Saturday, September 5, 2009

Monarchist news

Going through the links Google Alerts gave me with the word "monarchy" in them was irritating this week, because a lot of the articles turned out to be about the Kennedys. You know, "the end of America's experiment with monarchy" yada yada. Last year when it still looked like Hilary Clinton would likely win the Democratic nomination, I searched for American monarchist webpages and found a handful of editorials whining that because our list of presidents was supposedly going to go "Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton", we had actually become a monarchy. If only!

Spanish political leader presents the King with the party's plans to end the monarchy

Cayo Lara, who last December succeeded Gaspar Llamazares as General Coordinator of the Izquierda Unida left-wing coalition, was received by the King this Monday, in his first visit to Zarzuela Palace since taking over the IU leadership.

He’s been an outspoken critic of the monarchy over the past months and is reported to have given a detailed outline of the coalition’s plans to bring about the III Republic – and with it, the end of the Spanish monarchy. The Second Republic was established with the Republican electoral victory which deposed Alfonso XIII in 1931, forcing the current King’s grandfather into exile.


Royalty 101: Who is the Spanish Royal Family?

Prince Radu's withdrawal favours liberal candidate Crin Antonescu

Prince Radu Duda announced today his withdrawal from the run for Romania's presidency. PNL-s general secretary Radu Stroe believes that this move will favour liberal candidate Crin Antonescu, because many supporters the prince has are also PNL fans. "The real monarchists are at PNL" Radu Stroe declared for RFI.

According to Rad Stroe, Radu Duda did not receive the best advice and he shouldn't have lost time with his candidacy. He believes that despite the events that triggered his candidacy are complex, Crin Antonescu will be the first to take advantage by Radu Duda's decision to resign.

According to Stroe, no social-democrat was ever a monarchy supporter. The only possible monarchists are among the liberals, the ex-Christian-Democratic National Peasants' Party and maybe people of a certain intellectual and cultural standing "that are usually judging with their own head".

Radu Stroe used the chance to declare that the liberals are genuine monarchists and said that it was inconceivable for Radu Duda to attract the pro-monarchy electorate to support him for Romania's presidency. "The true pro-monarchy electorate supports the monarchy, not the presidential elections and a president. Only superficial monarchists would have voted for him", Stroe concluded.


Too Much Involvement in Nepal's Internal Issues is Big Mistake for India

India knows that Nepal can only remain an independent and sovereign country because of its monarchy. Indian interest is not served by the Nepalese monarchy. So, everybody suspects the mysterious conspiracy against the Royal Palace Massacre was created by RAW of India.


Sir Peter Maxwell Davies: 'We owe the Queen an awful lot'

As Sir Peter Maxwell Davies turns 75, the firebrand composer and Master of the Queen's Music talks about his mellowing attitudes towards the monarchy, how his neighbours in the Orkneys helped him through a financial crisis - and why he intends to write about the MPs expenses row


The Hoppe Effect by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

This article is adapted from chapter one of Freedom, Property, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Guido Hülsmann and Stephan Kinsella.

3 comments:

MadMonarchist said...

I'll say this for the Spanish republicans; they certainly have alot of nerve. Imagine explaining to the King their efforts to put him out of a job. I cannot fathom anyone looking back at the Spanish republic; the deprivations, riots, uprisings, massacres and civil war and saying, 'yeah, let's try that again'. It staggers the imagination.

ZAROVE said...

Republicans are basically emboldened by the fact that Republicanism, falsely called "Democracy" in our undereducated world, has become the dominate and prevailing cultural view. It's just assumed to be good, automatically, and cannot be questioned.

As a Monarchist, I've often been subject to attacks on Monarchism, many based on erroneous understanding, but if I question the underpinning of Republican theory, they look at me like I just committed blasphemy. Your not allowed to question it as legitimate. They can challenge anything else, but you must accept that theirs is legit.

It's like debating with Internet Atheists who insist that they have no beliefs to question, and become angry when you challenge them or are skeptical of their claims, whilst reserving the right to challenge Christianity or any other religion. Their views are themselves religious, but they prefer to claim otherwise, and refuse to allow anyone to question's them.

The difference is that, the majority in our word accept Republicanism. Its just a given that tis he best, and only legitimate, way the world should work.

So its nothing for a Republican to challenge a Sitting monarch. I mean, Spain is already pretty well a Republic, with the King acting mainly as a rubber stamp for the corrupt political parties.

In their mind they have already won.

They simply want rid of that which slows down their vision of "The Equality of man", which is just a Utopian fantasy that never materialises. Even under Socialist or Communist Governments, the "Peoples Government" is always treated as the leaders, not as common men. I have also learned in History that Politicians who run for office care less, not more, for the common man than an aristocrat tends to.

After all, they seek power for themselves, and most don't do this just to serve others.

Its really all about pushing an ideology rather than looking at facts objectively.

ZAROVE said...

One last thing, History, real history, is the enemy of the Republican, just as it is the Enemy of the Aforementioned Internet Atheists. They share a lot in common, because they share a common origin. Both tend to come from the Era of the Enlightenment, and from that are linked.

To make their vision work, they must make sure people are ignorant of History, and those who aren't must be trained to selectively read it. Thus, Monarchs are always tyrants who oppress the people, and we will be told of specific tyrants which prove the point, whilst Tyrants who emerged in Republics "Destroyed Democracy". No evil dictator was ever Democratic.

But it usually doesn't come o that song and dance, as most simply do not know much history at all and only look at modern theory.

Basically, they look at the Ideology of Republicanism, and look at the fact that it is the prevailing view. They then argue that since everyone else is doing it we should too, because thats how the world is. Monarchism is outdated, for the past, and was replaced with the new, better Republican system, much like new Operating systems replace older and less effective ones. (Never mind that Windows 98 was in some ways better than XP, and that XP is vastly superior to vista.)

They view it as technology, with Monarchy being replaced gradually by Republicanism as we evolved into a superior mindset, and the new form of Government is an improvement. They don't seem to realise that Republicanism existed in th past and was, in fact, replaced by Monarchism time and again. They do not read Plato, Aristotle, or even basic history.

They just assume that Monarchy is the past and outdated, and Republicanism is new and better.

And besides, everyoen else is doign it, and we mustn't do any different form the rest of the world. We wan tot keep up with thelatest trends, don't we?

Why, if we support Monarchy we're out of step with the rest of the world.

Its just accepted wisdom what we are Republicans.


Humanity is doomed of coure in this limited form of thinking, which is one grand argument for Monarchy ofver Republicanism. People are easily blinded by Ideology, and Idealouges are easily lead by their ambition. Monarchs, who hold power already and need not seek it, and who were raised to lead, without the need to pander to a crowd or advance a particular agenda, will be able to be more objective in their thinking.



The Spanish Republic may have been a tyrannical, corrupt mess, but people look only at the rest of the world and how its a Republican Majority, and how the modern world has accepted Republicanism as the best course of action, and see only this. History means nothing, and the only logic is that which supports their desired end.