The Restoration of The British Monarchy. Is It Possible? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14862672
@Oxymandias,

Speaking of which, I intend to post a reply to your last post to me on the Iran thread regarding a hypothetical scenario of colonizing Iran.....so, per your last comment on there, grab some wine my friend, we can discuss with fine drink, perhaps Thursday if my schedule holds. 8)
#14862676
So what? That is what leftists say about most brexiteers that they can't dismiss as simpletons. It does not nullify the point I made though that in the minds of Brexiteers, the EU's handling of non-european migration and muslim refugees has exacerbated the problems with domestic terrorism in Britain and the continent, this is their perception and this is likewise the perception of Farage; therefore, that aspect of my hypothetical stands. It was not a made-up fiction, this is what Brexiteers think.
#14862678
@Victoribus Spolia

I have been patiently waiting for a pretty long time now. Also you have to call colonized Iran the American Shah. That is mandatory and the discussion will not continue without it. I think such a discussion will benefit us both. It'll let me describe how I think Iran should currently function while you get to describe how America's hypothetical colonial governments would work.
#14862850
If you want a monarchy with real absolute power become a Commie or an Arab nationalist. North Korea has an absolute monarchy. Syria has an absolute monarchy. Iraq would have had an absolute monarchy if Saddam had been allowed to bequeath his throne to his son Uday. Libya looked like it was well on its way to a hereditary monarchy. Stalin could have instituted a hereditary monarchy if he had wanted to, he just wasn't interested. With dictatorships it really is just a matter of time before a hereditary monarchy emerges. Maybe Xi Jinping will be the beginning in China, maybe he won't.
#14862852
If you want a monarchy with real absolute power become a Commie or an Arab nationalist. North Korea has an absolute monarchy. Syria has an absolute monarchy. Iraq would have had an absolute monarchy if Saddam had been allowed to bequeath his throne to his son Uday. Libya looked like it was well on its way to a hereditary monarchy. Stalin could have instituted a hereditary monarchy if he had wanted to, he just wasn't interested. With dictatorships it really is just a matter of time before a hereditary monarchy emerges. Maybe Xi Jinping will be the beginning in China, maybe he won't.

Indeed. This is an aspect of Western right-wing supporters of absolutism and monarchism which has always puzzled me. They claim to want a strong, centralised government to bring order and discipline to their own society, but then turn around and condemn regimes like that of the Soviet Union or Communist China or Gadaffi's Libya for having... a strong, centralised government which brought order and discipline to their respective societies. Lolwut? :lol:

The truth is that guys like Victoribus Spolia and his ilk are basically just bourgeois liberals who want to look edgy and to offend the trendy centre-left liberals by praising Mussolini and claiming to want a restoration of hereditary monarchy. In other words, they're just trolls.
#14862858
I'd just like to correct myself slightly there as I did think Saif Gaddafi was Libya's best hope. However once they lost control of Benghazi, I didn't think Humpty could ever really be put back together and the quicker that the Gadaffi regime was finished off the better. I'm happy to admit I've been disappointed by Libya's progress since, although I'm not responsible for the pathetic cretinism of dragging out the civil war by pretending we weren't trying to change regime when we obviously were. Before the Libyan farce I didn't think my contempt for "International Law" could get any lower but I was wrong about that as well. However nothing that's happened since in Libya has persuaded me that once the civil war had broken out the Gadaffi regime shouldn't have been removed and hankering for the return of some mythical Gadaffian golden age of legitimacy and stability was futile.
#14862860
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So what? That is what leftists say about most brexiteers that they can't dismiss as simpletons. It does not nullify the point I made though that in the minds of Brexiteers, the EU's handling of non-european migration and muslim refugees has exacerbated the problems with domestic terrorism in Britain and the continent, this is their perception and this is likewise the perception of Farage; therefore, that aspect of my hypothetical stands. It was not a made-up fiction, this is what Brexiteers think.

Here's what Britons actually think about terrorism and the EU:

Britons want to see more cooperation with EU in security and fighting terrorism new poll finds

When asked about specific policy areas majority of Brits also wanted to see more cooperation in fight against terrorism (73%) and promotion of democracy and peace in the world (68%). Environmental protection, fight against tax fraud and unemployment also came high and were closely followed by a desire to see more cooperation in external border protection and other security and defence matters.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkin ... il-10.html

No, the idea that "the EU's handling of non-european migration and muslim refugees has exacerbated the problems with domestic terrorism" is not common in Britain. You're confusing Britain with other EU members. I believe you're not European at all, are you? Maybe we all look alike to you.
#14862861
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. This is an aspect of Western right-wing supporters of absolutism and monarchism which has always puzzled me. They claim to want a strong, centralised government to bring order and discipline to their own society, but then turn around and condemn regimes like that of the Soviet Union or Communist China or Gadaffi's Libya for having... a strong, centralised government which brought order and discipline to their respective societies. Lolwut? :lol:

The truth is that guys like Victoribus Spolia and his ilk are basically just bourgeois liberals who want to look edgy and to offend the trendy centre-left liberals by praising Mussolini and claiming to want a restoration of hereditary monarchy. In other words, they're just trolls.


That's a funny thing to say for a communist. If Stalin's communism is just a strong centralised government then why even have a revolution in Russia in the first place as the Romanovs were doing the same thing.

I can't speak for VS but for me there is a big difference between authoritarian and totalitarian, with the former being more tolerable and the latter more deplorable. Communist regimes because of their ideological burdens are doomed to be the latter, unless they just pretend to be communist like the chinese.

Authoritarian governments (as with a classic absolutist monarchy) being pragmatic more than ideological can be as liberal as they like or as totalitarian as they like according to the relative advantages in whatever circumstances they are in, generally the smart ones will prefer to be liberal as it makes governing less of a chore and is better for the economy anyway, in peace time, while ratcheting up the totalitarian thing only when in the rare circumstances where it makes sense to do so which is only total global war ie: WW1 and WW2.
#14862863
Potemkin wrote:The truth is that guys like Victoribus Spolia and his ilk are basically just bourgeois liberals who want to look edgy and to offend the trendy centre-left liberals by praising Mussolini and claiming to want a restoration of hereditary monarchy. In other words, they're just trolls.


Way to throw a fellow pipe-smoker under the bus bro. :hmm:

Let me be clear that I am not alt. right in the deeply centralized sense because my views regarding race, religion, and the nature of government are no longer welcome and so I am now more comfortable in the larger umbrella of the American "New Right."

I affirm the divine and natural right of kings, but I do think they are vastly different as to the manner in which they execute their interests from dictators, so I don't think you are being fair here.

The Catholic-Libertarian and Monarchist Kuneheldt-Leiden in his work, "Liberty or Equality?" argued that natural hierarchy is a greater preserver of liberty and therefore vastly different than other dictatorships that were designed as a necessary evil in order to guarantee great societal equality via a squashing of individual liberty. Indeed, he would argue that libertarianism can only be preserved through Monarchy. One example he used was that if Louis XIV had prohibited alcohol as the "representative government" had in the United States, he would not have been able to implement it and would have likely been executed immediately.

The reason, is because the purpose of a monarchy is to guarantee social hierarchy and tradition while rendering the basic function of government more efficient for the ultimate ends of protecting the people. It has NEVER been in the interests of monarchies to micro-manage or to become too burdensome. This is entirely different with the approach of "dictators of the proletariat" (or even democracies) which must micro-manage in order to get bring the proletariat to the point of true self-governance via a freeing them from their natural disadvantages of being religious and poorly educated, etc.

Likewise, this differs from fascist dictators that act in a restorative manner to cleanse the people of their accumulated decadence or racial impurity/weakness.

In general, even if the powers I outlined as technically being the prerogative of the monarchy were actively pursued, which would satisfy me, this still would not hold a candle to the powers vested in communist or even fascist dictatorships.

Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not a libertarian (and therefore disagree with Kuhnheldt-Leiden on much), for I am very much a pro-intervention as a paleo-colonialist and anti-free trade as a neo-mercantilist, but even this view is still vastly less micro-managing that a planned economy as we saw in ether Stalin's soviet union, Mao's china, or (to a lesser degree) in the states of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.

So I think the comparisons are somewhat misleading, Yes I believe in a strong man, but this is out of a spirit of needing a natural heirarchy and true patriarchy, not to micro-manage all of the tha affairs of every individual in a society out of some process of collective evolution, whether marxist or racialist.
#14862864
SolarCross wrote:I can't speak for VS but for me there is a big difference between authoritarian and totalitarian, with the former being more tolerable and the latter more deplorable. Communist regimes because of their ideological burdens are doomed to be the latter, unless they just pretend to be communist like the chinese.

Authoritarian governments (as with a classic absolutist monarchy) being pragmatic more than ideological can be as liberal as they like or as totalitarian as they like according to the relative advantages in whatever circumstances they are in, generally the smart ones will prefer to be liberal as it makes governing less of a chore and is better for the economy anyway, in peace time, while ratcheting up the totalitarian thing only when in the rare circumstances where it makes sense to do so which is only total global war ie: WW1 and WW2.


Agree entirely, conflating monarchy with micro-managing dictatorships is a false equivalency, the surface similarities are ultimately superficial.

May I suggest the book I mentioned to @Potemkin,

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Equality ... r+equality
#14862865
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Here's what Britons actually think about terrorism and the EU:


Yes, but my hypothetical is about Brexiteers becoming a majority, so how is this relevant?

And likewise, why does cooperation with the European Union NECESSITATE being a member of the EU? The United States could cooperate with the EU on most of these issues without becoming a member-state, so why couldn't the same be true for Britain?

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:No, the idea that "the EU's handling of non-european migration and muslim refugees has exacerbated the problems with domestic terrorism" is not common in Britain. You're confusing Britain with other EU members. I believe you're not European at all, are you? Maybe we all look alike to you.


That wasn't the point under discussion, the point under discussion was whether brexiteers thought so, to which I cited multiple sources including quotes from Nigel Farage himself (the voice of Brexit) and you simply dismissed him as a bigot and left it at that. I am not arguing what view is more popular in britian overall and, in fact, that point is just as contentious of a discussion as to whether Americans support Trump's wall or not. I have no interest in getting into a quarrel over a very divisive aspect of English partisan politics.

Whether I am from Europe or Britain is quite irrelevant to the validity of my arguments, to say otherwise is a genetic fallacy.
#14862868
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Agree entirely, conflating monarchy with micro-managing dictatorships is a false equivalency, the surface similarities are ultimately superficial.

May I suggest the book I mentioned to @Potemkin,

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Equality ... r+equality

Yeah, though even on the surface there are profound differences, ie: dress sense. The grubby little dictators rarely have any style and in the case of the communist dictators willfully refuse to have any, (though Stalin did make an effort now and again) whereas a true monarch dresses to impress.

This dressing to impress is not vanity it is a service to the people. People are social animals, pack animals like wolves, we quite naturally fall into a subordinate role to those we identify as pack leaders, which also means limiting oneself to avoid offending the social order. So dressing grandly, as a true monarch does, benefits the people in two important ways. The first is obvious, it helps people identify who is the leader. The second is more subtle but strongly beneficial, it raises the ceiling of limitations. A pack leader that dresses badly in poor clothes will induce panic in followers who dress even slightly better than this so consequently everyone will follow an even lower standard. By dressing as grandly as possible the monarch enables the self-imposed limits of aspiration by his subordinates to be lifted to the stratosphere. Grandly dressed monarchs make it safe for subordinates to have grand aspirations.

You only have to look at how well ordinary people dress under well dressed monarchs compared with how well they dress under decidedly less well dressed monarchs to see this.

Image
Loius XIV

Ordinary frenchman under his rule.

Image

Image

A badly dressed "monarch"

Image

and his fashion crippled subjects
#14862874
SolarCross wrote:This dressing to impress is not vanity it is a service to the people. People are social animals, pack animals like wolves, we quite naturally fall into a subordinate role to those we identify as pack leaders, which also means limiting oneself to avoid offending the social order. So dressing grandly, as a true monarch does, benefits the people in two important ways. The first is obvious, it helps people identify who is the leader. The second is more subtle but strongly beneficial, it raises the ceiling of limitations. A pack leader that dresses badly in poor clothes will induce panic in followers who dress even slightly better than this so consequently everyone will follow an even lower standard. By dressing as grandly as possible the monarch enables the self-imposed limits of aspiration by his subordinates to be lifted to the stratosphere. Grandly dressed monarchs make it safe for subordinates to have grand aspirations.


Image
#14862875
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Likewise, this differs from fascist dictators that act in a restorative manner to cleanse the people of their accumulated decadence or racial impurity/weakness.

What you mean someone like Jean-Jacques Dessalines?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

Okay. So she violated the institution’s code of […]

You yourself said the victims weren't telling the[…]

House passes GOP tax bill

Please acknowledge that you were wrong about the h[…]

I definitely appreciate you making a thread in spi[…]