[starman2003]

I don't favor multiculturalism. I envisage the triumph of a single ideology and culture, based on it e.g. without religious mumbo jumbo.

A unified Earth government was formed in the wake of the conflicts of 2160

With luck, unity--and stability and cohesion--will come a century sooner.

[J Oswald]

I would consider myself to be a supporter of the idea of a monarchy, although, being a citizen of a country that has never had a monarch, I can't call myself a monarchist. The kind of monarchism I would support, however (a constitutional monarchy with monarchial powers slightly stronger than those possessed by the current Queen of England), might be different from your definition.

[starman2003]

Some people may like to fantasize about such things but this is not the age of robin hood. Monarchy has been waning for centuries already. We should focus on modern/future systems of thought and government.

[Rei Murasame]

My stance on Monarchy is always: don't remove what isn't broken.

A Royal Family is the living embodiment of the nation, their bloodline is like a sort of representation of the permanence and transcendence of a nation, the visual evidence to back up the belief. If a country is lucky enough to have this institution, it can be an incredibly powerful unifying force. Also, a Prime Minister - who is a minister of the crown - has the added bonus of there being no doubt as to whether the nation has truly selected that person, as the Royal Family - the will of the nation expressed in human form if you like - has permitted that person to discharge his/her duty and has included that person in one unbroken chain of service.

It really is a dream come true for the Far Right (particularly since whatever leader you select to lead your movement would end up as Prime Minister..), so if you actually have this institution in your country, don't oppose it. It actually makes life a lot easier if you have it.

without religious mumbo jumbo.

However the Far Right is inherently mystical and religious. To even start, you have to believe that the nation is more than the sum of its parts, that it is actually a concrete thing that really exists, and that it has a will of its own and that it also seeks its own ends. You can try cover it up by window-dressing it with some 'secularism', but it would it would always be built atop and driven by religious thought-processes even if you don't call it religious.

And that isn't a bad thing, that's just the way it is.

[starman2003]

This is futile talk. Monarchy is a dinosaur and has long been waning. Modern authoritarianism must be based on secular ideology. That and great causes, are the best basis of unity. It's not necessary to be "religious" in the sense of considering the nation an actual organism. It's just that individuals should relate to their leader and state and sacrifice for them.

[Section Leader]

My stance on Monarchy is always: don't remove what isn't broken.

A Royal Family is the living embodiment of the nation, their bloodline is like a sort of representation of the permanence and transcendence of a nation, the visual evidence to back up the belief. If a country is lucky enough to have this institution, it can be an incredibly powerful unifying force. Also, a Prime Minister - who is a minister of the crown - has the added bonus of there being no doubt as to whether the nation has truly selected that person, as the Royal Family - the will of the nation expressed in human form if you like - has permitted that person to discharge his/her duty and has included that person in one unbroken chain of service.

It really is a dream come true for the Far Right (particularly since whatever leader you select to lead your movement would end up as Prime Minister..), so if you actually have this institution in your country, don't oppose it. It actually makes life a lot easier if you have it.

Mussolini dropped his oppposition to the Italian monarchy in order to take power, but he later regretted it when the King removed him from his post. Under Fascism the Leader is the embodiment of the nation, because he has proved himself the man most capable of the task, why should he have to answer to a higher power?

However the Far Right is inherently mystical and religious. To even start, you have to believe that the nation is more than the sum of its parts, that it is actually a concrete thing that really exists, and that it has a will of its own and that it also seeks its own ends. You can try cover it up by window-dressing it with some 'secularism', but it would it would always be built atop and driven by religious thought-processes even if you don't call it religious.

And that isn't a bad thing, that's just the way it is.

Fascism can in some ways be regarded as a secular (and rational) religion, but it also preaches no reward without service. One could argue that the Royal family do provide a service to the nation, but in my opinion that just isn't enough to permit them their special status as the only people in the country with a chance of becoming head of state. The needs of the nation are best met by a republic* with a strong meritocratically chosen Leader at the top.


*The term 'republic' does not have the same meaning as 'democracy' or 'federalism', much as many Americans want it to mean that, it simply means a state without a hereditory leadership.

[starman2003]

...why should he have to answer to a higher power?

Especially if it's a good for nothing blue blood. Couldn't agree more about meritocracy, and glad someone else rejects nostalgia for a dead past.

[Section Leader]

Especially if it's a good for nothing blue blood. Couldn't agree more about meritocracy, and glad someone else rejects nostalgia for a dead past.

I value our heritage, but I don't want to live in the past for all eternity.

[Preston Cole]

I agree with Rei, to some extent, because nationalism is a more spiritual current and responds to mystical sentiments like organicism and a sense of ultimate purpose. These things contribute immensely to the nationalist cause as it creates a sense of uniqueness. Secular socialism, and any leftism, is mostly temporal in that it seeks to reform mechanical economic characteristics and subjects a people's history solely to the way they reform the economy. Nationalism, on the other hand, identifies with history and culture, which are not limited by time and have been present since the very beginning of human history.

That isn't to say secularism should be scrapped--it's the only thing that can offer us protection from delusional religious fundamentalists. But a quasi-religious spirit will still be present in the far-right.

[starman2003]

..I don't want to live in the past for all eternity.

Right, and nationalism is part of it. It can still be useful but it's on the wane already.

[Nikita]

Preston Cole, what do you think of restoring King Michael to the throne? What is contemporary Romanian nationalism's position on the defunct monarchy?

[Preston Cole]

Well, restoring King Michael to the throne would be like getting the snow off your car while it's still snowing, so to speak. He's already really old and I don't think anyone with a future-oriented line of thought is seriously considering enthroning him again. However, after the 1989 Revolution, monarchy seemed to be the most wanted form of state. It was either because people dreamed about democracy and wanted to implement the interwar model alongside a monarchy, or people were patriotically more sympathetic towards the monarchy which had delivered considerable non-totalitarian modernization. Basically, it was a search for returning to a prosperous model before the communist takeover.

Romanian nationalism is deeply connected to monarchism. Most nationalists of the New Right group are neo-legionnaire Orthodox Christians with a preference for a religious monarchy. I object to their desire. But there is also a naturally republican and somewhat progressive mentality in what could be called left-wing nationalism; that of the Greater Romania Party (PRM). Personally, as my ideological title says, I'm a progressive authoritarian nationalist with a scientific, instead of religious, mentality. This would be hard for our neo-fascists to swallow, but they need to understand that nationalism can no longer pay lip service to religion.

[Monapos]

I have monarchist sympathies, and support the restorations of certain monarchs, but I would more accuratly call myself a Third Positionist.

[starman2003]

I can't believe such archaic views are still heard at this late date. This is the 21st century; you might as well favor the restoration of Carcharodontosaurus or something.

[Germanicus Caesar]

Monarchism in either its absolute or constitutional forms in effect works the same way as a fascist (for an absolute monarchy) or democratic (constitutional monarchy), the only difference is the tradition from which it arrises. The monarchy is a conection to the past and our ancestors and in that way could be a powerful way of envoking nationalism. I can hardly see how this is a bad thing. For the sort of connection necessary for a culture to flourish, the monarchy provides that connection rather well; of course this only really goes for nations which actually have a tradition of monarchy.

[starman2003]

..the only difference is the tradition from which it arrises.

Which makes a great deal of difference. This is the 21st century not the medieval period when "divine right" meant something. You just can't turn the clock that far back and if authoritarianism is the goal, or necessity, there's no need, given secular ideology. Btw there's another key difference: monarchy is nepotism, whereas a great modern state should be meritocratic, to maximize the effectiveness of leadership.

The monarchy is a connection to the past..

Yes indeed; the last thing we need at a time of rapid technical, scientific etc change...

[Monapos]

-snip-

Starman, I fail to see how fascism and monarchism cannot co-exist. The institution of monarchy should remain separate from the civil, meritocratic government. You obviously do not take the time to learn about monarchist systems in the present day. The monarchy and civil government will always be separate, and there exists no reason why that civil government cannot be fascist. The embodiment of a nation is the monarch, who carries more significance than any civil leader. I find your insistence on discarding tradition and the past to be disgusting, and that view not worthy of any self-respecting Third Positionist.

[Preston Cole]

The monarchy and civil government will always be separate, and there exists no reason why that civil government cannot be fascist.

Yes, when the monarchy has a symbolic role, fascism within a monarchy isn't incompatible at all and has many advantages, one of which is what you said about the Monarch embodying the history of the nation. The King had almost no involvement in decision-making in Fascist Italy, but he did reign supreme when it came to who was running the government. So the monarchy can be a good friend of a Fascist government.

[starman2003]

You obviously do not take the time to learn about monarchist systems in the present day.

They've been gradually dying for over a century. Btw IIRC Mussolini contemplated getting rid of the monarchy.

..I fail to see how fascism and monarchism cannot coexist.

Real fascism extolls the supreme leader, who isn't a blue blooded turkey but the real great man. In the greatest modern authoritarian systems the great man was everything and tolerated no competition.

I find your insistence on discarding tradition and the past to be disgusting..

I wouldn't discard real fascist/wholist tradition e.g. I like much about Imperial Rome, the original inspiration for fascism. But as I pointed out, monarchy is a dying dinosaur; if authoritarianism is to succeed in the future, it will simply have to be based on modern thought and systems.

[Figlio di Moros]

Starman, the communist forum is a few up. It's hard to consider you any sort of platonist or fascist; your "wholism" is an unapologetic form of Stalinism. Secularism is merely a legitimization of the degeneration and debasement of society, and breeds the same social issues now seen emergent around the world.

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.