King Kamehameha Celebration

Yesterday, King Kamehameha of Hawai'i was celebrated. So the Honolulu Advertiser reports.

World War I as Fulfillment

In an article published today, Murray N. Rothbard considers World War I as the fulfillment of progressivism in American life.

SOSOTUS Resigns

Today 92 years ago, Secretary of State of those United States William Jennings Bryan resigned his position, marking a turning point in the war that ended the world of liberty.

June 7, 1905

Eight and a half dozen years ago today the Parliament of Norway unanimously moved to depose the King of Norway, thereby asserting the sovereignty of Parliament, a concept alien to our original Constitution.

Make the World Safe...

President O’Thomas and his advisor Mr. O’Ellis recently had the following conversation:

Prez O’Thomas: O’Ellis, we need to make the world safe for kids burning themselves on fires, stoves, etc.

Advisor O’Ellis: Sir, do you mean we have to protect kids from fires and stoves?

Prez O’Thomas: Certainly not! Quite the contrary. We have to make the world safe so kids can burn themselves.

Advisor O’Ellis: Sir, it is the wisdom of the ages that parents should protect their young ones against fire. They have done so from time immemorial.

Prez O’Thomas: It is old. Hence, it is evil. It is not wisdom. We need progress.

Advisor O’Ellis: Sir, things do change. We now have stoves. So parents protect their young ones against these.

Prez O’Thomas: It is the concept that is old. It is thus bad and evil. It must be done away with.

Advisor O’Ellis: Sir, what do we do?

Prez O’Thomas: We need to make kids safe from their parents. We have to go to war to make the world safe for kids burning themselves.

Advisor O’Ellis: Sir?

Prez O’Thomas: Yes, O’Ellis?

Advisor O’Ellis: Didn’t you once say that liberty does not come from government, but from subjects of government?

Prez O’Thomas: Yes, that’s why we need to involve the subjects through war.

Advisor O’Ellis: Very good point, sir!

Prez O’Thomas: And that’s why we need to create real subjection.

Advisor O’Ellis: Sir?

Prez O’Thomas: Since liberty comes from subjects of government, we need real subjects of government. Only then we can have real liberty.

Advisor O’Ellis: Excellent point, sir!

Prez O’Thomas: Thank you!

Advisor O’Ellis: What do we call this war?

Prez O’Thomas: The war to make the world safe for kids’ play!

Advisor O’Ellis: What do we tell Congress?

Prez O’Thomas: That we need to free kids from parental subjection.

Advisor O’Ellis: You are brilliant, sir!

Prez O’Thomas: I know! I am the President!

Tatchell Followup

"Deogolwulf" follows up my reply to Mr. Tatchell's anti-monarchy rant excellently.

Monarchy Still Strong

The Nepalese monarchy still has substantial support. So the Telegraph Nepal reports.

Taken Seriously?

At a recent post an anonymous commenter says:

I'd take this post more seriously if it wasn't from someone who is apparently protecting the crown of a non-existent country.

I'd take this commenter seriously if:

1. He'd have the guts to post with a name.


2. He'd bother to go beyond what's "apparent."


3. He'd present some substantial arguments.

Don't you just love those anonymous commenters? Don't you just love their courage? The all time high comes when they try to cast doubt on the seriousness of other people.

This blog has as its icon the late Lt.-Col. Strutt of the Royal Scots. Anyone bothering to read the blog intro – accesible just below the blog title and description – would find that out. Of course, not everyone can be expected to use their time reading it. However, when one makes claims about the blog or its author, I don't find it unreasonable to expect that kind of courtesy.

The text below the photo is a caption text. If a photo is of a person, it is quite normal that the text refers to that person. The text above the photo identifies the name of the person. The 'About Me' box identifies the author of this blog. Anyone taking his time to make comments about this blog or its author should have ample time to comprehend the difference between Lt.-Col. Strutt and the author of this blog.

Moreover, the mission of this blog is clearly stated in the description below the title of the blog. One might be tempted to ask what is apparent about a commenter who chooses to emphasize a caption text of a photo, which it should be clear is not the author of this blog, over the blog's description just below the blog's title.

Now, the commenter might perhaps be forgiven for his perception of the "apparent" were it not for the fact that the Lt.-Col. – as the caption text states – was a protector of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial-Royal Family, and not a protector of the Austro-Hungarian Crown. The Lt.-Col. was a protector of this family at a time when Austria-Hungary very much was dissolved. The Austro-Hungarian Royal Family actually still exists, although it normally these days goes by the name of the Habsburg Family – or the House of Habsburg.

One might say that the difference between the Royal Family and the Crown is insignificant, but it is not. If one is not referring to the physical object to place on a royal's head, or currency, the difference between protecting the Royal Family and the institution of the Crown when it comes to Austria-Hungary was quite significant indeed in 1919 – especially when it comes to a Lt.-Col. sent on a mission at the initiative of His Britannic Majesty George V.

Basing a one sentence comment on what is "apparent," but cannot be apparent to everyone, there is in addition no substantial argument.

My readers are of course free not to take me or my blog seriously. A similar freedom belongs to me. I will take no commenter seriously who posts anonymously, bases his comment on what first comes into mind as "apparent," and has no substantial argument.

Peter Tatchell and the Monarchy

Two score and fourteen years ago today, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was crowned.

Over at the Guardian, Peter Tatchell debunks the British Monarchy on the occasion.

Mr. Tatchell says:

[W]e democrats celebrate June 2 with a vision of what Britain could be: a democratic republic with an elected head of state, a representative of the nation who is chosen by us, the people.

Heard of H.L. Mencken? He is known to have said:

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

Mr. Tatchell further says:

Let's be clear about one thing: monarchy is incompatible with democracy.

And that is supposed to be an argument against it?!? Please do explain!

Mr. Tatchell goes on:

According to the elitist values of the monarchical system, the most stupid, immoral royal is more fit to be head of state than the wisest, most ethical commoner.

I keep forgetting the superb capability of modern democracy to choose the wise and the ethical. Please do forgive me!

Mr. Tatchell continues:

Monarchs get the job for life, no matter how appallingly they behave.

And Abraham Lincoln – the "log cabin" President – was reelected after having brought a terrible war – according to Wikipedia, in a landslide.

I'll take the kings and queens of old over modern politicians any day, and I'll take the monarchs of our time over politicians too. I recall what J.R.R. Tolkien so brilliantly has been quoted for saying:

My political beliefs lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy ... Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers.

Further down Mr. Tatchell says:

This enshrinement of bigotry is not surprising. After all, the monarchy is a relic of despotic feudal power - a left-over from an era of absolute power, where a supposed divinely-ordained ruler literally lorded it over the British people.

Absolute? If there ever was an absolute rule, it's that of modern parliaments. Mr. Tatchell seems to be in need of being reminded of something the great Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn said:

There are totalitarian and monolithic tendencies inherent in democracy that are not present even in a so-called absolute monarchy, much less so in a mixed government which, without exaggeration, can be called the great Western tradition.

There certainly isn't much left of a mixed government in the present day United Kingdom, but removing the remnants of it can hardly be moving in the right direction.

Moreover, Mr. Tatchell tells us:

The monarch still retains a number of anti-democratic reserve powers, including the powers to summon, prorogue and dissolve parliament. These powers could be crucial in sensitive or uncertain political circumstances. The prime minister's exercise of royal prerogatives requires royal approval. Such approval has never been withheld in modern times, but why should royal authority be necessary in the first place?

Please do tell us why not, sir! Why is your pathetic belief in the sanctity of popular rule so great? Please do tell us!

Mr. Tatchell questions further:

Likewise, The Queen has to give her royal assent to every bill passed by parliament, before it can become law. Even if this is only symbolic, why should the monarch have this power at alI?

Why not?

He continues:

In the event of a hung parliament, The Queen will make the crucial decision as to which party leader to call to form a government - a highly-charged decision with huge political ramifications.

And the point is?

Furthermore, Mr. Tatchell tells us:

The monarch can also dismiss an elected government.

Oh?!? That's scary!!! There actually is a check on the popular power. Now, we can't have that, can we?

Mr. Tatchell goes on further down:

I favour a low-cost, purely ceremonial, elected president, like the German and Irish presidents. This would ensure that the people are sovereign, not the royals.

And ensure absolutely no brake on popular sovereignty – or to be more precise, rule of the representatives of the mob. Thank you! I am really relieved!

Mr. Tatchell concludes:

It would give us the most important safeguard of all: if we don't like our head of state, we can elect a new one.

Most important safeguard of all?!? Yes! Where is your proof, sir? If it is so obvious that this is the most important safeguard, I should be able to see that, right? But I don't. So where are your substantial arguments?

God save Her Britannic Majesty! Long may she reign over the United Kingdom and her other Realms!

Monarchists vs. Republicans

Over at The Monarchist, a relatively fierce debate has been going on between monarchists and republicans.

"J.J." says:

It will have simply entered a new phase of its historical evolution, a phase in which the democratic state has grown mature enough to discard the last remnants of its non-democratic, aristocratic past, and thus divorce itself from its useless marriage to crown.

Matured? Into what? Into the ever growing, far-reaching state of our times? If you prefer calling that maturing, please feel free!

"J.J." further says:

Call me a Whig is you must, but I believe none of this is disrespectful to history, but rather honors our history of growth and progress. Quintessentially British values, by the way.

I, for one, will not call him a Whig, but a believer in the misconceived, flawed, and misguided Whig Theory of History of which Prof. Dr. Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has said:

The Whig theory of history, according to which mankind marches continually forward toward ever higher levels of progress, is incorrect. From the viewpoint of those who prefer less exploitation over more and who value farsightedness and individual responsibility above shortsightedness and irresponsibility, the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.

Moreover, "J.J." says:

It is only through our fortunate history of British colonization that Canadians are today a free enough people to realize the problems of the monarchical system, and debate alternatives.

I have lived under one of the successor republics of the British Empire. That successor republic has not done well. It can certainly be claimed that comparing the Dominion of Canada with the Republic of Kenya is unfair. However, I have also lived in a Europe "freed" of monarchical rule of which William Gairdner so brilliantly has said:

[A] graph of the past century would show that liberty and local control has retreated everywhere in the "free" world as monarchy has declined.

"J.J." goes on:

I'm a conservative because I believe in classical values such as common sense, rationality, fiscal restraint, individualism, and human dignity.

Prof. Hoppe has called democracy "soft communism." It is true that democracy is about who rules, not how it is ruled, but there are certain tendencies in democratic rule that favor certain policies over others.

The UK electorate kept the now ennobled Baroness of Kesteven in office for 11 years. While she did not leave office because she was directly thrown out by the people, the so-called welfare state was intact when she left. Ronald Reagan, who unashamedly said "government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem," presided over a growing federal government.

The track record of modern democracy to deliver "classical values" is – to be modest – not impressive. During the seven decades of Soviet Communism, one could often hear – and one still does – the claim that this was not true communism. One can be tempted to ask those who have their faith in modern democracy and "classical values" when they think democracy will "deliver." One should also ask what is the most important; rule of the majority or "classical values?"

"J.J." continues:

I reject the unscientific, irrational, unproven, collectivist doctrines of the socialist left, but also the equally irrational supersticions and tradition fetishes of the reactionary right.

One might ask what is so rational about the faith in modern democracy, given its track record. Anyone claiming monarchy to be irrational should study Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Bertrand de Jouvenel, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe for starters. And they can have Leland B. Yeager's Monarchy: Friend of Liberty and "Deogolwulf"'s Monarchy for pre-meal appetizers.

Furthermore, "J.J." says:

One would find people like me far closer to the mainstream of any modern conservative party than any of the authors on this site, which is simply part of my larger argument about republicanism being a natural component of a larger cultural evolution.

Larger cultural evolution? Modern democracy was brought about by political fights, revolutions, and wars. Remember the French Revolution and the war to make the world safe for democracy from history classes? If you want to call it cultural evolution, by all means, please do feel free. I, however, prefer calling a spade a spade, and a revolution a revolution.

Return of the King

Sir John Ure reviews Charles Fitzroy's Return of the King: The Restoration of Charles II.

Nepalese Armed Groups

New armed groups sprout up in Nepal. So the Asian Tribune reports.