tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post4055932907182847355..comments2024-03-23T08:00:26.020+00:00Comments on THE MONARCHIST: Equality be damnedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-72216431765153994662015-12-19T19:32:52.528+00:002015-12-19T19:32:52.528+00:00James said "And if Mr. Holden thinks a presid...James said "And if Mr. Holden thinks a president can be chosen without some sort of political contest (isn't any vote such a thing?), then he's dreaming."<br /><br />A republic with a head of state chosen by Sortition (random selection) is selection of a HoS without a political contest.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15097224815939629858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-24380237641521442112009-05-05T17:00:00.000+01:002009-05-05T17:00:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-42027547824206526992009-03-31T17:52:00.000+01:002009-03-31T17:52:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-53575082106143143132007-03-01T14:22:00.000+00:002007-03-01T14:22:00.000+00:00I love this posting!May I copy it and repost it on...I love this posting!<br><br>May I copy it and repost it on our web site?BaronVonServershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05150068349893076888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-21601814313228820772007-03-01T16:00:00.000+00:002007-03-01T16:00:00.000+00:00Beautiful words! - able to capture the emotional s...Beautiful words! - able to capture the emotional side of monarchy, our monarchy, I should specify, in a way I could never properly articulate.<br><br>Of course, focusing on the more pragmatic, as I usually do, I can add that Mr. Holden demonstrates a belief in fantasy when he talks about this thing called "political equality." I think anyone not trying to hijack the word "equality" in the name of republicanism would see that politics is fundamentally opposed to equality - there can be no politics without contest, and there can be no contest amongst absolute equals. And, of course, in a contest, at least a political one, there is always a winner and a loser, between whom there is clearly a hierarchy established - which is where, I suppose, I link back to the subject of Swift's blog entry.<br><br>The point that our sovereign is chosen not through political contest is precisely why the office is non-partisan, unbiased, and why a monarch can say "my people" more honestly than a president. And if Mr. Holden thinks a president can be chosen without some sort of political contest (isn't any vote such a thing?), then he's dreaming.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-33183119267957714472007-03-01T16:02:00.000+00:002007-03-01T16:02:00.000+00:00Sorry for the double post! A glitch in the intern...Sorry for the double post! A glitch in the internet connection. I hope one can be deleted...Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-83604539574216228072007-03-01T17:50:00.000+00:002007-03-01T17:50:00.000+00:00I don't think I've ever read a post that says so m...I don't think I've ever read a post that says so much while saying so little. The point, once again, more or less just boils down to "the monarchy is magical and I like it." <br><br>I don't know how one can reasonably call this a "debate" since the monarchist side seems to not only reject rational logic, but actively embrace the irrational. And they seem to deeply resent even having to do THAT. <br><br>This is a nice blog for celebrating white pride and Anglophilia, but as a political discourse on an important discussion it is sadly lacking.J.J.www.filibustercartoons.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-83300066476785091062007-03-01T18:40:00.000+00:002007-03-01T18:40:00.000+00:00I don't know about the monopoly that the other sid...I don't know about the monopoly that the other side has in the way of rational purity and restrained emotions, but I do know its takes a considerable measure of Irish or republican hate to reduce a thousand years of cultural history into little more than "white pride". There's political discourse for you. Nothing sadly lacking about that crude synthesis at all, is there.<br><br>Christ, what part of the reasoning above did you not understand? Monarchy represents the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interests, which is a hell of a lot closer to human equality than the alternative. You may not like that reality, but it is a valid point of debate.The Monarchistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-24678284559212224442007-03-01T18:41:00.000+00:002007-03-01T18:41:00.000+00:00How well JJ has demonstrated the republican abilit...How well JJ has demonstrated the republican ability to close their eyes to anything that does not conform to their definition of what is "logical" and what is not.<br><br>Of course, it's pretty clear that to them republicanism is infallibly logical (though, how they can say this while hypocritically pushing illogical notions like "political equality" is beyond me) while monarchism is all whim and fancy. But, in the end, their slavish devotion to using equality, freedom, etc., as simple catchphrases (thin window-dressing to advertise the cause, so to speak) leaves them with no substantive argument against the points that not only are republics themselves dependent on inequality to operate, but to transform from a monarchy into a republic is simply replacing one elitism (based more on human and familial notions) with one based on selfish aspiration and competition.<br><br>Choosing which one of those two options sits better with the populace will never be a matter of simple, unemotional logic.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-69191469813132864062007-03-01T21:25:00.000+00:002007-03-01T21:25:00.000+00:00There is no such thing as "political equality" whe...There is no such thing as "political equality" when you are talking about heirarchy. You either look up to a Queen, or you look up to the office of a president. To go from monarchy to republic, all you are adding is a dimension of political opportunity, that was otherwise not there before.<br><br>TweedsmuirAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-6224140825966253522007-03-01T21:31:00.000+00:002007-03-01T21:31:00.000+00:00I'd like to say I appreciate posts like this. They...I'd like to say I appreciate posts like this. They're food for thought. I'm a republican living in the U.S. (though not a Republican). It's not often that I find a formidable argument from other political views, and I appreciate them when they come.<br><br>I just thought I'd peep in and say that as a republican. Not all of us are unable to recognize when others have strong arguments.Kenneth Gardnerhttp://www.xanga.com/canicusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-56204765656899638602007-03-01T21:33:00.000+00:002007-03-01T21:33:00.000+00:00JJ1. Your definition of reason is stuffed and over...JJ<br><br>1. Your definition of reason is stuffed and overly narrow. I deliberately began with a few posts like this to expose the fact.<br><br>2. There are any number of pragmatic cases for the Monarchy, and I'll exegete Disraeli's one of these days.<br><br>3. Pride in our common-wealth of heritage has zilch to do with white pride. It embraces all races and creeds. India's Anglophilia is an example, but by no means the only one.<br><br>4. We're proud of our long and honourable history, history which includes all creeds, races, colours and political persuasions. Indeed, that diversity in union is one of the reasons we are proud. Pride in culture and heritage is nothing to be ashamed of, whether it is Bangladeshi Independence Day or Victoria Day. I suggest you get over it.Swifthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16605545304782841038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-81404196925094198692007-03-02T00:30:00.000+00:002007-03-02T00:30:00.000+00:00Well, I am deeply offended by the quite irrational...Well, I am deeply offended by the quite irrational and unmagical remarks of JJ.<br><br>A good number of monarchists that I know come from ethnic minorities. Are they guilty of "white pride" too? Is this an example of your rational logic in action, JJ?<br><br>So what if the Monarchy is magical to those who are fortunate enough to gaze upon it and who are mature enough to appreciate it and to love it. Much better than a cold, calculating and sneering politician whose only magic is in the black arts - lies, corruption and deceit.Neil Weltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10015408685370714759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-11366072334224654712007-03-02T01:21:00.000+00:002007-03-02T01:21:00.000+00:00Some responses: 1) Monarchists often pay a lot of ...Some responses: <br><br>1) Monarchists often pay a lot of lip service to the fact that their Commonwealth/empire contains "all creeds, races, colours" but the fact remains that in practice they are profoundly disinterested in anything that occurs outside of the white realms. Just look at the crest at the top of this very blog. United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand in big font, all the lesser brown countries in a smaller font. Yes yes, they’re in historical order, I know, but this blog never misses an opportunity to place those three at the top of the imperial hierarchy- grossly exaggerating the relevance of tiny New Zealand (a country smaller than Papua New Guinea and the collective Caribbean) in the process, by the way. <br><br>2) Likewise, I don't think I've ever seen this blog offer any serious attempt to cover any of the politics, history, anniversaries, or cultures of any countries other than the white dominions. And even in the cases of the “big four” the focus is always exclusively on the most Anglocentric aspects of said countries, Empire this-or-that, loyalist such-and-such. What about the cultures and traditions of the non Ethnically-British who occupy such countries as well? Immigrants, natives, etc are/have been just as much a driving force in the evolution and society of these nations. To focus exclusively on the history of the Empire as the history of the white men with top hats does, in fact, suggest an unhealthy (though however benign) level of bigotry. <br><br>3) Beaverbrook’s use of the Lord’s name in vain notwithstanding, I will admit yes, I did not “understand” the sweet flowery nothings posted above. I just re-read it again now and I still do not get it. From what I can tell, the main thesis is basically this: “Monarchy is good because it’s based on hierarchy, and we all have an irrational ‘reverence’ for the concept of hierarchy, even when those who occupy our positions of adoration are unqualified idiots.” I think this is a very subjective point to make. I believe in today’s day and age more of us believe in the universal application of meritocracy in all walks of life, believing no institution or individual to be above criticism or re-examination simply because of the position or status held. Certainly parents, children, priests, soldiers, and even entire nations should not be afforded blind allegiance in all circumstances, and I would certainly hope we can all think of examples in which a subversion of allegiance to such figures would be justified. Love and loyalty can be beautiful things indeed, but I believe in almost all cases the love we hold for a “superior” stems from a sort of rational admiration- a combination of positive personal experiences, envy, and respect for success that all stem from measurable, concrete occurrences. Even monarchists admire the Queen more on the basis of who she is as a person- a kind, polite, dignified, grandmotherly, loving matriarch- than the political/historic office she holds. If say, the Queen was some drunken, foul-mouthed, child-beating adulteress I doubt even monarchists would fall over each other to offer her praise and allegiance, despite her status in the mythical hierarchy.J.J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-12003143449049243292007-03-02T02:31:00.000+00:002007-03-02T02:31:00.000+00:00It would appear our preening malcontent has a raci...It would appear our preening malcontent has a racial bone to pick, even to the extent of measuring our font size. Look at the United Kingdom in big bold capital letters, and poor tiny Tuvalu reduced to an embarrassing subscript. Are you for real, "white realms"?? Have you not been to London, Toronto, Vancouver or Sydney? I'd really like to debate you, but if race baiting is your pleasure, then kindly go fishing somewhere else. Humbug!The Monarchistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-91612552679893486952007-03-02T02:43:00.001+00:002007-03-02T02:43:00.001+00:00Superb, Swift, genuinely superb. And correct in ev...Superb, Swift, genuinely superb. And correct in every regard. Thank God in these times of terrible politicians that we still have a head of state above it all. I can't believe people would honestly prefer the ilk of M. Chirac to the House of Windsor.Sir Walter Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-32136429462377808092007-03-02T02:43:00.000+00:002007-03-02T02:43:00.000+00:00Superb, Swift, genuinely superb. And correct in ev...Superb, Swift, genuinely superb. And correct in every regard. Thank God in these times of terrible politicians that we still have a head of state above it all. I can't believe people would honestly prefer the ilk of M. Chirac to the House of Windsor.Sir Walter Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-20367240928716895402007-03-02T12:30:00.000+00:002007-03-02T12:30:00.000+00:00Time to stop digging, JJ? Your comments are very o...Time to stop digging, JJ? Your comments are very offensive to me as a monarchist. Here is why -<br><br>1. Monarchists are "profoundly disinterested in anything that occurs outside of the white realms". Isn't this a bit sweeping? Just the other day in my latest entry here I mentioned Hong Kong, South Korea, Romania and the Lebanon. Some of these are not even monarchies!<br><br>2. Why should this blog cover "any of the politics, history, anniversaries, or cultures of any countries"? This blog is supportive of monarchy and the British Monarchy in particular. If you want to establish your own blog about China or Iran - be our guest. Similarly if you want a blog about the "cultures and traditions of the non ethnically-British" then go ahead and set up a dedicated blog yourself. I will be the first to salute your passion and I'm sure your efforts will be admired and appreciated by us and others. Forgive me though if I choose to celebrate our collective loyalty and the history of our Empire via this blog. If this great celebration is nothing more than "benign bigotry", then please explain your peculiar reasoning to my racially diverse friends.<br><br>3. "Monarchy is good because it’s based on hierarchy, and we all have an irrational ‘reverence’ for the concept of hierarchy, even when those who occupy our positions of adoration are unqualified idiots." Considering that the mystery and majesty of birth is the qualification and that each Monarch is educated and trained not to be an idiot, I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Meritocracy is all well and good, even if it is based upon "envy", but be warned - you will only end up with President Bush, President Thatcher or President Blair as the reward for your fake new god.<br><br>I agree with you JJ that "no institution or individual should be above criticism or re-examination simply because of the position or status held". Nobody has suggested otherwise. Yet surely there is one individual or institution who is above criticism - God. The same God who creates and brings forth a baby Prince. Yet I feel you would judge yourself fit to criticise even Him. Attack He who made you and breathed life into you too.Neil Weltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10015408685370714759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-77380642874933279982007-03-02T14:50:00.000+00:002007-03-02T14:50:00.000+00:00Excellent post. Like Mr. Gardner, I am in the U.S...Excellent post. Like Mr. Gardner, I am in the U.S. My father's side is English, but our family has been in the U.S. for 250 years. I love reading your blog; it makes me wish I was a subject of Her Majesty, the Queen. Still, I can keep her in my prayers.<br><br>God Bless,<br>Mrs. LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-69038560741365559592007-03-02T17:24:00.000+00:002007-03-02T17:24:00.000+00:00Neil,Please do not feign ignorance. You know exact...Neil,<br><br>Please do not feign ignorance. You know exactly what I was talking about when I made reference to "the politics, history, anniversaries, or cultures" or other countries. I specifically meant the histories, etc, of those Commonwealth nations and Commonwealth realms which are not over 80% ethnically white. <br><br>Jamaica is a country enormously rich in culture and history, yet I don't believe I have ever seen mention of it on this blog. Ditto for the other nations of the Caribbean, Papua New Guinea, Belize, and so on. All monarchies, all conspicuously ignored. As I said before, the history of the empire and culture of the Empire is not exclusively the history and culture of white men in top hats, yet this is the impression one gets from reading this blog. I don't honestly believe any of you are racists, but I do think one can still be guilty of a sort of "racism by omission," especially when it is so blatant. Imagine any other site that was nominally dedicated to covering the affairs of an organization that had at least a 40% minority population. And imagine that same site focused exclusively on the affairs of the white majority, to the point where one was barely aware the significant minority population even existed. What kind of conclusions would be drawn?<br><br>As far as you latter points go, I am reminded of Tony Blair's line in the wonderful film "The Queen"- let's leave God out of this, shall we?JJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08245486008966413644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-72851282136191532142007-03-02T21:05:00.000+00:002007-03-02T21:05:00.000+00:00Let me get this right. You want to debate monarchy...Let me get this right. You want to debate monarchy but you also want to ignore "the guiding principle" and the very basis of its foundation - God. I'm not surprised you're a cartoonist. For surely cartoonists do what cartoonists have always done. Simplify, stereotype and then ridicule. Cheap shots, little of substance - as your posts demonstrate. For "racism by omission" is no better than "history by omission" - something you'd do by scrapping the Crown.Neil Weltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10015408685370714759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-78450966990425733252007-03-02T22:43:00.000+00:002007-03-02T22:43:00.000+00:00I'm more interested in hearing a response to some ...I'm more interested in hearing a response to some of the specific points I raised, and don't want to get side-tracked on some discussion about God that you'd rather have. <br><br>I am to infer you still strongly believe in the divine right of kings, which is your right. But if this is not really a sensible grounds for debate, in my mind. If your entire root of support for the monarchy is based on presuming to understand God's will... then that is well beyond the realm of rational, political discourse and certainly beyond my will to contest.J.J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-46696160790129386212007-03-02T23:06:00.000+00:002007-03-02T23:06:00.000+00:00JJThe following is part of an earlier post on this...JJ<br><br>The following is part of an earlier post on this blog defending the idea that a hereditary head of state can be part of a rational political ststem. See if this makes you happier.<br><br>"As a republican, a defender of mixed and balanced government, I believe that there are several rational arguments to be made in favor of a constitutionally limited monarchy. I believe that when (to steal a line) in the course of human events a group of people must frame a government, there are reasons to consider a limited monarch.<br><br> First a hereditary head of state keeps the top job out of the hands of politicians. No mater the nobility of their intentions, all politicians want power. It is questionable weather it is a good idea to give the largest amount of state power and the prestige of Head of State to the same person and one who has fought hard to get it. <br><br> Second as you have noted, there is a definite (presumably natural) inequality among people. As many political observers have noticed, an aristocracy, hereditary or natural, is the repository of a great deal of talent and wisdom the tapping of which is in the interests of the republic, but an aristocracy is also the reservoir of a great deal of ambition which can provoke serious and destructive rivalry. [An example of the later is the last presidential election where two members of the American aristocracy (such as it is) squared off against each other. Both men are descended from the early British settlers and are something like 14th cousins twice removed.] A monarch lessens this rivalry because the top spot is filled. <br><br>Third the Monarch can serve as check on the elected legislature and executive. Just because the majority wants something it does not always follow that they should get it. Further elected legislators and executive officers do not always act in their constituent’s interests. Powers such as: a limited veto, the chairmanship of a committee to nominate judges, and the presidency of the upper house of the legislature can be safely vested in a hereditary head of state.<br><br> Fourth, a hereditary head of State is trained from birth to fulfill this roll. This obviously has many advantages over having a Head of State who is trained to win elections. <br><br>Fifth, a hereditary head of state has the advantage of a life term of office to gather a huge amount of experience. The difference in experience between say President Ronald Reagan President 1980-1988 and H.M. Elisabeth II (1952-to the present) is simply incalculable. Her reign has already spanned 10 presidencies and if her mom is any indication it will span at least four more. She knows everyone of importance. A monarch is able to use this experience to advise the elected head of government.<br><br> Sixth, a Hereditary Head of State has a longer term view of the interests of the nation than an elected politician. Though an elected head of state may have the best of intentions for the long run health of the nation, he has no interest beyond his term of office. A Hereditary Head of State has an interest not only in the nation prospering during his or her reign, but for the reigns of his or her children and grand children.<br><br> Seventh, in countries where monarchism is already established, it’s a tradition. The idea that a Hereditary Head of State is old fashioned is just a way of saying it is traditional. The only justification for changing a tradition is that it is a positive evil or that it obstructs a positive good. Changing the form of government because it is unstylish is silly. Habits are a powerful force in everything and politics is no exception. Why does the loser of an election accept the results? Because that is what we (democratic peoples) do. <br><br> Eighth, is a closely allied reason to the forgoing, sentiment. People feel a sentimental attraction to the Royal Family, because they are a family. They are people and the public knows about them, their triumphs and their foibles. The late Queen Mum is an example of the power of sentiment. Her death was front page news even here in the states. I am one of many Americans who were saddened by her death. Who can forget how she and her husband helped inspire the British People in freedom’s darkest hour. Some might argue that sentiment is no basis for a political system, but sentiment is a powerful political force. The U.S. veneration of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is a similar phenomena. <br><br>Some may think it strange for a republican (and a libertarian one at that) to write a defense of the idea of a Hereditary Head of State, which leads me to the last point I want make, the United Kingdom is a republic. It has been a republic for several hundred years. A republic, res publica, the public thing, is a government not controlled solely by the one, the few, or the many. It is not a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy, but a blend of all three. This has described Britain since magna carta.<br><br> If it were true that monarchism could only be defended by reference to some realm of experience beyond rational human understanding than I would be an anti monarchist. Because this is far from the case, I hold that properly constrained (as all government must be constrained) a monarch can be part of a rational system of government.adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-56292710163513298602007-03-02T23:45:00.000+00:002007-03-02T23:45:00.000+00:00Quite - why not answer all that as well, JJ? For I...Quite - why not answer all that as well, JJ? For I have already more than adequately responded to all the original points you made. It would appear that it is you who is refusing to properly engage with any of your original arguments on this blog entry. What was it you said earlier? This blog is nothing more than "a nice blog for celebrating white pride and Anglophilia" and not at all a blog for "political discourse on an important discussion". It would appear you have now been proven wrong - on both counts. To suggest otherwise is surely blog "history by omission".Neil Weltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10015408685370714759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-5058210750290270042007-03-03T00:59:00.000+00:002007-03-03T00:59:00.000+00:00JJFirst, you moan because we're exaggerating the i...JJ<br><br>First, you moan because we're exaggerating the importance of little New Zealand, then moan because we don't pay enough attention to little countries like the Grenadines. Be consistent, please.<br><br>Second, the realms of Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand have the highest number of English speaking people. They also happen to be the most technologically literate. It makes sense, therefore, that the majority on a blog in English would be from those countries. To sustain your accusation of racism, you would have to demonstrate that we are somehow prejudiced against Tuvalu or PNG, something which is not true. I do not speak for my Lord Beaverbrook, but I dare say we would all be delighted to hear from any Belizians, or from the Falkland Islands, or the British Indian Ocean Territory. But we simply haven't had anyone from Saint Kitts or Nevis around lately to ask them what they think. <br><br>It is only the race-conscious who go about measuring font size and making assumptions, JJ. Likewise, what makes you think we are all white? Did you ask? In my immediate family, I have Maori and Pacific Islanders, all of whom are strong supporters of the Queen. <br><br>This blog is focused upon our common heritage, and that heritage is, in large part, European, albeit adapted for our diverse local conditions. It is that basic commonality we are celebrating. On individual blogs, you will find, I am sure, opinions upon local and indigenous issues. Your question is like coming to the Scots Festival and asking why there are so many kilts, and can't we see what everyone wears at home. It's nonsensical.Swifthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16605545304782841038noreply@blogger.com