Monday, August 14, 2017

Charlottesville and the Need to Do Better

As most of you are no doubt aware, there was a bit of dust up in the city of Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday. The original issue was the proposed removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park (formerly named Lee Park but re-named recently for the sake of tolerance and diversity). A disparate group of White people came together under the name “Unite the Right” to hold a demonstration in protest to the removal of the statue. It is worth bearing in mind that General Lee himself was not a slave owner, thought slavery was wrong and had opposed secession. This group included people with varying view points from simple pro-White advocates to actual White supremacists (Neo-Nazis and KKK). Some were, in my view, good and some were clearly bad. However, they agreed on the subject that the statue should stay where it is and they obtained a permit from the city to hold their demonstration.

That was when the problems began. Shortly afterward, the city revoked their permit and “Unite the Right” had to appeal to the courts which did finally rule that they had civil rights like the right to assemble and the right to free speech and so ordered the city to reissue their permit. However, as soon as it became known that these people would be holding their demonstration, leftist groups, “Antifa” among others, called on all of their supporters to rally at Charlottesville on the same day to shut down the event. The original demonstration was scheduled to begin at noon but, long before that, a state of emergency was declared as violence broke out between the two sides and so it was cancelled. The police had been ordered to “stand down” and so it is no surprise that a brawl ensued, injuring many and leading to the death of one woman who was hit by a car that sped into a crowd of leftist counter-protestors.

A few things should be clear from the facts of this situation. On the one hand, the organizers were clearly unconcerned about what sort of image they presented to the American public (or were intentionally ‘clowning’) as you cannot hold a demonstration, preceded by a torchlight procession, with Roman salutes and swastika flags and then cry “unfair” when the other side calls you a bunch of Nazis. These people guaranteed that the statue will be removed and that no one with any official position will go anywhere near them. Secondly, it is also perfectly clear that even if they had been goose-stepping down Emancipation Park in brown shirts, they had gone through the legal process to do it and had every right to be there. The Antifa types who came to challenge them did not, the police and civil authorities did not do their duty and have heaped all the blame on one side. It also, needless to say, made no difference to the mainstream media that the leftist counter-protesters had such flags on display as that of the Soviet Union (which killed more people and invaded more countries than Hitler ever did) as well as one or two of the Spanish Republic, that leftist regime which put more people to death in a few months than the supposedly notorious Spanish Inquisition snuffed out in as many centuries.

I can imagine two different things coming from this; those who made up “Unite the Right” will shrink away into obscurity having again portrayed themselves as simply the Nazi Party USA (one of the organizers was Richard Spencer who some may remember from his “Hail Trump! Hail Victory!” speech) or this will ratchet up the extremism on the part of the White identity types who can reasonably say that while others have been allowed to demonstrate, they were not and that while others have been allowed to speak, they are not. Racial or ethnic advocacy groups are allowed for everyone but them and thus there is no need to bother with staying within the law. The law only applies to certain people. So, I am not much of a prophet, I think it will either get calmer as more people just accept the situation or it will not if they choose to fight back.

No doubt some are already wondering what any of this has to do with traditional authority or the cause of kings. Well, for one thing, it displays the hypocrisy of the liberal republican form of government, as I have mentioned numerous times in the past. All of their “liberty” and “fairness” and “rule of law” only seems to apply in the abstract, never when it really matters. You have rights until a crisis arises and President Lincoln suspends habeaus corpus, President Wilson puts you in jail for playing German music or President Roosevelt confiscates your property and puts you in a concentration camp. You have the right to elect you leader, until you elect a leader the ruling class disapproves of and then he is blocked at every turn. You have the right to free speech and assembly until someone shows up, causes a brawl and then the whole thing is shut down on the grounds of being unsafe. You can say what you want, unless the powers-that-be determine what you are saying is “hate speech” in which case they can shut you down. Fail to enforce immigration laws and you’re a “sanctuary city” but fail to issue a marriage license to a gay couple and you go to jail (see Kim Davis). Liberalism sounds so great in the abstract but in practice it means, liberty for “us” but not for you.

Secondarily, I also noticed a number of people on our own side making the case, and God bless them for it, that monarchy, traditional values and authentic Christianity are the only things that can “unite the right”. Unfortunately, and this is where we need to do better, I could not agree. Yes, me, the “Mad Monarchist” could not agree that this was a truthful statement. Why? Because the fact is, we are not united even among ourselves and I certainly know as I get the angry messages almost on a daily basis. For some, usually the Catholics, it is a sectarian issue as only Catholic monarchies will do. Even there, many problems arise over what the definition of “Catholic” is these days. The ones who tell you it is perfectly simple are also the ones who usually say Pope Francis is of course not Catholic at all. See the problem? Monarchists do not agree on the map, they do not agree what people deserve to have their own countries and for many of those who do, they cannot agree on who should be the monarch of those countries. The best example of this is the royalists of the various branches of the House of Bourbon. In France, Spain, Parma and the Two-Sicilies, in every case there is division over who should be the monarch now or who should be the monarch if there was to be one.

This is a source of tremendous frustration for me and if you want to know more about a particular example, illustrating what this leads to, I refer you back to my past article, ‘France: Republican By Default’. Monarchists probably get tired of my scolding but it is something that must be learned because the republicans have certainly learned it and used it to their advantage. President Adolphe Thiers referred to the republic as the form of government that “divides us least”, which was sadly true and should make every monarchist deeply ashamed. There were also more mocking comments comparing the Count of Chambord to George Washington as the “Founding Father” of the Third French Republic. Likewise, republicanism in Spain first reared its ugly head due to the inability of Spanish monarchists to unite behind one monarch. After fierce fights between the rival branches of the Bourbon dynasty, it was decided to start over from blank paper and bring in a monarch of the House of Savoy. Yet, the old divisions refused to be reconciled, ending in King Amadeus abdicating in disgust and going back to Italy at which time the First Spanish Republic came into being. Once again, two Bourbon rivals refusing to reconcile on who should take the throne ended up with there being no throne at all.

I could go even farther and say that many monarchists have become so entrenched in their partisan divisions that, were it up to them, the western world would be engulfed in near total anarchy since no agreement, no treaty, no decision by governments or crowned heads could ever have validity. This comes into play, for example, concerning those countries which, in my experience, many monarchists outside of those countries think should not exist at all. The Kingdom of Belgium, for example, should not exist according to many monarchists. Never mind that the crowned heads of Europe all agreed that it should, that doesn’t matter to them. The Kingdom of Italy, likewise, should not exist according to many (non-Italian) Catholic monarchists, never mind that it was finally endorsed by the Pope with the Lateran Treaty by which the Holy See recognized it and in return the Kingdom of Italy was made an officially Catholic monarchy. No, for many, the Lateran Treaty is worthless paper and even the disgraceful depths the Italian Republic has sunk to is not enough to make these people think maybe the Savoy monarchy wasn’t so bad after all and just maybe Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII knew what they were doing.

If you cannot agree on who is a monarch, who should be a monarch or which peoples are even deserving of a country, I find it hard to believe there could ever be any appreciable unity on actual matters of policy. Concerning the United States, I am not even sure what is being proposed. Again, I have seen plenty of diversity of opinion among monarchists as to whether the United States of America should even exist. For the record, though I would have opposed independence in 1776, I regard the United States as being valid ever since His Britannic Majesty King George III saw fit to recognize the independence of the 13 former colonies. I don’t have to be best pleased about it, but it happened and I accept such agreements as binding. American monarchists do not agree on the status of the country itself, is there agreement among American monarchists on any significant policy? The protesters of “Unite the Right” probably do not agree on all that much among themselves but they do agree that the majority White/European population of the United States is being displaced and they all oppose this. Could monarchists in this country agree or disagree with that position with any appreciable amount of consensus? Unfortunately, I tend to doubt it.

Mark Steyn (a Canadian United Empire Loyalist) once said something to the effect of, mainstream society will be debating trans-gender bathrooms when the mullahs nuke us. If monarchists do not shape up, we will be arguing over whether the Duke of Bavaria should be the King of England, whether the Duke of Calabria or the Duke of Castro should be King of the Two Sicilies whenever Italians stop wanting their own country, whether a Habsburg or a Hohenzollern should be German Emperor whenever Germans finally stop wanting to be a republic or whether the man in white in the Vatican is really the Pope or not when the last descendants of western civilization are killed off. By and large, proper western civilization has already collapsed, what remains to be seen is whether the people whose inheritance it is will have a future or not. I don’t want monarchists left out of that struggle but, as I said to all those who criticized the (very easily criticized) “Unite the Right” crowd; where were you? Where was your demonstration?

Believe it or not, there have been some, or at least something of the sort but, again, because we are so divided, they attract a mere handful and thus no one pays attention to them. Recently, I commented that the problem with many royalists is that they don’t want to join the fight unless they know and approve of what the result is going to be, which is rather like refusing to play a game unless you already know you’re going to win. I was told that the “traditionalists” (for lack of a better term, I know it’s tossed around a lot) simply don’t want to commit suicide in a hopeless fight. That may be true and it may be that I have too pessimistic of an outlook. I have heard that the younger generations are more traditional than the more current ones but, to me, that hardly seems a difficult record to achieve and the swiftness from which we have moved from class equality to racial equality to gender equality to ‘people are born gay’ and now ‘people are not born male or female’ must have blinded me to the underground surge of traditionalist values that are about to burst forth in the coming years. In any event, as I’ve said before, being a Texan, I favor fighting every battle like it’s the Alamo. Which is to say, fight every fight as if it is your last, never mind about whether you can win or not. Personally, the utter and absolute hatred I have of the enemy, makes any fight worth it no matter what the odds are.

The bottom line is, we need to shape up, we need to improve and we need to stop fighting among ourselves and start fighting the enemies of all we hold dear. Those enemies still want to see “the last king strangled with the entrails of the last priest” and they don’t care who that king or priest are or what their opinions or dynastic branch is. We really need to put our divisions aside, draw a line in the sand and say the enemy will go no farther. From there, we push on but, as I know I’ve said before (sorry for being repetitive), right now we should at least be able to agree on the need to stop the bleeding before the patient dies.


  1. From your hitler enemy of monarchy article I I see you don't like hitler but what are your thoughts and klansmen and Neo Nazis

    1. First thing to know about the Klan is that if you got all of them together they wouldn't fill a cafeteria. They're a joke. Second, there have been more than one. The original had legitimate goals, the revived one that became the biggest was pretty nasty. They've mostly been useful only at putting decent people off. As for neo-Nazis, I think the Hitler article would cover that. I suspect most of them are clowning but then it's hard to attribute too much intelligence to people who argue that the Holocaust never happened but that they want to do it 'again'. Sorta speaks for itself.

    2. This is all about ignorance. Most Americans don’t know who General Lee was, or that Secession was not all about slavery, or that the original Klan was about protecting a population exposed to abuse, not hurting or repressing. The removal of the statue was a disgrace and so was the authorities’ wishy-washy attitude. If the law says free speech and right to protest are legal, then let’s enforce that legality. Yes, White Supremacists are idiots, but idiots are dangerous, as dangerous as idiots on the Left that since the last election seem to sprout everywhere and know how to use their rights to do more harm and create more haters among right wingers. Toppling down statues of perfectly nice gentlemen is not conducive to harmonious lifestyles. I am a new American that comes from an angry culture, but I see the USA is becoming a very angry country also, and that is scary.
      By the way, this is a terrific blog.

  2. I do not think these people are clowning. These people are seriously evil. Symphony orchestras choose their instrumentalists completely sight unseen. This is the only way to find the best. This is the only way to remove the silly paranoia which has built up over the centuries. That and the removal of legacy seats and "bought" seats (like those the Donald had at Wharton and Jared had at Harvard -- those universities should be ashamed! Those characters were not even competent.). I don't know how old you are; but, I remember Dr. King's speech at the Lincoln Memorial. No one follows it today it seems. Character was a large part of it -- making yourself into the best person you can be. That goes for all of us.

    1. It does look suspicious to say the least when they say, 'oh, there was only one nutter with a Nazi flag'. Well, if there was only one, and everyone else wasn't like that, why didn't they take it away from him or kick him out? However, as for MLK, I'm not old enough to have been around then but I do know that his own attitude changed considerably after that famous speech everyone (well, the mainstream conservatives anyway) like to quote so much. At the end of his life he was not so much about 'character' over 'color' as he endorsed racial quotas and the whole 'whitey's gotta pay' attitude.

  3. Leftists: It's okay for African-Americans to be upset by white nationalist rallies.

    Also Leftists: It's not okay for Europeans to be upset by hordes of Muslims invading their countries and subjecting them to murder, rape, and torture as they have done for the past 1400+ years.

  4. Mad Monarchist, agreeing with all you said, I found the initial statement of Robert E. Lee not being a slave-owner and being against slavery the most useful at this time. Because monarchy is not just a form of government, but the primacy of Truth over Ideology. A monarchist is always called to be at least one-half historian.

    By the way, an article on the monarchic view towards slavery would be very interesting. All I know are the anti-slavery efforts on the side of the Spanish monarchs, but I ignore completely any other efforts to erradicate slavery.

  5. BTW, checked with The Beloved (a Civil War expert). RE Lee did OWN many slaves, possibly hundreds. Arlington was a large plantation. It was forfeit to the US government after the war to be a national cemetery for the war dead. Lee, plain and simple, was a traitor to his country. He even was not a good general -- he lost Gettysburg. The war was LOST for the South at this battle. However, he insisted to play out the game of chess. He was more myth than substance.

    1. Not true. Facts are facts and your use of the term "possibly" reveals that. Lee was not a traitor. He was never tried or convicted of treason. No Confederate leader was, there were never brought to trial because the North knew they would lose. Further, he was probably the best general America ever produced. No one else in American history ever won more with greater odds stacked against them. Finally, the war was not "LOST" at Gettysburg. At most, it was the beginning of the end, but it was not the end by any means. If Sherman's campaign in Georgia had gone differently, if Lincoln had not been reelected, the south could still have won independence.

      If you want actual traitors, look to Ben Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson etc. The USA was supposed to be a voluntary union, the British Empire was not. If you want an actual slave owner, look to Ulysses S. Grant. If you want to tear down any monument to people who believed in slavery, you're going to have to eradicate everything back to ancient Greece and Rome, even the Pyramids.

  6. MM -- OK, Beloved said it was around 70. It was my mistake. However, every Southern leader WAS punished severely without being brought to a court. Lee was stripped of his US citizenship; Davis was imprisoned for around 2 years, his citizenship was revoked, and he lost his plantation (he went to trial-- much later charges were dropped and according to my husband these were not severe for a traitor). 40% of Virginia's US Army officers STAYED with the Union army. RE Lee's brother, who was a US Naval officer, remained in the US Navy. He didn't make Light-Horse Harry roll over in his grave. The Articles of Confederation DO NOT work as a document for a united government. It is a fake-out -- the idea that a state can leave. A state really is not permitted to leave. It could not survive -- and the Confederacy could not survive either.
    Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The chess board I am looking at is the entire war. Each battle is a move. Yes, you CAN lose the game at the mid-point. Read some books on chess.
    The monuments are from the 20th century, from the age of Jim Crow and and resurgence of the KKK. Personally, I do NOT believe that Lee would feel "honoured" by all of these monuments. In fact, he would be rather embarrassed. Did you hear the anti-semitic shite from those so-called people as they passed a synagogue and see the brown shirts with their automatic weapons across the street from the same? These {expletive deleteds} do not have my values, morals, or ethics. I certainly hope they don't have your's.

    1. You obviously know nothing about Lee's views on slavery or what his wife did for slaves, even in violation of the law (U.S. law before Confederate). Yes, Confederates were punished, who said they were not? But they were not tried much less convicted of treason. 40% sided with the Union. So? More did not. So? Some northerners sided with the Confederacy. Again, so what?

      As for Lee's brother, again, completely wrong. I know plenty about him. His name was Sidney Smith Lee, he was captain of Perry's flagship on the trip to Japan. He did resign from the U.S. Navy and he did serve in the Confederate Navy. A state is not permitted to leave you say. Fine, that was the northern argument. So how come they had to be "readmitted" to the Union if it was impossible for them to leave?

      When these statues were put up is hardly the point, no more than why they only suddenly became controversial now. The USA was trying to reconcile, to allow both sides to honor their dead for the first time since the war. Now, rather than be remembered as a symbol of reconciliation they are being used as symbols of division. The statues are cold objects and have nothing to do with either purpose.

      As for the Neo-Nazis, again, they had a permit to be there no matter what your opinion or mine is of them. It's not the first time nor the most blatant example of this. You either let them or admit that this liberal jargon of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of assembly' even for those you don't like is just a lie no one really believes in.

      You, to your credit, at least admit it. You would suppress people whose views you disagree with. So would I. So would they. The USA claims it doesn't and isn't supposed to. This lie is what complicates matters.

    2. I have no desire to carry on with this but I will add one more thing. As I said, much of these monuments were put up to foster reconciliation, today they are being pointed to in order to divide. You can use them as you please and rather than attacking the people depicted, you could acquaint yourself with the facts and challenge the people on the other side.

      You could tell them that Lee opposed secession, freed the slaves he inherited, that his wife educated slaves in violation of the law and openly advocated gradual emancipation. You could tell them that General Beauregard, who designed the now notorious "rebel" flag, supported giving voting rights to Blacks after the war. If it's the neo-Nazis you're confronting, you can tell them that Lee excused Jewish soldiers from duty on Saturdays and that the Confederate Secretary of State was a Jew.

      If you want to be positive about these things, you can. You can tell them that Jefferson Davis adopted a Black child, that Nathan Bedford Forrest denounced the KKK when it turned violent, you can point to these men and use it to challenge the views of others. Either they will then be put off from defending these statues or you may find out they are not all the evil people you think they are.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...