It is perverse that the leaders of a modern nation feel they must honour the memory of the great men to whom that nation owes what it possesses in high culture and civility, and yet, were those great men alive today, they would be reviled for holding opinions that those leaders profess to find uncultured and uncivilised and unfit for the standing of a modern nation.previous
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
An Italian anti-monarchist is apparently annoyed with The Royal Channel.
I have made some comments. Those who wish to assist in commenting are welcome to do so, and it will be greatly appreciated.
Please find the YouTube thread here.
Thanks to anyone who assists.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
A motion in the interim Parliament of the Kingdom of Nepal to amend the interim Constitution of said kingdom to abolish the permanent monarchy has carried.
The amendment is to be ratified by the “Constituent Assembly,” and the interim Parliament can abolish the monarchy even before that if the monarchy interferes in the process.
What about abolishing Parliament if it does some overstepping? Of course, I almost forgot, the politicos in Parliament don't need checks, least not the Maoists.
The problem with political jokes is that they exercise power.
The chairman of a monarchy-friendly party has been interviewed.
Google News has links here, and here.
Reading assignments for those who think the latest developments are progress:
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Nepalese politicos have reached an agreement to kick out the monarchy once the new assembly has met. So the New York Times, CNN, Reuters India, BBC News, and Voice of America report.
Google News has more here, here, and here.
Disciplinary action will supposedly taken againt Nepalese royalists. So Kantipur Online reports. More related stories at Google News.
Mr. Maila Baje comments here, here, and here.
When monarchy was dumped in the West, we saw an unprecedented size and reach of the state. When monarchy was dumped in Central Europe and Germany, we saw the rise of Nazism. When monarchy was dumped in Russia, we saw the rise of Communism, as we did after a while also in China, where it was known specifically as Maoism.
Now in the Kingdom of Nepal, the monarchy has been dumped, only awaiting ratification, with politicos, among them Maoists fighting for power. No one knows what the result in the end will be, but neither of the likely alternatives look any good.
Hegel told us:
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyThe history that is unfolding right now in the Kingdom of Nepal is very unlikely to be contrary to what Hegel told us. The same we can say about some words of Karl Marx:
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.A variant of Karl Marx's followers are playing a central role in this farce.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Over at More Intelligent Life, Mr. Stephen Hugh-Jones writes:
"Monarchy," The Economist once declared, with the regal certainty dear to readers of our sister-publication, is "an idea whose time has gone." Well, one could wish it, and commonsense says it should be so. But a five-part series that the BBC will finish broadcasting on December 23rd suggests otherwise, in Britain at least. More widely than that, I fear we at The Economist were mistaken.Really? What kind of common sense? The kind of common sense that gave us the atrocities of the 20th century and modernist big government? Please do explain! Or are you just interested in pounding in an unexplained concept of “common sense,” Mr. Hugh-Jones?
Mr. Hugh-Jones goes on:
It was crowned fools who jointly ruined Europe in 1914-18, deservedly destroying the imperial thrones of Austria, Germany and Russia in the process.While I don't let the crowned heads completely off the hook, there were other forces pushing for war. And wasn't there this concept of a war to make the world safe for democracy?
Our anti-monarchist continues:
For a dying idea, and one with umpteen histories of misrule, misjudgment, misbehaviour, misalliance and sometimes missing wits, that's not bad going.And modern democracy is benevolence incarnate?
Then comes the preposterous claim:
No sane man would invent a monarchy today.There is much sense in Edmund Burke's dictum that constitutions are grown, not made. Having man design the world will lead to great failure, as we sadly have seen so much of at least the past century. That being said, the modernist regime came about because wars, revolutions, and political battles were fought, not because there was some natural evolution into the objectively better. Shall we conclude that those who realize this are all insane? I guess we then can put the majority of Liechtensteiners in an insane asylum, since they as late as this very decade voted to increase the Princely powers?
Further down Mr. Hugh-Jones notes:
Other could-be claimants have mostly had more sense than to try. The grandest of them, the late Otto von Habsburg, renounced any claim to Austria's ex-empire, and became a valued member of the European Parliament[...]Late? HIRH Archduke Otto marked his 95th birthday less than 5 weeks ago. Has our author any recent information that I do not have? How can we expect anti-monarchists' opinions to be well-informed when they can't even get such simple facts straight?
To his credit, Mr. Hugh-Jones says:
I wouldn't go to the barricades against Britain's monarchy, though I'd readily do so against the sort of people most keen, for their sort of motives, to overthrow it.Yet, he philosophically undermines it.
Change is inevitable. Yet when fish are to take care of the future of their kind, they swim up the rivers against the stream. Some principles are timeless. Those who are void of substantial arguments, will use the zeitgeist as an argument. It is simply an argument for flowing with the stream.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Her Britannic Majesty is now the oldest reigning Anglo monarch in history. Queen Victoria's record was touched yesterday.
Congratulations to Her Britannic Majesty!
Elsewhere: The Monarchist, BBC, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph (the latter seems to have been doing some funny math, adding a day)
Update: Also elsewhere: The Times
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Apparently, there's a Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization due out in May next year.
Will it be politically incorrect enough? Or will we need separate PIGs such as ones on?:
- Democracy, alternatively, monarchy and democracy
- The Old European Order
- The French Revolution
The Ludwig von Mises Institute released this fall The Last Knight of Liberalism (PDF).
I have no doubt that Ludwig von Mises in more ways than one was noble. In a sense he also was a knight, but technically he was not.
A man who also was noble in more ways than one, was Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who indeed was a knight. When will we see his biography; The Last Knight of the Habsburg Empire?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
This somehow avoided my attention previously.
Archduke Otto was in the Hofburg in Vienna in connection with his 95th birthday. There was also a mass in St. Stephen’s Cathedral. So the Budapest Times reports.
[Atatürk] led his nation to full independence. He put an end to the antiquated Ottoman dynasty whose tale had lasted more than six centuries and created the Republic of Turkey in 1923, establishing a new government truly representative of the nation's will.What a load of modernist crap!
Also from the same “souvenir”:
As President for 15 years, until his death in 1938, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk introduced [a broad] range of swift and sweeping reforms in the political, social, legal, economic, and cultural spheres virtually unparalleled in any other country.Hmmm?!? Seems to me he poked his nose in virtually everything.
I was also told:
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic and its first President, face and name are seen and heard everywhere in Turkey: his portrait can be seen in all public buildings, in schools, in all kinds of school books, on all Turkish banknotes, and in the homes of many Turkish families. Even after so many years, on November 10, at 09:05 a.m. (the exact time of his death), almost all vehicles and people in the country's streets will pause for one minute in remembrance of Atatürk's memory.And modern government was supposed to be of laws, not of men?
To credit my “souvenir,” it does have a “Did you know?” box, stating:
Jews expelled from Hungary in 1376, from Sicily early in the 15th century, from Bavaria in 1470, from Bohemia in 1542, and from Russia in 1881, 1891, 1897, and 1903 all took refuge in the Ottoman Empire.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
I'm taking the liberty of posting a self-interview.
Q: What's with you? You're running a blog in defense of the Old European Order, and you're promoting a candidate for President in a democratic republic?
A: This blog is very much about the Old European Order, yes. It is more generally, however, about unplugging the Wilson Revolution. An essential part of the Wilson Revolution was the unplugging of the Old European Order, but it was also more than that.
Q: What is so appealing with Ron Paul?
A: He wants to end Wilsonian foreign policy, and he also wants to end Wilsonian domestic policy. E.g., he wants to put an end to the flawed, modernist, post-gold monetary system.
Q: How can someone who has his reservations about the American Revolution and dumping of someone else's property into the harbor support the candidacy of someone who clearly approves of such through his campaign?
A: I am sure there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters who have disagreements with the candidate. He has so diverse supporters. You could of course say that Dr. Paul's interpretation of history is such a fundamental disagreement that it blocks all support of mine. However, bringing America to the ideals supported by Ron Paul is such an improvement overall, that it would be idiotic to let such disagreements get in the way.
Q: Some of Paul's supporters have even done a “Strasbourg Tea Party,” which could give associations with the French Revolution. In fact, Europe coming after America in this Ron Paul business is comparable to 1776 vs. 1789. Also, some are even comparing what is happening now to the French Revolution. What do you think of that?
A: I did not personally take part in any “Tea Party” event. I don't support the French Revolution. I do support giving the European Parliament a piece of one's mind, which the Strasbourg event was largely about. A lot of people see the French Revolution as progress. Such flawed views must of course be opposed. There has and will come words and other messages from Ron Paul supporters, those affiliated with the official campaign, and even Dr. Paul himself that I cannot support. Again, the modernist regime I do not support. Ron Paul, I think, will bring real changes for the better. So the good doctor has my support.
Q: How can an old school monarchist support a candidate who believes in the republican form of government?
A: There you go again!
Q: Would you please explain it a bit more?
A: A major reason for my support of old order monarchy is its limited government compared to modern democracy. It does not from that follow that I would not support restraint on republican governments, which it is clear Ron Paul has a good platform for. It is a good path for those United States to return to their earlier republican traditions. There are several monarchists and sympathizers of monarchy who support the candidacy of Ron Paul. American monarchist Andrew Cusack also supports Ron Paul, and he has even reportedly donated. Jack Maturin says there's no contradiction in being a supporter of Hoppe and of Paul. To take another group of people, there are lots of anarchists who support Ron Paul's run. The LRC Blog has virtually turned into a Paul campaign blog.
Q: Is not what is happening in those United States now disproving that monarchy is better than democracy?
A: No, it is merely proving that it is possible for the people to get their acts together for the purpose of roling back the government behemoth. Regardless of whether Paul wins or not, there will still be problems with democratic government. Real monarchy is one way of restraining it, but there are other means too.
Q: But if Paul wins and he is successful in his policies, the claim will be disproved?
A: I don't think it will be a cakewalk to role back the behemoth. In any case, monarchy is better than democracy because with regards to several aspects it tends to be better all else being equal. That does not rule out that things can go better in a democracy be that a pure democracy or a democratic republic with restraints on majority rule than in a monarchy.
Q: This is pure theory. The fact is that with a once again successful federal republic on the other side of the big pond, you have a strong example working against you. How is theory going to help you?
A: Well, the relative success of those United States before Woodrow Wilson doesn't help the cause much either. The decline of those United States can be used to support the theory of democratic rule as inferior to monarchical. If decline stops, and is even replaced by recivilization, that support will weaken. But then, so be it. I believe Ron Paul will significantly improve those United States. Archduke Otto tells us that the State is there for the people, not the other way around. I will not sacrifice people for a cause. Sadly, there are a whole lot of people who do.
Q: What is the crown argument for a Paul Presidency?
A: In the words of Mr. Tristan Murphy, he is the only candidate who could spark a restoration of the West.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
89 years ago today, the Persona Non Grata of this blog arrived for the post-WWI Versailles conference.
Read here and here.
I must say it is quite impertinent to hold the main conference in the process of putting an end to the Old European Order in the Versailles Palace, which perhaps more than anything else represents the Old European Order.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Four years short of four dozen years ago today, the “Land of Endless Sunshine” achieved independence from London. On the day a year later, the Queen of Kenya was done away with.
I must say, I do not approve of race, or gender for that matter, as a criterion for voting rights. I prefer other criteria, alternatively completely other solutions, as I am no proponent of universal suffrage. However, there is little doubt if any that the post-colonial rule is worse than the colonial rule. Kenya is by no means the worst example. Need I mention Zimbabwe?
In this Wilsonian day and age, self-determination and majority rule are sacred principles. Dare he who questions them. Self-government is better than good government, no matter how bad self-government turns out to be.
The transition in Africa from colonial rule to majoritarian self-rule is Wilsonianism run wild.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Thanks to fellow monarchist Andrew Cusack, who also has posts here, here, here, and here.
BTW, I moved with my parents and brother to Kenya with its then closed border in the south to Nyerere's Communist Tanzania in the middle of transition in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. I most certainly would have liked to have met the Rt. Hon. Ian Douglas Smith.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
On this day 90 years ago, the bête noire of this weblog addressed a joint session of Congress, claiming no “wish in any way to impair or to rearrange the Austro-Hungarian Empire,” when asking for a declaration of war against the Danubian Monarchy.