tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post1348845535369946014..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: Mad Rant: Learning from HistoryMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-39371227227555651692018-08-31T22:19:07.483-05:002018-08-31T22:19:07.483-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.T. G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05425619525256743531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-68298320927911963572017-03-22T13:14:08.061-05:002017-03-22T13:14:08.061-05:00Yeah, I agree. Pure capitalism is probably as impo...Yeah, I agree. Pure capitalism is probably as impossible to implement as communism, but capitalism like monarchy goes with human nature, not against and so it's better. Personally I think a Prussian monarchy with a very basic constitution, a strong army and a capitalist, nearly laissez-faire economy, would be the best system of government. This might also be that 3 of my great grand fathers were Prussian and served in the German armAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220370438302441083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-12548288438864069422017-02-26T16:34:58.999-06:002017-02-26T16:34:58.999-06:00Capitalism, like Communism, also never really been...Capitalism, like Communism, also never really been tried, at least in it's purest form which I suppose would be absolutely no state intervention in the economy at all. I have some real problems with capitalism but, the evidence of experience clearly shows more success when you move in that direction than in the direction of communism. Other articles here show a number of specific examples of this.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-75979387519478124252017-02-26T13:40:19.401-06:002017-02-26T13:40:19.401-06:00"You can see the same thing in other areas. W..."You can see the same thing in other areas. When it comes to politics, outside of monarchy I’m not very strident. It seems to me that it should be pretty simple; try things until you find what works and then do that. Look around, see what works for others and if something doesn’t work -stop doing it; if it does work -do more of it. One area I do get rather passionate about is when dealing with socialists and/or communists (most of the communists of history were actually socialists as they never survived long enough to make it to actual communism). I have often screamed at the bickering politicians on my TV screen, “WHY ARE WE STILL ARGUING ABOUT THIS?!?!” Attention all socialists and/or communists! Attention! This has been tried! Look at Cuba, look at North Korea, look at the Soviet Union, I could name a long list of examples: IT DOESN’T WORK!!! The evidence of history is obvious and yet, constantly, year after year, hordes of people, like so many lemmings, keep scurrying like mad toward that same old cliff.". As a monarchist and not even a monarchist, but with common sense I couldn't agree more. I used to be a capitalist and still am, but thanks to your blog, I slowly gravitated to monarchism. However that was the one thing, which made certain that even from pre-teens, I was a capitalist. Whenever I see a communist, I ask them if it's so great, than why all examples of communism collapsed and why did and do people risk life to leave? I never had anyone be able to answer that question. They just start arguing about how it wasn't true marxism and that true marxism is excellent. Even if true marxism was excellent, I don't care about the theoretical side, I care about the practical side. Even if someone invented the best political system ever, if it didn't work, then I don't care about what would happen if it worked. The point is it never and will never work, so the sooner people realize it the better<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220370438302441083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-9431510216435863882015-03-21T22:54:54.337-05:002015-03-21T22:54:54.337-05:00Whenever I see a republican I point out about Parl...Whenever I see a republican I point out about Parliaments, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Ductators, and Communism to show they are wrong. And I would point to great men like Francois I, Charles V, Philip II, Louis XIII, Charles I, Joao IV, Charles II, Louis XIV, Peter I, Frederick II, Louis XV, Joseph II, Leopold II, George III, Louis XVI, Charles X, Franz I, Alexander I, Nicholas I, Wilhelm I, Pedro II, Victor Emmanuel II, Franz Joseph and so on to point out monarchy is right. Have I listed too many if them! Told you kings are awesome and republics and worth nothing (except for Switzerland and San Marino)Teo Wei Pinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09980353390013234644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-45926000427868648462013-01-25T17:29:23.343-06:002013-01-25T17:29:23.343-06:00The last paragraph makes a lot of sense. It is see...The last paragraph makes a lot of sense. It is seen in the history of science, time and time again. Like the Sun revolves around the world and the Earth is flat. Yet this was known to be false from before the building of Stonehenge.Nickuruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08874335943208548698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-69101643283681209502012-03-22T06:12:25.729-05:002012-03-22T06:12:25.729-05:00This general narrative, and the Narrative of Democ...This general narrative, and the Narrative of Democracy being the only way we can be Free, and all other systems of Government removing our Rights, has been broadly accepted as Dogma, so much so that Democracy is now seen as a Synonym for freedom. To merely say something is not Democratic is to say it is an oppressive Dictatorship. It has also become generally accepted, despite the complete lack of evidence and plenty to oppose it, that merely by being a Democracy a society will become culturally similar to America or Europe, and embrace the same Ideas westerners have.<br /><br /><br />It’s so engrained that we as a society now naturally favour the revolutionary, and apply this general narrative not only to the American or French Revolution, but to virtually all Revolutions. This was basically the same framework of a Narrative used when Mubarack was being ousted by the recent Egyptian Revolution, for example, and was the Narrative offered when the Shah in Iran was overthrown. The fact that after it became apparent that an American or European style society would not form and that the Government that did form was actually worse than the one that came before it didn’t really dissuade people from this, because they still try to interpret the events via the lens of the narrative. Hey are now saying that Egypt has lost its Democracy and Democracy must be restored, and the History of Iran is now interpreted as “One strong man replaced another” with no deeper analysis needed since it was decades ago.<br /><br />The point is, people see the world via their narratives and paradigms and when information contradicts this, rather than simply follow the logic they choose to either ignore the new data or spin it so that it fits somehow into the structured models they already use. It is rare for people to actually question the paradigm they employ in understanding the world and much more often they prefer to try to fit everything into the existing structure instead.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-89039815581905573062012-03-22T06:11:18.452-05:002012-03-22T06:11:18.452-05:00I have said this in the past, but will repeat it h...I have said this in the past, but will repeat it here.<br /><br />The reason people argue over History is simply because History is the narrative that embodies their beliefs. It serves to justify the positions they hold to.<br /><br />Republicanism and Monarchism are both ultimately religious Ideas. Irrespective of how much one says they have no Religion, everyone has a Religion, for Religion is not “ belief in, and reverence of, gods and supernatural powers”, and in the end more time and words are spilled over how Religion teaches us Morality and ethics and how we live than over belief in a god. This is important, because ultimately Religion is a set of beliefs about the nature of our existence, that tells us who we are, where we came from, and how we should live. The entire Modern Republican Philosophy is ties to an explicit understanding of man that was formulated in the Enlightenment by thinkers like John Locke or jean Jacques Rousseau. Monarchism is rooted in tradition and in an Ancient understanding of what it means to be Human, and what sort of creature we are, and how we should live, but is not as well defined as Modern Republicanism because it is so Ancient and primal. In a way so is Republicanism, if you included things like the Roman Republic or other Ancient Republics, but let’s face it modern Republics, including America, are not really the same thing as Rome was.<br /><br />All religions teach a set of moral and ethical values and cultural precepts, which move from being abstractions by way of a shared Mythology. By Mythology here I don’t mean “made up story”, I mean a story that transcends the context of the story and that embodies a Timeless Truth.<br /><br />Thus, while I shy away from the term “Christian Mythology’ because modern Atheists use the term to depict Christianity as a fiction or as equivalent to Greek Myths and thus not Real, the term is apt in this context as Christians follow the Life of Jesus of Nazareth, and other Biblical Figures, as more than just History, but as reflective of a Higher, Timeless Ideal we should use to model our own lives around.<br /><br />The same exists for Republicanism.<br /><br />The general, shared Republican narrative is that greedy, arrogant layabout Lords and all powerful, cruel Monarchs ruled over an oppressed people. The people were poor and had nothing, but worked tirelessly for scraps whilst being heavily taxed to finance the lavish lifestyles of the Aristocracy and Monarchy, who only exploited the workers to empower themselves, and didn’t care for the masses. The people had no rights and were mere slaves, living miserable lives of crass servitude under the heavy oppressions of these horrid Elites, until brave men rose up to overthrow them, in the name of the People, and the people followed them in Revolution to cast down the Evil of oppressive Kings, and realised that Monarchy itself was the problem and produced these ills. They realised that the true power always lay in the People, and the People are the only Truly legitimate Authority, so a Government of, for, and by the People is built.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-14403201787882644412012-03-21T12:09:18.634-05:002012-03-21T12:09:18.634-05:00Magnificent post, MM. One only has to emerge from ...Magnificent post, MM. One only has to emerge from the London underground on a saturday afternoon to have the same lunatic leaflets thrust into your hand by the same lunatic fanatics who, as you rightly summize, cannot accept the failure of their own political philosophy. Here in the UK, most leftist activists are from comfortable middle and upper middle class backgrounds. Their feelings of self loathing find a welcome home within these marxist lunatic brigades, internalising personal inadequecies and lashing out at the society which has given them every opportunity imaginable. These people are not just ignorant of history and in complete self denial, they are also spoiled brats.C. Dominic Rose-Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05229931622495395728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-83889484347613708912012-03-21T09:28:00.321-05:002012-03-21T09:28:00.321-05:00Oh, but we do learn from history, sir. Not just th...Oh, but we do learn from history, sir. Not just that we don't learn from history.<br /><br />To paraphrase A.J.P. Taylor, we learn from the mistakes of the past how to make new ones.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-13152117759559041092012-03-21T09:08:41.291-05:002012-03-21T09:08:41.291-05:00The fact that Leftist don't want to acknowledg...The fact that Leftist don't want to acknowledge what monsters people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ect actually were. Is because deep down they know that is where their policies, if implemented, will take the country, it happens every time No exceptions.<br /><br />Another reason for Tyranny success is the divided, purposely ignorant masses, in democracy you have too many ungrateful people to make the system work, and the dumbing down of society is one reason why they reject Monarchy, even though as you have said Monarchy is the best form of government through out time.<br /><br />Lets look at countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Japan, Look how internally stable they are, they have a single unifying country, culture and language, with a Monarch to help give the people focus. Now lets look at China, Libya, Egypt, France, Hell even the Untied States, You have Civil War, Famine, inequality, Internal instability, (France is in its 5th Republic now?) Hell the United States is falling apart at the seems with our Kleptocracy in-charge and sowing the seeds of discontent.<br /><br />Why these countries have not clinged to their Monarchy I will never know. we must fight back the leftists and say to their faces "I am a proud Reactionary!"Kc Lionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466253913797380767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-85887374441537763402012-03-21T03:18:05.553-05:002012-03-21T03:18:05.553-05:00When People find out that I am a monarchist, they ...When People find out that I am a monarchist, they invariably bring up King Henry VIII or King George III as an example of "Why I'm wrong".<br /><br />I did, however, manage to get a leftwing democrat to admit that the King George III was a scapegoat during the American revolution..<br /><br />As she said, "Every movement needs a focal point for their rage."<br /><br />Said I, "What about the Prime minister and parliament? If any problems existed, they were the fault of Parliament, not the King."<br /><br />For some reason people have trouble understanding the principle that insanity is defined by repeating failed activities with the expectation of different results each time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com