[starman2003]

I am not a communist! I reject egalitarian ideology which extols the proletariat, or envisages an end to the state! Secularism is not the problem, just the liberal/democratic form of it. Modern fascism owes much to Darwinism. So what if a few blue bloods are still holding out in archaic societies. Only a fool would think monarchy is the wave of the future.

[Section Leader]

As for your whig history, Monarchy is hardly dying. While debased in western society, it's still strong in smaller or quickly developing nations. Liechtenstein voted to extend and enhance the authority of their king not too many years ago, the Sultan of Dubai is responsible for the extreme pace of development there, and Thailand is respectable as well.

The Prince of Liechenstein threatened to sell the entire country to Bill Gates if the people didn't vote in favour of increasing his power. He later claimed he was joking, but I don't think they found it very funny.

[Figlio di Moros]

I'm not familiar with that, but it sounds fucking hilarious.

[starman2003]

...it's still strong in smaller or quickly developing nations.

Liechtenstein, dubai, thailand--great models for us to emulate. Remaining monarchies will probably become a casualty of development.

[Section Leader]

Liechtenstein is a relic of the days before Germany existed as a nation, the only reason it still exists is because Austria didn't become part of the united Germany in 1870. One day it will cease to exist, becoming part of either Austria or Switzerland.

[starman2003]

Well, good riddance. Btw current events in Egypt may accelerate the fall of remaining Arab monarchies. News can't be stopped and people will get ideas.

[three_lions_1]

Yes I am a Monarchist. Although I believe Britain has at times possessed quality leadership in the past three centuries, the dissolution of power from the Monarchy is in part why Britain has declined as a political force for good in the world.

[starman2003]

I suggest any decline as a "force for good in the world" wasn't due to the waning of monarchy but its replacement by democracy. Authoritarianism yes, but not some archaic version rooted in the distant past--what could be dumber at a time of accelerating progress....

[Section Leader]

Yes I am a Monarchist. Although I believe Britain has at times possessed quality leadership in the past three centuries, the dissolution of power from the Monarchy is in part why Britain has declined as a political force for good in the world.

Incorrect, the monarchy was finally stripped of whatever power it had left when the British Empire was the most powerful political force in the world, covering just under a quarter of the globe. The reason for the decline and collapse of the British Empire was not the decline of the aristocracy, but the idiot blunderers and downright traitors who led us into the Second World War.

[starman2003]

For centuries prior to WWII Britain always worked to prevent any nation from becoming predominantly strong in Europe. Limiting the power of potential continental enemies enabled Britain to expand elsewhere and build/maintain an empire. Policy prior to/during WWII was essentially the same as it had been in the past, but this time war weakened britain so it had to give up the empire.

[PlateauPliant]

A closet communist among the members of the monarchy would disprove all of Marx's theories and philosophies invoked in Grundisse There was once a fascist during World War 2. Who knows if we have one now.

[Figlio di Moros]

The reason for the decline and collapse of the British Empire was not the decline of the aristocracy, but the idiot blunderers and downright traitors who led us into the Second World War.

Because the best thing for Britain would have been to have Germany expand into eastern Europe, right?

[Section Leader]

Because the best thing for Britain would have been to have Germany expand into eastern Europe, right?

Not necessarily, but I most certainly do not believe that the war was in Britain's interests. Besides, the Soviet Union were planning on breaking the non-aggression pact themselves and would have killed off the Reich eventually even if Britain wasn't involved (the reason the Red Army fell like a house of cards initially was because they were positioned for an attack rather than a defence).

[starman2003]

..the Soviet Union were planning on breaking the non-aggression pact themselves..

I've heard that claim before but have doubts. If Stalin wanted to attack the reich, his golden opportunity was in May-June 1940, when almost the whole wehrmacht was positioned in the west. Shirer wrote that he could've gotten as far as Berlin before any effective resistance was organized.

..positioned for an attack rather than a defense.

In June 1941? By then the whole world was aware of the nazi buildup on the soviet border. Granted the soviet initial deployment was poor--sort of like NATO's later forward defense--but I doubt they were planning to attack.