tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post5356367969646539334..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: Refuting Republicanism in Christianity Part IMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-7438661960883680272011-04-27T08:52:45.034-05:002011-04-27T08:52:45.034-05:00And I might do that. As you say, Maximilian was ve...And I might do that. As you say, Maximilian was very popular with the Indians in Mexico (you can check past posts done on men like General Mejia or the Yaqui tribe in Mexico) and this was true as well in North America where most Native tribes sided with the British against the American revolutionaries. Rafael Carrera was also a strong supporter of the native population. Also, in the far south, the Mapuche Indians in Chile were very loyal to the Spanish Crown against the republican forces.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-27695397315145729682011-04-27T07:14:50.730-05:002011-04-27T07:14:50.730-05:00True, but Carrera and other 19th century conservat...True, but Carrera and other 19th century conservatives wanted to preserve as much of the old Spanish order in the Americas as possible. But what is noteworthy, especially in Central America, was that Conservative governments protected economies and respected communal and indigenous land rights. The Liberal regimes which followed not only sought to secularise society, but their policies led to indigenous dispossession, one of the underlying causes of the problems of the region in subsequent decades.<br /><br />This was also a factor in Mexico, particularly during the 1860s where Maximilian won at least some indigenous support. Noting too in the early years of the Mexican Revolution that Catholics did politically organise, a precursor to Cristeros and further activism.<br /><br />A good example is the Mosquito Coast in Nicaragua, which was a kingdom under British protection, whose autonomy was generally respected by Nicaraguan Conservative governments, whereas the Liberal regime of Santos Zelaya not only ended any vestiges of the autonomous monarchy, but also dissolved other communal holdings.<br /><br />Garcia Moreno would be worthy to profile here.David Votoupalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580606716887515975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-76496285172029657462011-04-26T08:50:36.295-05:002011-04-26T08:50:36.295-05:00Gabriel Garcia Moreno was a great man, he was also...Gabriel Garcia Moreno was a great man, he was also a monarchist at heart who wanted to import a Spanish prince (or some such candidate) to be the monarch of Ecuador. Rafael Carrera came along after the break with monarchy had already occurred. As to your last point, that is to some extent true and partly why the U.S. took such a dim view of the effort to institute a monarchy in Mexico by Agustin de Iturbide.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-33676166141799601232011-04-26T00:28:06.069-05:002011-04-26T00:28:06.069-05:00As a staunch Catholic monarchist and regular blog ...As a staunch Catholic monarchist and regular blog reader I say thanks. I look forward to see Catholic monarchism further explored in this series.<br /><br />19th century Conservatives in various European and Latin American countries defined themselves by their adherence to tradition and to Catholicism, but good examples of such in Latin American republics have included Gabriel Garcia Moreno of Ecuador and Rafael Carrera of Guatemala. Not to mention the long history of clerical v anticlerical politics in Mexico. Interesting to note that when Conservative regimes fell in Central and South America, the countries were left more vulnerable to foreign economic exploitation.David Votoupalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580606716887515975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-71672675450912640592011-04-25T20:45:36.708-05:002011-04-25T20:45:36.708-05:00A great post MM it takes down the falses arguments...A great post MM it takes down the falses arguments of the republican majority, it is true the Catholic Church has always been monarchist althought there are many republicans inside of it, it has a long history of suporting the monarchy since the times of Constantine the Great.<br /><br /> I really hate how the people now defend secularism the secularism is politic without morality the seculars one in my country allowed the fags (excuseme if anyone is offended by the term) to marry when the cardinal bergoglio called to an referendum to say yes or no and the corrupts of the senators of the kirchnerism where bribed to vote for the yes, i use that example to ask (a politician with morals principle in a confesional and religious state would do that?.<br /><br /> Hi from Argentina.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-49436187515737667822011-04-25T17:41:57.584-05:002011-04-25T17:41:57.584-05:00Great article. I was--if you can believe it--a tra...Great article. I was--if you can believe it--a traditional Catholic market-anarchist until very recently (I'm still Catholic.) I used to think that anarcho-capitalist libertarianism was the great discovery of history, but now I see it as only the most logical conclusion from bad republican premises. In any event, I would now call myself a "legitimist" in the sense that Otto von Hapsburg used the term: "I am often asked if I am a republican or a monarchist. I am neither, I am a legitimist: I am for legitimate government. You could never have a monarchy in Switzerland, and it would be asinine to imagine Spain as a republic."RomanceofOrthodoxyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04408248216849455447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-69972394955419234182011-04-25T10:02:36.536-05:002011-04-25T10:02:36.536-05:00True, God chose Saul and later chose David to repl...True, God chose Saul and later chose David to replace him, but I will be getting into all of that in Part II tomorrow.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-63128571216851348052011-04-25T09:36:30.466-05:002011-04-25T09:36:30.466-05:00If I am not mistaken, God was the one who “crowned...If I am not mistaken, God was the one who “crowned” Saul. He finally became corrupt and God dethroned him and crowned David as the King of Israel. Interestingly, God didn’t make David the first president of Israel.<br />Every time the Israelis were too sinful in the eyes of God, he would destroy their kingdom and forced them to live as a conquered nation or even as a mere conquered people.<br />By the time of Christ, the Mediterranean already had had two republics, Athens and Rome; however, Christ never lectured about the democratic republic of heaven despite his lectures about brotherhood and equality.TANAKA8120https://www.blogger.com/profile/08169056478150976834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-78655069647705928922011-04-25T08:19:47.081-05:002011-04-25T08:19:47.081-05:00Many people take a very *selective* reading of his...Many people take a very *selective* reading of history -which is nothing new and not limited simply to Christianity or monarchism. Communists choose to view everything in terms of a class struggle, associating both monarchy and religion ONLY with the upper classes. Of course that ignores things like the number of aristocrats who sided with the revolution, even the clerics who turned traitor, all trying to save their own skins which ultimately did them no good. As for the revolution, it might have started with the butchering of aristocrats but in the end, many more common people were killed than aristocrats.<br /><br />There are also those (not communists, at least not consciously so) who view everything in terms of a struggle for "democracy", taking that as an absolute good and so take the side of the Jacobins against the king. The truth, of course, is that the Jacobins were against religion and ( as it happens ) were against democracy too. It is a flag for them but of course, popular government never happens.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-57453867401354903592011-04-25T03:43:27.866-05:002011-04-25T03:43:27.866-05:00As a passionate student of history, I oftentimes t...As a passionate student of history, I oftentimes turn to a historically-based argument for my positions. Usually, I find that history vindicates both Christianity and Monarchy.<br />If over 1500 years worth of scholars and theologians could not find an issue with Christian monarchy, what makes people think that Republicanism is God's choice?<br />Willful ignorance, I say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-8502820888597544452011-04-25T03:00:38.343-05:002011-04-25T03:00:38.343-05:00THIS IS THE SERIES I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR!
Well...THIS IS THE SERIES I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR!<br /><br /><br />Well too many today think the Bible is all about Republicanism and Christianity, because it teaches that all men ought to be Free, favours a Republic. I shall of course note that I disagree most strongly, for the most ardent Republicans had always been those who wanted rid of Christianity, and obviously Christ is our King, not our Duly Elected President. I fail to see why this is not more obvious.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I think most who say Christianity favours Republicanism or opposes Monarchy do so because they simply aren’t honest with themselves. They love Republicanism, and love Christianity, but study neither in terms of History or Theory. They construct their own version of what Christianity is and what Republicanism is and what a Monarchy is, and align their Religion with their politics by simply subjugating them all to their preferences and desires and the narratives they tell themselves. A Perfect example of this is a book, “The 5000 Year Leap”, by W. Cleon Skousen, which so abuses its source materials and so distorts History as to be laughable. It even calls the Jacobins Right Wingers who only wanted to limit the Kings power and says they fought only for Freedom! Of course Paul Skousen himself told me on another forum that the Jacobins were not hostile to Christianity!<br /><br />People reinvent History to read how they want it, and rather than the Truth, seek only fables that fit their own prejudices and desires.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.com