If one were to take a look at the history of Democracy one would be surprised at how the government of " Freedom" has little tolerance for the choices of other nations that do not correspond with theirs. Starting with the Athenians. The Athenians were well known for not willing to cooperate with other city states on charges that they were not democratic enough. Because of this stubbornness they ended up causing and losing the Peloponnesian War. This attitude of self rightesnous has survived through out the centuries. It is the attitude that defines arrogance. For these people it is not good enough to have their own country adopt such forms of government. They demand that everyone follow suite or they are evil and anyone who wants to associate with them is evil also. Surprisingly enough Democracies who often claim to be for the free choice usually develop such attitudes over time. I cannot name a single war that A Monarchy has began to force it's ideals on other nations. During WWI U.S president Woodrow Wilson did not enter the war until Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown. That way it could be an ideal Democratic crusade against the " evil" German and Austrian monarchies. Mr. Wilson clearly forgot that George Washington told the american people before exiting office to not get involved in european wars. Or that John Adams said not to go abroad looking for monsters to slay. No, Wilson was determined to push forth his radical League of Nations agenda. He wanted to create a New world order in which any nations who wished to have different form of government than what Wilson wanted would be forced to abandon their Monarchy by force or by economic sanctions.When the war was one the Central Powers were torn into shreds by the treaty of Versailles. While Russia (which was an ally) was hardly represented although out all the allied powers it spilled the most blood. During the russian civil war Woodrow Wilson sent troops to help Kolchack. They however did not move much farther than the Vladivostok where they had been sent. This was because Wilson secretly detested Kolchack for he feared that he would restore the monarchy. He was less concerned with stopping the communists than stopping his ally! This was also shared by President FDR who was just obsessed with taking down the British Empire as he was with taking down Hitler! Today the members of NATO and the EU still are bloody obsessed with taking down any nation they deem under democratic. I believe in national sovereignty . The right that every nation has the right to make its own decisions. If nation wants to have a democracy than it's their decision . However they do not have the right to tell other nations what forms of government they can and cannot have.
This article was written by The Black Baron, the purveyor of the new network website "Monarchist Manifesto". Monarchists are welcome to sign up and contribute.
The main problem with Democracy is precicely its operational assumption. If Majority rules, and the Majority of the Nations of the world are Monarchies, the Denocracies would have to change their ways. I know what I just said is a bit silly, but the fact is peopel tend to take their ideology further, at least subconciously, than many wuld realise. Democracy requires Majoritarian support, and so would ned to create other democracies.
ReplyDeleteBesides, Democracy is also based on the Philosophy that the People shoudl rule and all power rihtly emerges from the Will of the People. It is an affront to a Democrat to think of a King, for the existance of a King reveals a Class structure and denies that all power rests on the SHoulders of the People in General. Democracies are outright offended by the existance of anyone who rules over others, even if Benignly or with severe Limits which prevents him from beign a Tyrant. THe point is that he wa snot Elected by the General Will, and so the Democratic Mind doens't see him as reflective of the Country which he is King over, and instead see's him as a Tyrant.
Democracies are based arund a Philosophy, as is Monarhcy, bu he Philosophy is one that insists, in fact demands, others cmply to it by its very natute. Where a King can respect a Democratically Elected Leader because the Mind of a Monarchist operates on the assumption of Legal Authority and oprecedent, a Democrats rests only on Elections and Populafrity and can't get past that.
In fact, a King can more readily discuss matters with a Dictator, or a Theocracy, or any other Government, than a Democracy can. Democracy pressures others to conform to itself, becaus it must.
This makes me think of Sean Penn calling for the arrest of those who call Hugo Chavez a dictator. Why? Because Chavez was elected and in Penn's mind it seems that one cannot be a dictator if one is elected. Of course, Hitler was elected and not so long ago we had every so often the news that Fidel Castro was reelected again by 100% of the public, just like Stalin was every term and so on. It is part of the "democracy god" that says the people will never rule themselves into slavery and so as long as the people vote freedom will naturally flow from that. Of course history shows how blatantly false that is but, the last thing these people want is to be confused with the facts.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget every African tinpot dictatorship you care to name (even South Africa).
ReplyDeleteI am reminded at this point of the words of Tom Lehrer in "Send the Marines":
For might makes right,
And 'till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected!
Members of the corps,
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Oooh, we hate that expression,
We only want the world to know,
That we support the status quo,
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt... send the Marines!
Incidentally, there's an excellent essay on democracy as a mechanism for governance, and then "ideal" democracy (which is what America and every other democratic republic is) over at Gates of Vienna (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/03/death-of-democracy.html). Highly recommended.