Monarchism

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Monarchism

Post by Xan » Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:32 am

An article on monarchism. Ad O, I think we'd all be glad if you would chime in here. I think the piece is not particularly full of content, but it's interesting in that the viewpoint is getting a modicum of mainstream attention.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019 ... monarchism
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by Ad Orientem » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:47 pm

I have doubts that a monarchy would ever work well in the United States. They tend to work best in countries that are more or less homogeneous with a shared sense of culture, faith and nationhood. That said, I do think a compelling argument can be made for monarchism of the traditional sort. History has tended to suggest that so called democracies have a fairly short life expectancy before decaying and eventually falling. The rise of demagogues being an early sign that the terminal decline may have begun.

Perhaps worth a glance, in particular the reading list at the bottom...

https://ryanphunter.wordpress.com/2015/ ... onarchist/


Image
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Monarchism

Post by Xan » Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:38 pm

Interesting article; a good summary of the position and as you said a good reading list.

It starts by saying that if the US had lost the Revolutionary War, then we'd be a Dominion of the UK like Canada is. I'm not so sure about that... How much of what the British Empire turned into was informed by what happened to the United States?
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14228
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by dualstow » Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:16 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:47 pm
I have doubts that a monarchy would ever work well in the United States. They tend to work best in countries that are more or less homogeneous with a shared sense of culture, faith and nationhood.
I never really thought about that before, about the homogeneity part. Why do you think that is? Do the minorities resent the king because they are on the outside, and don’t feel they have fair representation?

Around the world, monarchies mostly kind of transitioned into Parliament or something like it, with the monarch transitioning into a figurehead. Was this just coincidentally parallel with a move toward heterogeneity?

If we had a SHTF scenario, like in Stephen King’s ‘The Stand’, I can see myself pledging allegiance to and following that old black lady around.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by Ad Orientem » Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:15 pm

The legitimacy of traditional monarchies is typically tied to shared cultural norms, often and especially religion. The first cracks in the monarchist system of Europe appeared towards the end of the ancien regime in France. The reaction that followed the Wars of the French Revolution in 1815 turned back the clock a bit. But it was short lived. The two great imperial dynasties that presided over poly-ethnic and multi-cultural empires did not survive the Great War. Which event was for all practical purposes the end of the old order in Europe and gets my vote for the worst calamity in Western Civ since the Protestant Reformation. Western Europe is currently in the throes of an identity crisis. It has firmly rejected its own historical culture, including what used to be known as Christendom, but has not decided what it wants to be. A liberal secular democracy is what many claim to be their dream, but they have invited in tens of millions of immigrants from a culture that does not have a track record of easy assimilation and whose values are anything but liberal and secular. If there is hope, it lies to the East.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14228
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by dualstow » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:26 am

You mean like Viktor Orban? He used to be a liberal, at least.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Monarchism

Post by Xan » Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:01 am

Could you expound on your thoughts of how the Reformation was worse than the Great War, which killed 9 million people directly and contributed greatly to the flu epidemic which killed 50-100 million people? I'm not saying you're wrong, because "calamity" can come in many different forms, but... it seems like a stretch. Also I'd be curious where you as an outsider to Western Christianity place the blame for the calamity of the Reformation.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by Ad Orientem » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:10 am

The Reformation fractured the cultural unity of the Christian West and paved the way for all of the evils of the modern world including the so called Enlightenment, the French Revolution and its bastard children Communism and Fascism. It directly lead to the Wars of Religion which were unbelievably destructive. Winston Churchill famously described the First and Second World Wars as a second Thirty Years War. The Wars of Religion have largely faded from our historical consciousness but it is almost impossible to grasp how bad they were.

As for blame, as is usual in such cases there is much to go around. By the 15th century the Roman Church had become spectacularly corrupt and worldly. It's efforts to meddle in secular politics had been a double edged sword. On the one hand it had helped to preserve some semblance of unity in Western Christianity in the period following the fall of the Western half of the Empire. (The Roman Empire did not finally fall until 1453.) But on the other, it had reached a point where its ultramontanism, coupled with its moral corruption had given rise to both resentment and opportunism on the part of many princes who saw the early stages of the Reformation as an opportunity to weaken Rome's grip on secular power and seize some of its vast wealth for their own treasuries.

Theologically Rome had been drifting for centuries from the rest of the Church. Yet even as late as the 16th century there were still instances, albeit rare and isolated by this point, of inter-communion between Latins and the Orthodox. This would never be possible with the various Protestant churches. From the Orthodox perspective Catholicism and Protestantism are just two sides of the same coin. The only difference being how many Popes they had. The Romans (with a few exceptions) had only one at a time. Protestants, had and have millions.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14228
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by dualstow » Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:20 pm

ultramontanism
I learned a new word today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramontanism
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by Ad Orientem » Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:39 pm

dualstow wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:20 pm
ultramontanism
I learned a new word today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramontanism


Ecclesial history is so much fun. ^-^
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by boglerdude » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:12 pm

Billionaires are our monarchy. Singapore pays pays public servants millions to reduce bribery. Not sure yet if I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore

Why is the president allowed to hide his tax returns, if youre not willing to be transparent dont run for office.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Monarchism

Post by WiseOne » Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:21 am

Ad, I'm curious...What were the problems with the Enlightenment? I hadn't heard that described negatively before.

Also, you could make a case that the history of the Roman Church's dominion prior to the Reformation was no better than what you described post-Reformation: it effectively shut down scientific and economic progress in Europe for centuries, spawned the Crusades and the Inquisition, and in no small part contributed to a never-ending series of plagues among which was the Black Death. Living conditions at that time, if you weren't a member of the aristocracy, were possibly worse than they have been in any era in Europe's history. How exactly was post-Reformation worse?
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by Ad Orientem » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:45 pm

boglerdude wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:12 pm
Billionaires are our monarchy. Singapore pays pays public servants millions to reduce bribery. Not sure yet if I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore

Why is the president allowed to hide his tax returns, if youre not willing to be transparent dont run for office.

I think you are confusing monarchism with oligarchy. That said there is a certain hereditary aspect given the staggering levels of wealth being transferred from one generation to another with little or no tax.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by Ad Orientem » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:53 pm

WiseOne wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:21 am
Ad, I'm curious...What were the problems with the Enlightenment? I hadn't heard that described negatively before.

Also, you could make a case that the history of the Roman Church's dominion prior to the Reformation was no better than what you described post-Reformation: it effectively shut down scientific and economic progress in Europe for centuries, spawned the Crusades and the Inquisition, and in no small part contributed to a never-ending series of plagues among which was the Black Death. Living conditions at that time, if you weren't a member of the aristocracy, were possibly worse than they have been in any era in Europe's history. How exactly was post-Reformation worse?

The Counter Enlightenment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

The Roman Church's record on science is decidedly mixed. Often it was excellent. The modern civil calendar, also known as the Gregorian Calendar, is an example of their contributions. At other times they were stubbornly stuck in the past. The Inquisition was a horror. But the crusades were just a natural reaction to the militant expansionism of Islam which set out to convert the world at sword point, and very nearly succeeded. The Reformation also had the effect of dividing Christianity in its hour of greatest peril. The newly Protestant states of Northern Europe generally refused to send military aid to the Catholic states in Southern Europe that were the front line in resistance to the Islamic invasions of Europe. I don't think the Roman Church can be blamed for the various outbreaks of plague.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Monarchism

Post by moda0306 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:41 am

Ad Orientem wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:53 pm
WiseOne wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:21 am
Ad, I'm curious...What were the problems with the Enlightenment? I hadn't heard that described negatively before.

Also, you could make a case that the history of the Roman Church's dominion prior to the Reformation was no better than what you described post-Reformation: it effectively shut down scientific and economic progress in Europe for centuries, spawned the Crusades and the Inquisition, and in no small part contributed to a never-ending series of plagues among which was the Black Death. Living conditions at that time, if you weren't a member of the aristocracy, were possibly worse than they have been in any era in Europe's history. How exactly was post-Reformation worse?

The Counter Enlightenment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

The Roman Church's record on science is decidedly mixed. Often it was excellent. The modern civil calendar, also known as the Gregorian Calendar, is an example of their contributions. At other times they were stubbornly stuck in the past. The Inquisition was a horror. But the crusades were just a natural reaction to the militant expansionism of Islam which set out to convert the world at sword point, and very nearly succeeded. The Reformation also had the effect of dividing Christianity in its hour of greatest peril. The newly Protestant states of Northern Europe generally refused to send military aid to the Catholic states in Southern Europe that were the front line in resistance to the Islamic invasions of Europe. I don't think the Roman Church can be blamed for the various outbreaks of plague.
I don't know any good books on the matter, but I heard a good "debunk" of the Crusades being "defensive" by Youtube user "Three Arrows." Yes, I realize this is YouTube, but the guy seems pretty damn smart... It seems like a good primer on the topic but I'd be interested in a much deeper dive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejdlkfXwPQc

I'd also be curious to know your take on the church's involvement or non-involvement in rampant Antisemitism in Europe, both before and during the rise and fall of Fascism in Europe. Key being the rampant pogroms that were far more of a threat to Jews in Europe & Russia than in Jews in the Middle East.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Monarchism

Post by WiseOne » Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:02 am

Ad Orientem wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:53 pm
WiseOne wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:21 am
Ad, I'm curious...What were the problems with the Enlightenment? I hadn't heard that described negatively before.

Also, you could make a case that the history of the Roman Church's dominion prior to the Reformation was no better than what you described post-Reformation: it effectively shut down scientific and economic progress in Europe for centuries, spawned the Crusades and the Inquisition, and in no small part contributed to a never-ending series of plagues among which was the Black Death. Living conditions at that time, if you weren't a member of the aristocracy, were possibly worse than they have been in any era in Europe's history. How exactly was post-Reformation worse?

The Counter Enlightenment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

The Roman Church's record on science is decidedly mixed. Often it was excellent. The modern civil calendar, also known as the Gregorian Calendar, is an example of their contributions. At other times they were stubbornly stuck in the past. The Inquisition was a horror. But the crusades were just a natural reaction to the militant expansionism of Islam which set out to convert the world at sword point, and very nearly succeeded. The Reformation also had the effect of dividing Christianity in its hour of greatest peril. The newly Protestant states of Northern Europe generally refused to send military aid to the Catholic states in Southern Europe that were the front line in resistance to the Islamic invasions of Europe. I don't think the Roman Church can be blamed for the various outbreaks of plague.
Still doesn't really answer my question...the Enlightment included things like Newtonian mechanics, the US Constitution, the concept of separation of church and state, individual liberties, and reason being the main path to knowledge. Of course there would be people who didn't like this at the time, but that doesn't mean they were negative developments. If you have an argument that they were I'd be interested to hear it.

Also yes, I do blame the Church indirectly for the outbreaks of plague. No, they didn't develop the bacteria in a secret lab or bring in the rats and fleas. But the feudal system with an aristocracy claiming legitimacy via the Church, that the serfs were not to question lest they be accused of heresy.
The degeneration of living conditions for non-aristocrats that resulted most certainly created the perfect conditions for an epidemic.

The US Constitution's explicit exclusion of religion as a basis for government is something we take for granted now, but it was a highly novel idea at the time. Contrast the preamble starting with"We the People..." to the Magna Carta: "John, by the grace of God King of England..."

See the difference? You as an ordinary person can question a secular government, but if you question John's authority you're acting against God. I personally see this as progress.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14228
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by dualstow » Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:09 am

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. I guess there's good and bad coming out of Mr M.B.S.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Monarchism

Post by Kbg » Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:29 am

The more time I've spent learning about the time period being described the more I chalk it all up to "man." I agree that the Catholic Church became spectacularly corrupt; however, the reality is that good old fashioned power politics that have been around since we formed political systems of any sort were probably a larger factor than the Catholic Church. For at least some of the period I think we can consider the church as being more of the superpower of the day.

In other words, on the surface things seem based on religion (which no doubt was a significant ideological contextual factor) but ultimately the real drivers of the time period were secular (land, power, wealth...all the usual stuff).

Luther in his own unique way, was basically calling "it" for what it was.
murphy_p_t
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Monarchism

Post by murphy_p_t » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:29 am

murphy_p_t
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Monarchism

Post by murphy_p_t » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:35 am

Also, you might be interested in hans Hermann hoppe,s book " democracy The God that failed"

https://mises.org/library/democracy-god-failed-1

Or search for his YouTube lectures on the same subject
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Monarchism

Post by Libertarian666 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:33 pm

boglerdude wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:12 pm
Billionaires are our monarchy. Singapore pays pays public servants millions to reduce bribery. Not sure yet if I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore

Why is the president allowed to hide his tax returns, if youre not willing to be transparent dont run for office.
If the Founders had wanted Presidential candidates to be forced to make their tax returns public, they would have put that in the Constitution.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by vnatale » Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:07 pm

I cannot tell if you are being facetious or not since we did not have federal income taxes until 1913 (I believe).

Vinny
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:33 pm
boglerdude wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:12 pm
Billionaires are our monarchy. Singapore pays pays public servants millions to reduce bribery. Not sure yet if I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore

Why is the president allowed to hide his tax returns, if youre not willing to be transparent dont run for office.
If the Founders had wanted Presidential candidates to be forced to make their tax returns public, they would have put that in the Constitution.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Monarchism

Post by Libertarian666 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:37 pm

vnatale wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:07 pm
I cannot tell if you are being facetious or not since we did not have federal income taxes until 1913 (I believe).

Vinny
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:33 pm
boglerdude wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:12 pm
Billionaires are our monarchy. Singapore pays pays public servants millions to reduce bribery. Not sure yet if I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore

Why is the president allowed to hide his tax returns, if youre not willing to be transparent dont run for office.
If the Founders had wanted Presidential candidates to be forced to make their tax returns public, they would have put that in the Constitution.
So you do know something about American history!
That puts you way ahead of most leftists.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by vnatale » Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:09 am

I am a self-described moderate Independent. But from the view of someone on the right, I guess that looks left.

Vinny
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:37 pm
vnatale wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:07 pm
I cannot tell if you are being facetious or not since we did not have federal income taxes until 1913 (I believe).

Vinny
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:33 pm


If the Founders had wanted Presidential candidates to be forced to make their tax returns public, they would have put that in the Constitution.
So you do know something about American history!
That puts you way ahead of most leftists.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Monarchism

Post by vnatale » Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:12 am

I guess you make my point!

Please educate me on any of the ways Trump represented the conservative position prior to him opportunisticly deciding to run as a Republican?

Vinny
Libertarian666 wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:06 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:09 am
I am a self-described moderate Independent. But from the view of someone on the right, I guess that looks left.

Vinny
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:37 pm


So you do know something about American history!
That puts you way ahead of most leftists.
If you support any of the current Democrats in preference to Trump, you are a leftist.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply