Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,267
Reply with quote  #16 
The problem is that you mention the supposed "conservatism" among Australia's minority groups as some kind of basis for defending the monarchy in this country. It's as if you think somehow we must seek allies among these sorts of people rather than defend the monarchy with what we've got, which is our British-derived civic heritage, legal and constitutional tradition. This is what the monarchy in Australia is grounded in, as much as monarchies elsewhere are grounded in particular traditions from which they can be defended. Don't get me wrong, we're a very inclusive lot with people from all sorts of backgrounds among active monarchists.

You once said on this forum that you believed that an "Islamic West" would be preferable to a "secular West". Even as the most staunchly Christian and conservative of people would undoubtedly be horrified by the sort of crap you spout out. If you think any spirituality is better than none at all, then perhaps you'll decide we should embrace all sorts of controversial belief systems on the ground they could provide support for monarchism? Perhaps some might, but you can never be so sure. Unless we'll all be meditating or levitating around Stonehenge listening to your classical long-winded jargon-laden lectures [rofl][sleep]

Just because some groups are likely to be quite religious and conservative in their private morals does not automatically make them allies of Christians, conservatives and monarchists. With the sort of nonsense you've spouted out before, I don't think I'm under any obligation to treat your opinions with the kind of respect or deference you think you're entitled to. I treat people with precisely the sort of respect or lack of it that they are entitled to.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 957
Reply with quote  #17 
You are under obligation to try to and not obstruct the board with silly personal attacks because of your personal grudges. As little more than a sloganizing ideologue, I don't really think you should be accusing others of spouting nonsense.

Quote:

Unless we'll all be meditating or levitating around Stonehenge listening to your classical long-winded jargon-laden lectures [rofl]
I would invite you, but I'm afraid you would distract everyone else by playing Hannity's radio show too loud and snarling every time he mentions the word liberal. It would be hard to levitate with that going on in the background.

Quote:

You once said on this forum that you believed that an "Islamic West" would be preferable to a "secular West". Even as the most staunchly Christian and conservative of people would undoubtedly be horrified by the sort of crap you spout out. If you think any spirituality is better than none at all, then perhaps you'll decide we should embrace all sorts of controversial belief systems on the ground they could provide support for monarchism? Perhaps some might, but you can never be so sure.

I don't think there is anything intrinsically ridiculous in thinking that widespread materialism, naturalism, relativism, and nihilism  are about as bad as it gets. But that's me. Heck, I don't think there is anything ridiculous in a conservative, even a Christian one, not seeing Islam, or some other non-Christian faiths, as simply sinister. Otherwise, I didn't quite say what you accuse me of, or at least I said it with ample qualification and nuance. However, I don't see much point discussing this now. It has little to do with my comments on this thread, and you have hardly shown you are willing to argue these things constructively

Anyway, my point was simply one about the situation as we find it. I actually do believe in assimilation. But that isn't about to happen soon in Australia, so we have to deal with some degree of multiculturalism. I was simply speculating on the position of ethnic minorities in terms of monarchism. This is actually closer to considering real-world monarchist strategies than what you are referring to, as it is based upon the current Australian situation.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,267
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
You are under obligation to try to and not obstruct the board with silly personal attacks because of your personal grudges. As little more than a sloganizing ideologue, I don't really think you should be accusing others of spouting nonsense.


Me a "sloganising ideologue"? If you hadn't been such a pompous and condescending I-know-better-than-you prick that you've been since you came here, I wouldn't have borne a grudge against you in the first place. But since you chose to be in the first place, you bear the consequences of my animosity. Then again, you did say once you were tired of arguing with us, only to backtrack on it.


Quote:
I don't think there is anything intrinsically ridiculous in thinking that widespread materialism, naturalism, relativism, and nihilism  are about as bad as it gets. But that's me. Heck, I don't think there is anything ridiculous in a conservative, even a Christian one, not seeing Islam, or some other non-Christian faiths, as simply sinister.


And where did I not condemn relativism and nihilism? You know I ferociously and stridently condemn all of it entirely from the basis of defending Western civilisation in general and Anglo-Saxon civilisation in particular. I happily respect non-Christian faiths in their elements. But failing to recognise the enemy among the Left, anti-Western, anti-imperialist and Third Worldist ideologies (which include both Marxism and Islamism) is unforgivable.

Quote:
Anyway, my point was simply one about the situation as we find it. I actually do believe in assimilation. But that isn't about to happen soon in Australia, so we have to deal with some degree of multiculturalism. I was simply speculating on the position of ethnic minorities in terms of monarchism. This is actually closer to considering real-world monarchist strategies than what you are referring to, as it is based upon the current Australian situation.


And I think, being a child of immigrants in this country with a deep and abiding sense of love for my country, for my European roots, and for Britain and the Commonwealth to go with it, I am in a pretty good position to comment on monarchism based on my dealings with fellow monarchists in the real world. I am mindful of the growing backlash against multiculturalism, Political Correctness and moral relativism and its attendant attacks on our country's values and heritage - which includes the flag, the ANZAC legacy, the Crown and Constitution. I value all of these and defend them vigorously.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 957
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV


Me a "sloganising ideologue"?


It about sums you up, yes, though I will admit you do have a good knowledge of monarchism and global political issues. Credit where credit is due.

Quote:

If you hadn't been such a pompous and condescending I-know-better-than-you prick that you've been since you came here, I wouldn't have borne a grudge against you in the first place. But since you chose to be in the first place, you bear the consequences of my animosity. Then again, you did say once you were tired of arguing with us, only to backtrack on it.

[sleep] I have responded to this nonsense repeatedly. I see little reason to do it again. The point is simply that you should refrain from childish, unprovoked personal attacks for the sake of the board (and for just generally being a well-adjusted adult). I left because of that, not because I cared much about arguing with you per se. You hardly sting me with your incoherent ramblings. I decided I wished to post here, and I should hardly have to suffer for what is almost entirely your fault.



Quote:

And where did I not condemn relativism and nihilism? You know I ferociously and stridently condemn all of it entirely from the basis of defending Western civilisation in general and Anglo-Saxon civilisation in particular. I happily respect non-Christian faiths in their elements. But failing to recognise the enemy among the Left, anti-Western, anti-imperialist and Third Worldist ideologies (which include both Marxism and Islamism) is unforgivable.


This bears little relation to what I actually said. Work on your reading comprehension.

Quote:

And I think, being a child of immigrants in this country with a deep and abiding sense of love for my country, for my European roots, and for Britain and the Commonwealth to go with it, I am in a pretty good position to comment on monarchism based on my dealings with fellow monarchists in the real world. I am mindful of the growing backlash against multiculturalism, Political Correctness and moral relativism and its attendant attacks on our country's values and heritage - which includes the flag, the ANZAC legacy, the Crown and Constitution. I value all of these and defend them vigorously.

For all this I salute you.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,267
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
 I have responded to this nonsense repeatedly. I see little reason to do it again. The point is simply that you should refrain from childish, unprovoked personal attacks for the sake of the board (and for just generally being a well-adjusted adult). I left because of that, not because I cared much about arguing with you per se. You hardly sting me with your incoherent ramblings. I decided I wished to post here, any I should hardly be held responsible for what is almost entirely your fault.


They are not unprovoked attacks but a reaction to your annoying, niggly style of posting which seeks to find faults in every detail. Sometimes you need to step back and be more circumspect but you can't help yourself. You could of course have stayed away, laid off and spare yourself the trouble. But you think somehow that I will somehow be "enriched" by your all-knowing responses.

I put forth the idea of defending existing monarchies and restoring fallen ones, which most people here don't have a fuss with. But you think we should add something based on your own assumptions. You have a problem with things I consider to be perfect common sense - a defence of British values, liberty, law and civilisation, my condemnation of regimes that are unjust and tyrannical, and my stated rejection of any extremist ideology which includes neo-fascism. All these are perfectly reasonable, yet you find reason to niggle at this, which I am bemused with, just because you think they don't fit your bizarre worldview where everything must be grounded in some unexplained mystique.

Quote:
This bears little relation to what I actually said. Work on your reading comprehension.


You talked about nihilism and relativism and I responded that I have always denounced these things. What is relativism anyway? I reject the nonsensical notion that all cultures, belief and value systems must be given equal respect and validity. It is clear from historical experience that it is not. I have a very un-PC view on defending Western culture and values, of which of course the British monarchy is central.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 957
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV


They are not unprovoked attacks but a reaction to your annoying, niggly style of posting which seeks to find faults in every detail. Sometimes you need to step back and be more circumspect but you can't help yourself. You could of course have stayed away, laid off and spare yourself the trouble. But you think somehow that I will somehow be "enriched" by your all-knowing responses.


Spare me the paranoid, delusional bollocks. You know I don't accept your claims, and that by provocation I don't just mean anything you find annoying, but something resembling a legitimate justification for personal abuse. I hardly respond to many of your posts, and in this thread I did not originally respond to you directly, and I certainly didn't engage in any niggly criticism. Even if this was a legitimate justification for crude personal attacks (which it isn't - it happens all too often on the internet, but being slightly annoyed is no reason for personal attacks), it hardly has anything to do with this thread.

Quote:

I put forth the idea of defending existing monarchies and restoring fallen ones, which most people here don't have a fuss with. But you think we should add something based on your own assumptions. You have a problem with things I consider to be perfect common sense - a defence of British values, liberty, law and civilisation, my condemnation of regimes that are unjust and tyrannical, and my stated rejection of any extremist ideology which includes neo-fascism. All these are perfectly reasonable, yet you find reason to niggle at this, which I am bemused with, just because you think they don't fit your bizarre worldview where everything must be grounded in some unexplained mystique.


I don't have a problem with most of these. I also don't see exactly how you are linking this to what we were discussing when you had yet another outburst. You are conflating all sorts of discussions, with all sorts of contexts, and all sorts of participants. You come across as flaying about, trying to link together some things you vaguely remember I might have written.


Quote:

You talked about nihilism and relativism and I responded that I have always denounced these things. What is relativism anyway? I reject the nonsensical notion that all cultures, belief and value systems must be given equal respect and validity. It is clear from historical experience that it is not. I have a very un-PC view on defending Western culture and values, of which of course the British monarchy is central.


Yes, I talked about them, but I said particular things about them. Your response didn't directly deal with what I actually said.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,267
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman


Spare me the paranoid, delusional bollocks. You know I don't accept your claims, and that by provocation I don't just mean anything you find annoying, but something resembling a legitimate justification for personal abuse. I hardly respond to many of your posts, and in this thread I did not originally respond to you directly, and I certainly didn't engage in any niggly criticism. Even if this was a legitimate justification for crude personal attacks (which it isn't - it happens all too often on the internet, but being slightly annoyed is no reason for personal attacks), it hardly has anything to do with this thread.


What you call "crude personal attacks" is merely putting you in your place. Heck you continue to insult me with your loaded jargon, like "sloganising ideologue" above which just underlines that I think you have some kind of superiority complex over others. I'm not being paranoid or delusional - I just don't hide the fact that I dislike you intensely and have every intention of letting you know. It's just a way of letting you know in case you feel like you want to be pompous once again and post your oh-so-enlightened opinion as if you have anything useful to offer, which you don't. You make an assumption about minority communities in this country without being able to back it up. My response is based on your past assumptions given your inane ramblings about culture and spirituality, which I thought would be pretty consistent.

Quote:
I don't have a problem with most of these. I also don't see exactly how you are linking this to what we were discussing when you had yet another outburst. You are conflating all sorts of discussions, with all sorts of contexts, and all sorts of participants. You come across as flaying about, trying to link together some things you vaguely remember I might have written.


Actually you in the past have tried to take exception with me making those points because you somehow think it will weaken the monarchist cause (which it won't). And you can't back up your claims on those either!

Quote:
Yes, I talked about them, but I said particular things about them. Your response didn't directly deal with what I actually said.


Well you mentioned them in this thread so I thought I'd be nice enough to clarify things for you so that you know my actual position, without you jumping to your usual conclusion of what you think I actually believe.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 957
Reply with quote  #23 
I have only ever insulted you immediately after you have launched an unprovoked attack on me. Yes, if I were a saint I wouldn't even do that, but I'm not. But this is completely different to your behaviour.

Are you under some delusion I take your rantings seriously? that I would intimidated by either your arguments or your insults? I will post here as long as I'm allowed, and I'm sure as hell not going to be put off by you or your insults (which seem to be more or less openly threatening now). If we are putting people in their place, you are clearly an ignoramus with deep problems. You can't follow a basic chain of reasoning, and couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. You're a fly not even worth squatting. If you ever need to be reminded of this, I too would be more than happy to help you.


DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,267
Reply with quote  #24 
I make no threats to you because that certainly would be beneath me to ever do so. I'm no saint, and don't claim to be. It's just that in general I cannot stand arrogant, pretentious people with a sense of superiority over others which cannot be justified. What you need to learn is some basic humility and modesty, if you can bother to do so. I'd rather ignore you and vice versa, but the temptation must be too great on your part not to. I'd be happy to retract what I've said but it's good to know the contempt is now mutual.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 957
Reply with quote  #25 
I don't care enough about you to have contempt for you. There's nothing you have said, in argument or insult, that has meant much to me. It's all incoherent, paranoid crap, little different from the bleating of the sheep. I have encountered many people online who are my superiors, but you are not one of them.

If I wish to respond to a thread of yours or even a post, I will. If you don't like that and wish to launch more personal attacks, I will respond in kind, though in the future I will be more concise about putting you in your place.

Now have we said all we need to say?
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,267
Reply with quote  #26 
You don't care enough because, well, you don't know anything about me and have no right to pass judgment. Me incoherent and "crap"? You can't put me in "my place" because you don't know what that is precisely. I at least have a genuine interest and enthusiasm for the topics at hand and am always keen to promote a cause. You on the other hand seem to have little interest in actually doing so, and sometimes even try to caution against actually doing so. After all, you think you know better, don't you? Why would I take seriously anyone who evidently offers no support and is of no value to what I actually want to do?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 957
Reply with quote  #27 
I pass judgment over your online personality, which surely is a reflection of your real one. I always find it interesting you are somehow offended that I respond to you as you do to me.

There are no specifics in your claims about how I get in the way of the monarchist cause, as usual. I'm sorry if I have got in the way of vital work for the cause, like posting link after link from News Ltd. journalists.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,267
Reply with quote  #28 
Well you always seem to think there is something wrong with my advocacy or belief that monarchies need to be defended and restored, which I admit I find strange for someone who posts on here. You always think there is some other factor, that there needs to be more to monarchism than that. In other words, you like to make a fuss like you think you have something of value to add when really you don't.

Once more, the News Ltd link shows what a pathetic dig you like to make at me, as if I am some kind of narrow-minded ignoramus. Get off it you scumbag! If you knew you would get this kind of hostility from me, you would never have come back. Each of these insults doesn't help your cause. But that's all I've got to say now because I'm tired of having to reply to you.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 957
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
Well you always seem to think there is something wrong with my advocacy or belief that monarchies need to be defended and restored, which I admit I find strange for someone who posts on here. You always think there is some other factor, that there needs to be more to
monarchism than that.



You mean I believe that monarchism is not the only important political and social principle? That I would not, for example, manage Britain's foreign policy to prioritise restoring monarchies? This is hardly a unique position, even for a monarchist. It is far from unique in this forum (as has been made clear in a couple of threads just recently). I respect your position; it simply isn't mine.

Quote:

Once more, the News Ltd link shows what a pathetic dig you like to make at me, as if I am some kind of narrow-minded ignoramus. Get off it you scumbag! If you knew you would get this kind of hostility from me, you would never have come back. But that's all I've got to say now because I'm tired of having to reply to you.


It is rather hard for you to play the tough guy while whining I am being mean to you. There really is something wrong with you, and not just because you are a narrow-minded ignoramus. But, yes, I agree there is little point in more exchanges.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,267
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
You mean I believe that monarchism is not the only important political and social principle? That I would not, for example, manage Britain's foreign policy to prioritise restoring monarchies? This is hardly a unique position, even for a monarchist. It is far from unique in this forum (as has been made clear in a couple of threads just recently). I respect your position; it simply isn't mine.


I did not really call for Britain to do so directly, but do believe that restoring monarchies will require significant support and advocacy. It is true that many of us do believe that Britain is a nation whose greatness was rarely if ever surpassed in history, and that the decline of its power in this world was a great loss for humanity. It is somewhat perplexing if you don't get this.

Now monarchism is not the only important social and political principle, but it is an important one to many of us here. Yet you seem to think that monarchism somehow needs to be linked to your peculiar social and cultural ideal rather than simply being a form of government. Most of us here love the history and tradition of monarchy, we are not making such a big fuss about the other aspects you think are so much more important. We simply believe that a country benefits from keeping or restoring its monarchy, whereas you think it must be linked to some.

Quote:
It is rather hard for you to play the tough guy while whining I am being mean to you. There really is something wrong with you. But, yes, I agree there is little point in more exchanges.


Me being the tough guy? No, the point is that I don't hide my dislike of you, and you now know it. You've made a serious error in judgment in coming back here if you ever got the hint of what people like me thought of you. Admit it. You won't give up, and neither will I.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: