A Brief Return

More than four years have passed since the previous post. I am not gone. I have been active on Twitter, and will continue to be so. From time to time, I write opinion pieces, sometimes in English. Here are those not previously posted:

• Is Democracy Mob Rule?
• Federally Mandated Parental Leave? Look to Norway?
• Don’t Lower the Voting Age, Raise It
• My Campaign to Raise the Voting Age Got Me Shadowbanned on Twitter
• Probable Cause I Should Have No Privacy?
• Does Democracy Provide Liberty? (Part I of series)
• Is Democracy the Best We Can Do? (Part II of series)
• Democracy and Liberty Ahead (Part III of series)
• The Education of a Monarchist: Advantages of the Heritage of Caesar's Corona
• Advice to Joe Biden
• Is Liberal Democracy Liberal Enough?

Very recently, in this Coronation season, I debuted as an op-ed writer in the American press, more specifically in The Washington Times, with British monarchy is outside of government in a way not even the American judiciary is. That lengthy headline was not my idea. Just ahead of His Majesty King Charles III's debut Trooping the Colour, I also had this published: Save Us from More Politics!

Randoms of the Summer

Writes Dr. Gary North over at his website:

It wound up with a military dictator, Oliver Cromwell: 1649-1659. He was replaced by a new king in 1660. But the Parliament continued to centralize its power, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and 1689 stripped much of the power of the King, but it did not reduce government power; it simply transferred it to Parliament. Parliament adopted a theory of parliamentary sovereignty second to none in the history of tyranny. It claimed, and it still claims, that it has final sovereignty over all aspects of British life. There was no written constitution to restrain it. There was only the common law to restrain it. That was something important, but the centralization continued. It continues today.

The Mad Monarchist is probably the most prolific for the pan-monarchist cause in the blogosphere. He has published his thoughts on his future as a blogger and has announced a strike. Let's hope he does in some way continue his great contribution in near future.

The Mad Monarchist writes:

It is true that, ultimately, considering what are known as alternate histories is a waste of time. We can never know for sure what would have happened, what might have been or how this or that would have worked out. However, if kept in its proper place, such speculation can be of at least some benefit. As well as providing some creative exercise that might generate valuable ideas, I also have found it a good tool for bringing people to an understanding of free will, that the way the world is today did not just happen inexorably but was the result of past decisions. If different decisions had been made, we would be living in a different sort of world. Actions have consequences and this is a point that can be brought home by considering alternate possibilities.

[...]

As we recently saw the annual celebration of America’s Declaration of Independence, it may be worthwhile or at least entertaining to consider what might have happened if such a declaration had never been made. Likewise, if it had, what might have happened if Britain had won the war and the American colonies remained in the British Empire?

First of all, despite the way most people make it sound, America would not be some sort of oppressed, downtrodden land of miserable tyranny. Under the British Crown the American colonies already had a higher standard of living and more individual freedom than most people in the world. King George III was no tyrant, he did not get his way all the time and he never refused Royal Assent to any acts of Parliament.

In an earlier post he writes:

Today Americans celebrate Independence Day but, of course, as is usual with such cases, the ideas that are celebrated are more myth than reality.

And back in mid-June he wrote:

Based on what I have seen, this usually comes down to the idea that, since libertarians think anyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want, it is absurd to say they do not have the right to choose their head of state. I must confess, that sort of “logic” never made sense to me. I thought libertarianism was about having the right to make decisions for yourself, not for other people. That is what democracy is all about; 51% of the herd making decisions for the other 49%.

[...]

The closest the world ever came to a privatized society was in the monarchial Middle Ages and while it is, in theory, at least possible that a more libertarian society could come about in a monarchy, it is impossible to believe that a democracy could ever be libertarian when everyone is always just one vote away from having it all come crashing down.

Asks Mr. Theodore Harvey over at his weblog Royal World:

[I]f the Regicide of 1793, undeniably one of the most horrible acts in History, was truly a "point of no return," how was it that France had various monarchies for two thirds of the following century?

Royal World also brings some thoughts on monarchism.

Tea at Trianon has a note on the French court and the American rebels.

Ad Orientem has an old quote from Gerald Warner.

American Monarchism

T. John Jamieson presents an essay from his own hand from 1984 in a journal by Roger Scruton.


H/T: Royal World


Update: Author info fixed.

Monarchy vs. Republic in Oslo

Last Sunday yours truly went to a debate at the local Literature House between republican Mr. Erik Lundesgaard and monarchist Mr. Nils August Andresen. The audience was overwhelmingly republican. The debate was organized by the republican movement but open to the general public.

Yours truly is probably considerably more of a paleomonarchist than Mr. Andresen, the former being less satisfied with the status quo than the latter – most likely. Your host blogger is probably more skeptical of democracy and popular sovereignty than the monarchist panelist.

However, Mr. Andresen should be commended for saying:

• The monarch represents balance against democratic power, especially for permanent minorities.
• More democracy is not necessarily a good thing (in every situation).
• The Whig theory of history is incorrect.
• That the King of Norway stood up to the politicians when they wanted to remove the confessional requirement for the monarch was a good thing.
• Democratic institutions may be questioned more in the future.

Mr. Lundesgaard countered Mr. Andresen's concept of balance of power with what nowadays is the concept in use, namely a functional separation (a governmental division of labor of sorts), saying that the concept of balance of power is outdated. Lundesgaard may be right in what is the order of the day. Unfortunately. Fortunately, it doesn't have to stay that way forever.

Lundesgaard stated that the litmus test [note to Mr. Lundesgaard if he should ever read this blog post: litmus test is “syretest” in Norwegian] for being a principled monarchist is if you would set up a brand new state with a monarchy. Andresen responded that he didn't accept his definition of a principle, stating that he hoped that such a situation never should be the case, previously having stated that he would not set up a new monarchy.

Andresen and yours truly seem largely to be in agreement that constitutional design is not a good thing. Let's remember the wise words of Edmund Burke; that constitutions are grown, not made.

Yours truly might be more inclined to set up a new monarchy than Mr. Andresen, but it would all depend on the situation. It is not considered normal to establish new monarchies in this day and age, but a new monarchical age may dawn. Yours truly may be more welcoming to such a new age than Mr. Andresen, but he can speak for himself.

Mr. Lundesgaard claimed that it is only a question of time before we have a Norwegian republic. He also claimed to know about a lot of closet republicans. The Norwegian republicans in 1905 thought King Haakon VII's reign would be a short one. They were wrong. The republicans can be wrong again.

As for the possibility of closet republicans, Lundesgaard may be right. However, there are probably quite a few closet democracy skeptics as well.

Several republicans had the floor for comments and questions. There was a Dane who apparently tried to demolish Mr. Andresen's concept of historical legitimacy by stating that Denmark has a historically legitimate claim to Norway. The Dane did not mention that Denmark-Norway was based on a union treaty, not on some sort of ownership by Denmark of Norway. In any case, the Danish republican apparently thought that historical legitimacy means that anything that has been in the past can be justified, an interpretation that was effectively rejected by Mr. Andresen. Andresen also in a way made a case for the union of Denmark and Norway, historically, also culturally during the union with Sweden. Your host blogger would say that the good aspects of Denmark-Norway have been underrated.

A Swedish republican also took to the floor and managed to say that democracy is the finest thing there is. Seriously? Some democratic-republicans apparently have a deviating view of what is the finest thing there is (most people find this outside the realm of politics – enough said). You cannot make this stuff up. Mr. Andresen, being a gentleman, did not fall for the temptation to make a point out of that. He merely took note that there are different views on democracy, and that republicans apparently don't acknowledge those other views.

Mr. Andresen did a good job in the debate. Although he apparently is far from as paleo as yours truly, he should be commended for being – philosophically at least – considerably more balanced on democracy than the general pseudo-religious democracy view that is so common in these times.

BTW, popular support for a restoration in Serbia – through an opinion poll not too long ago – of around 40 percent is fueled by exactly the kind of dropping faith in democratic institutions – or the elected politicians – that Mr. Andresen talked about. 40 percent is more than ditching the monarchy has ever received in any opinion poll in Norway for at least some decades. And republicans have the nerve to claim that once a monarchy is gone no one – apart from very minor groups – ever seriously wants it back!

We should also keep in mind the opinion poll conducted in connection with the Norwegian coronation centennial in 2006, where 20 percent approved of increasing regal powers – 30 percent amongst those thirty and younger.

Randoms of February

Over at The American Conservative, Wilfred M. McClay reviews William Murchison's The Cost of Liberty: The Life of John Dickinson. Dr. McClay in particular notes:

As the historian Forrest McDonald has speculated, Dickinson, who was admired even more than Jefferson for the eloquence of his pen and was an older and more seasoned man, might well have been the one invited to draft the Declaration—if only he had signaled a willingness to “swallow his scruples and voted for independence.” Had that happened, McDonald continued, the Declaration “would have been based upon English constitutional history rather than, as was Jefferson’s, upon natural-rights theory—with vastly different implications.”

Also at The American Conservative, Paul Robinson reflects on how Russia could have stayed out of the Great War. Writes Dr. Robinson:

Durnovo disliked the Franco-Russian alliance. Republican France and Tsarist Russia had nothing in common. The conservative German Empire, by contrast, was a much more natural ally.

Over at RadixJournal.com, Dr. Sean Gabb makes a case for the English landed aristocracy.

Over at More Right, Samo Burja gives some arguments for monarchy.

At same weblog, Michael Anissimov debunks modernity.

Over at The Mad Monarchist, Alberta Royalist gives a review of BBC's Cousins at War.

Says Mr. Theodore Harvey over at his blog Royal World:

The world is a mess. Everyone deplores it. But not enough people yet draw the obvious conclusion: Modern Political "Progress" Is Not Working!

Utters Outis Nusquam:

Modernity did not replace tradition with reason, it replaced tradition with opinion polls.

MEP Daniel Hannan reflects on where Nazism belongs on the political spectrum.

The Rage against Monarchy

Over at RadixJournal.com, formerly Alternative Right, yours truly has a recent article on a quite recent attack on monarchy as an idea. It is yours truly debut article at the site.

Some Monarchist and Reactionary Thought

Something to reflect on:

What Monarchy and Democracy Look Like

This video is a bit categorical and cherry-picking, but the examples are good:

From December...

Over at The Independent, Mr. Guy Keleny says real liberals should support the monarchy, concluding:

Well, I submit that for true liberals, who care most of all for the liberty of the individual citizen, the “will of the people” is a will o’ the wisp, frequently invoked by crooks and tyrants. We do not like triumphs of the will, even that of the people. The chief value of democracy is not in “getting things done” – that is the socialist way – but in preventing the abuse of power by those in charge. And the chief value of monarchs is that they are there not by their own will or anybody else’s but by pure chance. The important thing is not to confuse the person and the office; the Queen is not a god, nor does she “deserve” the privileges of her office. But that office is ancient, colourful and modestly useful, and we’d be crazy to get rid of it.

Psyposts reports on research for implementing tyranny of the majority.

Mr. Matt Briggs reflects on Plato and democracy.

PoliticsUSA reports on someone refusing to pledge support for democracy. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

The Mad Monarchist reviews the year, concluding:

Most troubling for me about 2013 was the further deterioration of tradition and traditional values. Royal children born out of wedlock, “inter-faith” coronations and so on. Belgium and Luxembourg both have openly homosexual prime ministers and in little Luxembourg bigger changes are planned with the current government such as legalizing gay marriage, gay adoption, removing religious classes from the public schools and doing away with Catholic services as part of National Day celebrations. The King of The Netherlands says he doesn’t want to be called “Your Majesty”, the Prince of Wales wants an “inter-faith” coronation and the Pope is talking about income inequality and driving a Ford. In all the good and bad we have seen in 2013, it is safe to say that those supporting tradition and monarchy, in Europe in particular, need to step their game up in a big way.

In another post, the same blogger says:

However, over time, minor incidents were so exaggerated that the British public, it seems, came to view the monarch as being the adviser to the Parliament rather than the reverse and invested so much power in politicians for fear of being tyrannized by a monarch that today the monarch has no power to restrain the politicians from tyrannizing the people.

A few other posts by the same blogger:

• Story of Monarchy: The End of Afghanistan
• What the Pope Said
• December 7 and the American Double-Standard with Japan
• Arguing with Canadian Republicans

Also at the same blog, Alberta Royalist gives his thoughts on the Canadian Senate and a future House of Lords.

Over at his weblog Royal World, Mr. Theodode Harvey ponders the concepts of left and right. He also mentions a French pretender. More at Royal World in December.

Tea at Trianon has a post on Queen Charlotte (consort of George III) and the Christmas tree and one on abandoned castles in France.

Mr. Gareth Russell sums up a few reads from the year that is closing, including a couple of books related to the war whose centenary is coming up.

The Financial Times interviews the Sovereign Prince of Liechtenstein (via Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites).

Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites presents a story of a colonel who would not stand up for his King.

Over at The Guardian, Mr. Martin Kettle reflects on what would have happened if Germany had won the Great War (via LRC).

Over at the LRC Blog, Mr. Charles Burris has some quotes related to the Great War.

Over at the Mail on Sunday, Mr. Peter Hitchens gives his thoughts on the institution of marriage.

Ad Orientem brings us a report on a speech of the Prince of Wales on Christianity and the Middle East.

Randoms on Democracy and Monarchy

Geeky monarchists have been noticed over at CrunchBase.

Royal World has some post, some of which are:

• Prince George Christened
• Bl Karl, Fairy-Tale Prince
• Enemies of Monarchy, Heroes of Modernity
• Monarchial Democracy?

Some of the posts of the Mad Monarchist:

• A Note on Political Realities
• Story of Monarchy: The Kingdom of Prussia
• Flag Flaps, Part II, France
• Story of Monarchy: Liechtenstein
• Mad Rant: Yes I Do!
• International Monarchist Conspiracy Against Texas?
• Monarchism and the Corporate State in Portugal
• The Ethiopian Mistake

Some on the Great War:

• The Mad Monarchist: World War I: The Blame Game
• Laurence M. Vance, Lewrockwell.com: An Injury to Civilization (a book review of Jack Beatty's The Lost History of 1914: Reconsidering the Year the Great War Began, see also The Pittsford Perennialist)

Some on the so-called shutdown of the federal government of those United States:

• The Mad Monarchist: Shut Down and Debt Ceiling
• The Pittsford Perennialist: Shut 'Em Down
• Foseti: The government “shutdown”

Vive la Reine has a post on the portrait of Louis XVI at Mount Vernon (via Tea at Trianon).

28 percent of Russians in an opinion poll want the vacancy of the Russian throne to end. So RT reports. Says Avenging Red Hand:

Why are we going around choosing kings? Maria Vladimirovna is the Empress. End of story. Crown her.

Radish gives us Democracy and the Intellectuals.

The Radical Royalist reports on the monarchism of Her Britannic Majesty's new Australian Prime Minister.

Over at his weblog More Right, Michael Anissimov posts Ten Objections to Traditionalism and Monarchism, With Answers, amongst other interesting material.

Outsideness says:

Constitutions are designs and operating instructions for mechanisms. They don't rule any more than rocket blueprints blast into orbit.

The same also says:

Unlike democracy, the Easter Bunny looks good in principle.

James Woods quotes a Pruzansky:

The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living[.]

Bryce Laliberte writes:

Democracy is not politically neutral. It favors certain kinds of social reform over others, which becomes a feedback loop into singularity.

Mr. Laliberte also writes:

Democracy is war. You win by the willingness to cause destruction.

Further:

I don't want democracy because nearly everyone is stupid and I don't trust them.

Also from Mr. Laliberte:

Opposition to democracy should be the conservative's foundation. Without this, he has already lost.

Finally a supposed quote from Queen Victoria:

Feminists ought to get a good whipping.

A Summer of Monarchy and Democracy

June started off with the Britannic coronation anniversary: Ad Orientem, Tea at Trianon, The Mad Monarchist, No Republic! (again and again), Trond Norén Isaksen

Another Britannic event took place in July, with the arrival of Prince George: The Monarchist, The Mad Monarchist, Ad Orientem, Ad Orientem again, Altar and Throne, No Republic! (again, again, again, again, and again), Dag T. Hoelseth, Trond Norén Isaksen

Tea at Trianon posts generally about the British monarchy, also commenting on the French. The Thinking Housewife also reflects generally on the Britannic monarchy.

Over at Scotland on Sunday, Mr. Gerald Warner gives his thoughts on the new heir being a prince.

Over at the Mail on Sunday, Mr. Peter Hitchens gave his thoughts on the future of the Britannic monarchy. He followed up with some thoughts on monarchy and liberty – in two parts and some responses.

This is most definitely the year of abdications. In July we had the Belgian one: Trond Norén Isaksen, The Mad Monarchist (again and again)

Early in July we have the annual event of the anniversary of American independence: Mr. Paul Pirie at The Washington Post, The Mad Monarchist, The Pittsford Perennialist (quote of Mr. Daniel Hannan)

Over at Alternative Right, Mr. Mark Hackard reflects on Russia, concluding:

Vladimir Putin is far from a perfect counterrevolutionary, but he leads the last great people to oppose an incipient, inhuman world tyranny. His place in history’s saga depends on an ideal reborn- not bourgeois, technocratic Russia Inc., but a Third Rome, calling the nations to repentance and giving the enemies of God good cause to shudder.

Ad Orientem has a couple of posts on Russia. Tea at Trianon reflects on the mystery of Grand Duchess Anastasia, reviewing The Resurrection of the Romanovs.

The Mad Monarchist has some more post, some of which are:

• Mad Rant: Monarchy Value for Money
• Unpopular Democracy in Egypt
• Beware Democracy
• The Swaziland Situation

Says Mr. Pax Dickinson:

[M]onarchy might result in a criminal sociopath becoming your leader. [D]emocracy guarantees it.

Also says Mr. Dickinson:

Democracy incentivizes the state to monitor and mold its citizens' public opinions. Privacy is incompatible with mass government.

Furthermore:

[V]oter compassion without awareness of facts is built into mass democracy.

Moreover:

If you laugh at how stupid internet commenters are but you also believe in democracy, the joke's on you.

Even more:

[O]f course democracy is compatible with mass surveillance, how else can you be sure the people have the correct opinions?

Yet more:

The GOP shouldn't compromise it's principles to cater to mass opinion? Are you stupid? If you're against that, stop supporting democracy.

Royal Central busts five anti-monarchy myths.

Over at Reason 24/7, Mr. Matthew Feeney presents benefits of monarchy.

Over at Taki's Magazine, Mr. John Derbyshire wonders whether democracy's sun is setting.

Over at Enter Stage Right, Mr. Bruce Walker argues for advantages of monarchy.

Over at The Washington Post, Mr. George F. Will explores the connection between Detroit's situation and democracy.

Foseti reviews The Problem of Democracy by Alain de Benoist.

28 Sherman gives a taste of democracy and illiteracy.

Tea at Trianon reviews the movie Farewell, My Queen of 2012.

Mr. William Gairdner ponders the role of a senate.

The Pittsford Perennialist is baffled by the call for expanding voting rights. Said weblog also quotes from a review by the recently late (RIP) Professor Kenneth Minogue of The Enlightenment by Anthony Pagden.

Hello Magazine reports on yesterday's wedding of Mr. Andrea Casiraghi, currently second in line to the Monegasque throne, only one of two thrones in Europe, not counting the Vatican, where the occupant has any real powers beyond “reserve and advisory powers.” This was high time – given the order of events...

Royal World has posts: August, July, June. So does Radical Royalist: August, July, June. Mr. Rafal Heydel-Mankoo also has lots of interesting commentary: August, July, June.

Mr. Michael Anissimov quotes Mr. William S. Lind:

In 1914, the West put a gun to its collective head and blew its brains out.

So does Konkvistador:

It may well be that European civilization’s last chance for survival was a German victory on the Marne in 1914.

Says Mr. Pax Dickinson:

Woodrow Wilson is an often under-estimated contender for the title of History's Greatest Monster.

Also says Mr. Dickinson:

[T]he world was made safe for democracy, and only then did we notice the predatory gleam in its eye and how sharp its teeth are.

Says The Mad Monarchist:

Sir Winston Churchill famously said, “Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings”. True words and easily proven so. In those backward, reactionary times of royal rule, wars tended to be fought for some specific aim. Enemies could meet on the field of battle while their rulers still held mutual respect for each other. Wars tended to end by negotiation. Capital cities were rarely taken and the physical destruction that accompanied war was limited to the battlefields themselves and the actual ground armies marched over. Compare that to the wars of the Twentieth Century in which whole cities, hundreds of miles from the front lines, were bombed to rubble. Sometimes even cities in neutral countries were bombed by mistake. Oops. In the past, when a negotiated peace was the aim of a war, it was usually necessary to have someone to negotiate with. After the wars of peoples took hold, in order to motivate an entire population to war, politicians had to enflame peoples against each other and nothing less than the total annihilation of the enemy and their government would suffice.

Over at LewRockwell.com, Mr. Jonathan Goodwin gives some thoughts on democracy and revenge.

Writes Ad Orientem:

In other words nothing of great importance was going on at the end of August 100 years ago. It will be six years before I will be able to write those words again.

February Selection

A few reflection over at The American Conservative:

• Scott Galupo on American conservatism and Calhoun
• Andrew J. Bacevich on counterculture conservatism
• Patrick J. Buchanan's reflections on the papal resignation

LewRockwell.com recently reran an article by Dr. David Gordon on the lack of arguments for democracy. Apparently, we don't need to parody the democratists. They manage almost perfectly themselves. This really is a candidate for “you cannot make this up” file.

The Mad Monarchist gives his thoughts on monarchy and “Tories.” Same blogger also pulls out a quote from Count Joseph de Maistre:

Man is insatiable for power, he is infantile in his desires and, always discontented with what he has, loves only what he had not. People complain of the despotism of princes; they ought to complain of the despotism of man.

Also a quote from Alexander Hamilton:

If government is in the hands of the few, they will tyrannize the many; if in the hands of the many, they will tyrannize over the few. It ought to be in the hands of both, and be separated…they will need a mutual check. This check is a monarch.

The Mad Monarchist also reflects on the downfall of the Kingdom of Madagascar, which happened 116 years ago today. Royal World marks a Prussian tricentennial and a Russian quadricentennial.

Over at The Spectator, writer John Gray says (H/T: Foseti):

The idea that humans are by nature free is one of the most harmful fictions that’s ever been promoted anywhere.

Finally, Ad Orientem has some humor.

January Musings and More

Alternative Right reviews the year of 2012.

Also at Alternative Right, Mark Hackard has reflected on Dostoevsky and modern conservatism – touching on a certain inaugural speech.

Over at The American Conservative, Patrick J. Buchanan further reflects on the inaugural speech.

Over at his weblog Royal World, Theodore Harvey gives his take on conservatism.

Royal World also comments on the Dutch upcoming abdication – and once again. The Mad Monarchist also has some comments.

Royal World also weighs in on the news of German heirs, which Radical Royalist also has, and has some thoughts on the German Empire.

Further, Royal World has some words for the anniversary of the Hawai'ian overthrow.

The Mad Monarchist remembers Charles I, rants against equality, and counters some republican arguments.

Norwegian royal historian Trond Norén Isaksen marks the 250^th anniversary of the birth of King Carl Johan.

Over at his very own Taki's Magazine, Taki Theodoracopulos compares Europe of old and now – with special emphasis on Russia, Greece, and the EU.

Monarchy Musings from August

Royal World brings to our attention a defense of monarchy by Ray Wilson over at ridingthetiger.org. Ray Wilson writes:

The negative view of monarchy today is tied to the quasi sacred belief in the idea of “progress” in which history is viewed as a continuous marching forward, with advancements socially, culturally, technologically, one in which primitivity and barbarism is the starting point and civilization is a sort of eternal end point. The liberals and so called progressives label anything that is contrary to their own ideological leanings as “reactionary” or regressive as it is far easier to dismiss something as backwards than actually judge it on its own faults and merits.

The Sobornost quotes:

Russia needs to reunify with its canonical territories, first and foremost with Belarus and Ukraine, and elect an Orthodox monarch to lead the country to its former greatness.

Over at Chronicles Magazine, writes Clyde Wilson:

I know there are good British people who feel that their monarchy plays an important role as the embodiment of tradition, patriotism, and unity, and I must respect that. I know also that the criticism of the monarchy that comes from the Brit chattering classes is not motivated by moral outrage or democratic sentiment. It expresses the same envy and spite that energizes a similar type in America to hate the Confederate flag. Their nature is to suppress whatever is a remnant of earlier and better times that they fear they cannot fully control.

Over at Attack the System, it is written:

What about the communists screaming about the authoritarian nature of monarchism? They would need an authoritarian state to carry out their actions under the false promise that the state would somehow melt away. At least monarchism never makes such false claims, as Marxism does. Marxism does not lead to maximal liberty. Even if based upon a system of democracy, as the Trotskyites would want, this would become mob rule.

Everyone would think that they know just as well as anyone else what should be done. Can everyone simultaneously be an expert in politics, science, economics, and so on? Some people know more than others on these topics. A king would have been raised in political affairs his entire life by his predecessor. Nothing can compare.

Battle of Ideas

The Institute of Ideas has an annual event, namely the Battle of Ideas, which is weekend gathering with lots of debates.

This year's event takes place in the Barbican in London on the third weekend of October.

One of the debates is a monarchy debate, with Rafal Heydel-Mankoo and Scott Pepé on the monarchist side.


H/T: Rafal Heydel-Mankoo

Politicos and Monarchy

Writes The Mad Monarchist:

It is amazing how so many people in the world are passionately loyal to the republic as an ideal while widely despising politicians in general. Bizarre as that is, the low opinion most people have for the vast majority of politicians is one of the most valuable weapons in the monarchist arsenal.

Libertarian Monarchism?

Free Northerner reflects on libertarianism and monarchism.

The Lion King

The motion picture The Lion King was released eighteen years ago today. The kingdom bows to the newborn heir:

Napoleonic Theme Park

A Napoleon theme park is being planned south of Paris. So BBC reports.

Construction is apparently to start in 2014. The chosen site is a bit over an hour's drive south from the center of Paris.

Napoloen? Yes, he founded a dynasty, and had it survived, it probably would have been better for France than the several republics.

However, he was a self-crowned usurper and warmonger, who dragged Europe into war. Much can be said, but his overthrow of the failed republic certainly was no genuine restoration.

That being said, this blogger welcomes the plans for the theme park. It should also be the first plan, sparking a lot of ideas.

There should also be a Bourbon monarchy theme park. In Austria, there could be a Habsburg theme park. With all the Habsburg nostalgia there, there absolutely should be a basis for such a theme park. Portugal – with its monarchist activism – could put up a Braganza theme park. Similarly, Brazil should have its empire theme park. Russia should have its Romanov theme park.

And what about a Chinese empire theme park put up in Hong Kong? Perhaps a monarchy theme park in the United Kingdom? What about combining it with a British Empire theme park? One part of it could present the royalist side of the English Civil War? Another part could present the losing side of the Glorious Revolution? Also, what about a United Empire Loyalist theme park in Canada? Where part of it would present loyalist perspectives on the conflict south of the border from which they fled – partly countering Americanist myth?

Maybe there even could be a Central Power perspective theme park on the Great War?

And last but not least, what about a non-emasculated monarchy theme park in Liechtenstein?

Perhaps a general monarchy theme park could combine all these ideas in one?

We could take it beyond monarchy as well. What about a theme park in the American South on what President Lincoln destroyed and how the rest of the world far more peacefully ended slavery?

Of course, theme parks are no replacement for restorations and retentions. Also, of course, a theme park partly celebrating the Stuarts is by no means a suggestion that the reigning house in the Commonwealth Realms be replaced.

What Do Monarchists Do?

H/T: Theodore's Royalty & Monarchy Site