations; Hitler, however, is soon brought low after violating a basic principle of strategy by fighting a “two-front” war against the Soviet Union and the United States. Hitler, moreover, never once visited the front and conducted the war by telephone in far-away hideouts and later, underground bunkers.


Napoleon: persuaded to abdicate (twice) by his Marshalls and thus spared the lives of his soldiers and people unnecessarily and was finally exiled to St Helena.

Hitler: commanded his army and people to fight to the bitter end, despite the fact that defeat was a forgone conclusion and thus ensured the utter destruction of Germany and its enslavement to Communism and domination by Tranzism.


Napoleon: one of the greatest men who ever lived.

Hitler: the Devil made flesh.

3F: Soldiers and Fascists.

Like the Fascists, the Nazi Party had a lot of ex-soldiers and officers. Again, the crucial distinction is that these men became professional politicians with a formalised ideology that took shape in a democracy with the goal of capturing the state.

Who were the other key men of the Nazi regime and did they have military backgrounds?

Goebbels, the second most important man in the Nazi Party was a Priest, not a Soldier. Goebbels earned a Phd and had once seriously considered becoming a Catholic priest.

Heinrich Himmler, again, was no Soldier. While Himmler did receive military training, he missed his chance to be an officer due to the Great War finishing. Himmler trained to be agronomist, before becoming a professional politician.

As for some of the rest of the Nazi Elite and Essentials: Göring was a soldier; Ribbentrop was an upper-class ex-officer. Frick was a priest. Walter Funk was a priest. Hess was a solider, though he later acquired a university education in history and economics. Streicher was an ex-soldier, as was Röhm. Bormann trained to be a soldier, but never saw action.

Again, despite the heavy presence of men with a former military background, Nazi fascism was not a Soldier but a Priest regime. Recall the jointly necessary and sufficient conditions for priestly rule:

1: An ideological system – metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, law and economics, war and diplomacy – that provides “legitimacy”.

2: Selection of priests via “merit” based exams after a period of ideological indoctrination or study. (Again, think of Confucian China.)

3: Real power is held by priests who staff the bureaucracy such as today’s civil service or judiciary and who decide what the rules are, when they apply and to who.

Consider the Nazi regime if it had of survived the war. The Elites and Essentials would have been Party men from top to bottom. They would have been recruited from the top German universities and entrance into the Party would have been based on race, intelligence and ideological compatibility. Yes, they would likely have had some military experience in their youth, but the top men would have spent their entire careers claiming up the vast bureaucracy like the Communists and the Tranzis.

3G: Communism, Tranzism and Caste.

TUJ has made a clear and convincing argument that the caste and class background of Communism and Anglo-American Progressivism (Tranzism) differ.

In short, TUJ argues that the Communist Elites came from the lower-classes: the proles, in other words. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Deng Xiaoping were hardy men who lived rough, dirty and dangerous lives – nothing like the life of the Tranzi leadership, past and present.

However, even if we look at the later leadership of Communist Russia, there is still a proleish quality to its Elite leadership. Furthermore, they had all attended technical colleges – not universities – and none of them studied things like law, political science and philosophy or the humanities in short – which is a clear marker of difference with the Tranzi Elite who all have backgrounds in humanities.

TUJ’s analysis essentially comes to the claim that Communism was a priest regime done by proles but Tranzism is a Priest regime done by the “bobos” or the “boutique liberals”.

2H: Harvard: the “HQ” of the Tranzi Empire.

Harvard University is the “HQ” of Tranzism; it is the Cathedral’s Cathedral. This fact does not get enough attention by reactionaries.

Harvard boasts the fact that it has produced the most Presidents (followed by Princeton and then Yale). Harvard’s lead grows, moreover, if you include Harvard Business School (Bush II) and its post-grad Presidents (Obama).

Harvard and Yale also produce the most Supreme Court Justices; indeed, every current Justice went to Harvard (Ginsburg transferred from Harvard to Columbia).

Harvard – and to a lesser extent, the rest of the North-East Ivy league Universities – are the most important institution of the Tranzi Empire.

Two further things should be noted.

First, the fact that Harvard and the other “Ivies” select, indoctrinate and work together via an informal, elite and somewhat “secret” social network.

Secondly, the “Ivies” were all founded by Protestants and even today, the Protestant ethos sustains them. This is one of the main reasons why Master Moldbug considers “Super-Protestantism” or today’s Progressivism/Tranzism, to be a memetic decedent of Protestant Christianity. (Compare the last link with this one.)

Thus, the Tranzi Elite fit the definition of a Priest regime to perfection.

In summary then, here is a handy way to remember the different castes and their different types of fascism:

Nazism: fascism done by middle-class priests in a beerhall.

Communism: fascism done by lower-class priests in a factory.

Tranzism: fascism done by upper-class priests in a university.

3I: Summary of the Primary and Auxiliary Castes of the three Fascist Systems.

Nazi: Priest, Soldier and Merchant.

Communist: Priest and Soldier.

Tranzi: Priest Merchant and Soldier.

3J: Neo-cameralist and STEEL-cameralist Castes.

For purposes of comparison, below are the castes for the two different cameralisms:

Neo-Cameralism: Merchant, Soldier and Priest.

STEEL-cameralism: Soldier, Merchant and Priest.


4: Efficient Cause.

Efficient cause concerns how the regime implements its policies.

The most important distinction between Tranzi and the other two fascist systems is that Nazism and Communism used a very direct, command and control structure, while the Tranzi state is more de-centralised (formally and in reality), camouflaged, indirect and less coherent.

Compare and contrast, for example, the differences in structures between Communism and Nazism  with the European Union.

Simply put, the Nazi and Communist Elite or Essentials give the commands and the Expendables obey.

In the Tranzi state, however, the “command” is carefully laid in the universities or Foundations and then the media and in cultural artifacts like TV shows, books and films which circulate for a few years before a possible policy proposal is floated which is then taken up by activists. Then, once the issue is adopted by a party, the issue is “debated” and perhaps campaigned upon with much fanfare. After an election, legislation is drafted which is implemented by the civil service. Finally, the entire change is wrapped up with an ex-post facto legal “judgement” that confers the ultimate stamp of “legitimacy”.

For a systems thinker, “structure is the source of system behaviour that reveals itself as a series of events over time”.

The difference in structure and behavior between Tranzi and the other fascist systems result from the strategic obstacles that the Communist and Nazi Parties had to overcome.

Both parties had their origins as an underground, criminalised revolutionary/criminal operation and had to seize power either via revolution or by a democratic campaign. The Nazi and Communist Party were born in blood and secrecy – hence the paramilitary structure and quality to them.

Tranzism differs because its structure and ideological content (Protestantism) was already part of the Ruling Elite, or at least North East America. After the Civil War, it took over the country and after the Second World War, it took over half the world.

As for the rest of its methods, we have covered Tranzi methods in war and economics previously and other similarities with fascism here. (The next post is on FDR’s New Deal).

One difference, however, is that Tranzi fascism is less violent, both internally and externally. Perhaps a better way of putting this claim is to say that a Tranziconsiders himself more “humane” than the other fascists.

For example, A Nazi regime would have dealt with “home-grown” Islamic terrorists by hunting them down and executing them with piano wire. If the Nazis ever found themselves in the same position as the Americans in Afghanistan or Iraq with ISIS, the Nazis would have massacred entire towns and villages in reprisal attacks. Communists made use of the same tactics, though they became softer as time went on.

The Communists, for example, were defeated in Afghanistan; the Nazis, meanwhile, would never have been in Afghanistan in the first place because Jihadists would have understood, to a moral certainty, that such an attack like 9/11 would have meant death for themselves, their entire families, their friends and the utter destruction of their religion.


5: Final Cause.

5A: Fascist Imperial Energy.

Without doubt, all the fascists ultimately aimed at conquest. But the Tranzi and the Communist aimed to take over the world.

Say what you want, but the Tranzi has Imperial Energy.

The Nazis aimed at regional domination, but in all likelihood they would have, out of strategic necessity, went on to compete for the world and everything in it.

The Nazi also had Imperial Energy.

The Communist were Imperial, but they lacked the necessary Energy to be successful.

That all were imperialists, is not all that surprising, as every state will attempt to expand indefinitely unless stopped; the nature of fascist imperialism, however, means eliminating everything and everyone that do not conform or who are not compatible with the ideals or needs of the regime.

5B: Fascism: Form and Reality.

The Nazi regime, ironically, was a regime where form and reality matched, at least when it came to final ends.

Yes, the Nazis had an Elite and like all Elites they get to eat first. However, unlike Tranzi and Communist fascism, the Nazi regime really did aim at and would have succeeded in materially benefiting the German people.

Yes, the living standards and the preservation and continuation of the German race would have been a reality.

But of course, this would have been built and sustained upon violent conquest, genocide, slavery and total control of the population. Nazi Germany was not a “white nationalist” project for the Poles, Ukrainians and Russians: they would have been eliminated or enslaved.

And do not even think about Africa.

Communist Russia, after Stalin, meanwhile, was nothing more than a grey, grubby little kleptocracy.

The Tranzi Empire is still – mostly – a sparkling, hedonistic, slutty-little-bobo-playground.

The bloom, though, is definitely off the rose and the old whore’s make-up can no longer hide its pock-marked face; then there is the smell…

The Tranzi Empire exists to serve the economic and cultural interests of the Harvard bobos, despite all the propaganda over immigrants, minorities and the problem of economic inequality.

Again, it is ironic, but Nazism was a socialism that did and could have worked (only because of its militarism, imperialism, and Ultra-Darwinian, genocidal race-realism).

Another way of putting the matter is that Nazism is Communism done correctly.

Tranzism, meanwhile, is Nazism done by Harvard psychos, Princeton feminists and men who are into the whole “Yale thing.”

Communism died in poverty and Nazism in fire.

How will Tranzism die?

When the tanks roll over Harvard’s lawn.


6: A Note on Fascism and Left and Right.

We have not laid down any definitions of “left” and “right” and perhaps, given comments on previous entries, we should say a few words about the difference.

We largely agree with Social Pathologist’s claim made in previous posts that it is better to see fascism as a modernist project and that applying “left” and “right” categories is confusing.

Still, a very good case can be made that there is great utility in applying Thomas Sowell’s framework for understanding right and left from Conflict of Visions.

As such, all three fascist systems, would qualify as “left”.

However, the one, important, difference, as Social Pathologist points out, is that the Nazis took human nature seriously; so seriously, in fact, that they were prepared to alter human nature the same way humans alter livestock.

Yet, even here, the Nazis go against the grain of typically right-wing thought.

According to Sowell, those on the right believe in a “constrained” human nature. Humanity is thus constrained: biologically, psychologically and socially. Furthermore, they think these constraints are necessary – if not always welcome – and that it folly to try to change them. Indeed, it may be perfectly wise, so the right might think, to tighten such constraints.

Thomas Carlyle expresses this sentiment perfectly when he warns his fellow Englishmen about them cutting away the straps of the devil in their hope of getting into the new “millennium”.

Putting the matter concretely, people on the right accept that violence, such as in war, is sometimes necessary, but it is always tragic and not something to be celebrated or indulged in for its own sake.

The Nazis, like the men of ISIS, celebrate violence and seek to cultivate habits of thought and feeling which make violence desirable, though not necessary. It should be said, however, that the Nazis were Quakers compared to ISIS. ISIS show the world what they do, while the Nazis did their worst crimes in shame and secret. Suppose that today, the men of ISIS were in charge of  Jewish death camps, they would be live tweeting the genocide and making YouTube videos of the showers and then laughing over the dead an calling it the will of God.

Still, the attitude of both ISIS and the Nazis are fundamentally the same. Eichmann said:

I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction.

Iron Duke, Lord Wellington, after the butchery at the battle of Waterloo, when he was alone, wept.

Does Hilary Clinton weep or laugh?

The Tranzi:

Michael Oakshott, whose arguments pre-figure Sowell’s, once wrote:

Rationalist politics, I have said, are the politics of the felt need, the felt need not qualified by a genuine, concrete knowledge of the permanent interests and direction of movement of a society, but interpreted by ‘reason’ and satisfied according to the technique of an ideology: they are the politics of the book.

Next time, we look at the Triumph of the Tranzi. 








15 thoughts on “A STEEL-cameralist Manifesto Part 4C3: American Fascism (A Feast Of Fascism).

  1. “3B: The Merchants (Gold).

    We find it doubtful that there has ever been a pure “Merchant” regime in history.”

    What about the great Bronze Age cultures? they invented/used written language literally to bean-count, didn’t they?


  2. Great post!

    >the line of succession was absolutely clear and legally formalised

    I’m interested in your take on the Roman Empire? Roman Republic never officially stopped being a republic, so when it became a monarchy it functioned on a sort of informal Mandate of Heaven principle. But, it doesn’t satisfy requirements you laid out for monarchy (no clear and legally formalised line of succession).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s