Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
jackist

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #1 
I am working on organizing a 501(c)(3) Texas Royalist Institute to promote monarchism, Texas nationalism, patriarchy, and distributism.  I am looking for an accountant, lawyer, and webmaster/social media director to assist.  If the members of the fora know as monarchist leaning folks with the requisite skills in Texas, please let me know.  Also, those interested in serving on the board of directors are also welcome to send me a message.
johnfreeman

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #2 
Hello Jackist:

If you are going to promote Monarchism, Texas nationalism, Patriarchy, and Distributism (?), you should concentrate on ONLY one topic; you will have conflict of interest and the work would not be focus.

What is "distributism"???

What is Texas Nationalism? Are you planning to make Texas a Sovereign Nation?


__________________
john freeman
SamuelT

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 20
Reply with quote  #3 
Please, for Pete's sake, do not promote patriarchy. Or if you do, don't promote it alongside monarchies. Patriarchy is what feminists view as Satan's more evil twin. It's a little like if I said that some guy wanted to promote medical hygene (monarchism). That's good, must be a good guy right? Now what if I said that Adolf Hitler (patriarchalism) wanted to promote medical hygene. That sort of puts medical hygene in bad light by association, doesn't it?
Also, patriarchy is not viable in today's world, where women can and do find employment, education, and can make independent decisions. The idea that women are simply there to serve there husband's wishes is absurd. If you mean something else by patriarchalism, my apologies, but if the aforementioned is, indeed, what you meant, then I would be happy to debate you on it.
Why do you want to change the nationality of Texas? I agree that American democracy doesn't work particularly well, but if you have EVER in your life taken the pledge of allegiance, or have not renounced your citizenship, then to try and remove Texas from that to which you have sworn an allegiance is, in my opinion, traitorous, unethical, and disgraceful. I certainly agree that this form of government is not the best, however I am convicted by my citizenship and by the word of God that I am required to be subject to my government. You have sworn to be loyal to Unites States, it is dishonest to go back on your promise.
Duca_Dominic_Alpini

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #4 
Are you promoting Texas to become part of a Monarchist Mexico or to rejoin Spain. If so I can get you in contact with some Catholic Monarchists, if you support a sovereign Texas with a new Monarch I cannot help. Also don't listen to those who call you a traitor the U.S. is an unethical nation that spits upon God and Civilization and is unworthy of any loyalty, and it is every Monarchists duty to see to its dissolution.
__________________
A Monarchy conducted with infinite wisdom and infinite benevolance is the most perfect of all possible governments-Ezra Stiles

"If the King does not lead, how can he suspect his subordinates to follow," Lelouch vi Brittania
jackist

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #5 
Thanks for the comments.

I would like to see one of the Iturbides as monarch of a sovereign Texas, and that's the position the Institute would support.  The Institute would also favor a restoration of the Iturbides in Mexico but would be focused on Texas.  If both Texas and Mexico become a monarchy and restore the Iturbides, then I suppose it would be up to the king to decide how he wanted to deal with combining or not combining Texas and Mexico.

Texans will know what Texas nationalism is about generally.  There is also a semi-organized movement of several hundred thousand people trying to push a secessionist agenda, but it has historically been a republican movement.  The elite in Texas hate the federal government but will never get on board with a separate republic for a lot of reasons.  A monarchy would give the elite a lot more comfort about breaking off.

Distributism is an economic school of thought within Catholic Social Teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Patriarchy has a lot of different definitions.  I'm using the term in the evolving neoreactionary sense.  Since the sexes are not equal and decisions must be made to favor the interest of one sex over the other (particularly in family law), then favoring men is the better way for the state to proceed.

There are already great Texas groups that are working on the issues separately.  Unlike most of the United States, Texas actually functions.  The purpose of the Institute is to unite a broader coalition in the hopes of getting Texas out of the United States before its too late.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #6 
Whilst it is perfectly true that hitching your monarchist wagon to other controversial positions like patriarchy and distributism might make it even more controversial and harder to sell, it might, on the other hand, allow you to present a more holistic and attractive message, and so actually get more support. It is a tightrope. I certainly don't think traditional families and distributism (which is just economic traditionalism) are necessarily going to make such a movement more unpopular. It will really depend on circumstances and how the issues are approached.
gianni

Registered:
Posts: 124
Reply with quote  #7 
I agree with Wessexman !
jackist

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #8 
Thanks for the words of encouragement.  I am still looking for names of a potential accountant, lawyer, and board members.  I'm footing the bill for the start up costs, and I'd rather start a relationship with a member of the monarchist community rather than just use one of my friends.
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelT
Please, for Pete's sake, do not promote patriarchy. Or if you do, don't promote it alongside monarchies. Patriarchy is what feminists view as Satan's more evil twin. It's a little like if I said that some guy wanted to promote medical hygene (monarchism). That's good, must be a good guy right? Now what if I said that Adolf Hitler (patriarchalism) wanted to promote medical hygene. That sort of puts medical hygene in bad light by association, doesn't it?


Who cares what they think ?  These are not rational individuals with whom one can have a discussion.

Quote:
Also, patriarchy is not viable in today's world, where women can and do find employment, education, and can make independent decisions.


They find employment doing jobs at which they can't perform as well as men because men have had their spirits broken and have adopted a corporate culture that accommodates their presence.  They have education because the education system and model has been altered to cater to their learning style, despite the fact that their output is actually of a lesser standard.  They make independent decisions that are usually profoundly unwise, lead to the ruin of the family, destroy family law, harm children, etc.

Quote:
The idea that women are simply there to serve there husband's wishes is absurd.


Women flourish as women and become excellent in virtue through being subject to men, who are superior to women in reason and physically.  Would you dare to make a woman be ashamed of herself for wanting to be a virtuous woman and to flourish in life by placing herself under the hand of a strong and upright man ?  She has the moral right to pursue virtue, to be a good wife and mother, and to not be disturbed in this pursuit.  Or is she not free to do this, and are men likewise not free to protect this beneficent arrangement through the strength of the laws ?

Apparently, you don't believe that women should have liberty after all.  By your maxim, they should instead be forced out of the home, away from their children (if they have any), taught by schools that they are being given everything while they are in fact denied everything, sent into the work place to produce low-value material rather than high-quality children, and disallowed from having a natural relationship with their own husbands (if they even have one or can maintain a relationship with one, since they are taught to hate men and masculinity in the most insidious way).  How about, rather than hold to such a maxim, you leave the natural order alone and mind your own business ?

Quote:
If you mean something else by patriarchalism, my apologies, but if the aforementioned is, indeed, what you meant, then I would be happy to debate you on it.


The ball is in your court.

Quote:
Why do you want to change the nationality of Texas?


Well, Texas would certainly benefit.

Quote:
I agree that American democracy doesn't work particularly well, but if you have EVER in your life taken the pledge of allegiance, or have not renounced your citizenship, then to try and remove Texas from that to which you have sworn an allegiance is, in my opinion, traitorous, unethical, and disgraceful.


What if the government is tyrannical, as the US government is ?

Quote:
You have sworn to be loyal to Unites States, it is dishonest to go back on your promise.


The pledge of allegiance was probably thrust on him at school. That doesn't mean he can't break away through secession, which is lawful according to the founding documents of the US.  Just because the Confederate States lost against the United States doesn't meant that it was wrong or that its interpretation of the US's laws was incorrect.  It only means that it lost.  Besides, the Texas constitution supersedes the US constitution in Texas on the point of secession, since, if I understand correctly, one of the conditions for Texas's joining of the US was that it reserved the right to secede.  

According to the US's own "Declaration of Independence" from England, Texans have ample reason to depart from the US.  To not allow for secession from the US is to reject the spirit of that document.  So, tell me, do you reject the spirit of the "Declaration of Independence," or do you think that allegiance to the US should be based on something different than the Declaration and the US Constitution ?  If so, what is it based on ?  My point is that the US as an entity is entirely incoherent.  Let Texas leave it.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #10 
Actually, let's talk "Pledge of Allegiance."  Here is the text :

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

So, the first part, allegiance to the flag, seems to not mean very much.  Pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands, though -- that is significant.  What does the Republic actually stand for, precisely ?  Is it the Constitution ?  Well, isn't that amendable ?  Is it the Declaration ?  Well, does the Declaration constitute the US ?  What does the Republic actually stand for ?  Is it the common law, the rights of Englishmen, the Magna Carta, Enlightenment philosophy -- well, the common law has been abandoned in criminal cases, the rights of Englishmen are nowhere enshrined but in the Declaration, the Magna Carta is not immediately relevant except in some borrowed philosophical way, and Enlightenment philosophy has actually been mostly abandoned by activist judges in federal courts.

So, what does that leave one with ?  It's hard to say.  Maybe you could tell me.  Besides, what if he was made to swear it as a youth.  Does that bind him as an adult, or are we to think that only the legal acts that one makes in one's majority are binding on one's person, minus of course criminal penalties.

And is the US actually one "Nation" under God ?  In what sense could that be true ?  Nation is used in this sense as a nation-state, which is something quite different than the historical understanding of the word "nation."  Is one bound to believe that the US is indeed "one nation" and that this status is guaranteed by God ?  What if somebody thinks that that's a bunch of nonsense ?  Is he bound to believe it anyway, as if it were an article of faith ?  Is he stating a credo when he makes the pledge ?  To whom is the credo addressed ?  What if he changes his mind ?  Are you saying that he is compelled by conscience and by God to give his belief to the statement in the pledge, even if it does not actually appear to be true in any objective sense ?

But I thought that, according to US law courts, it is not God but the people who create the government, and that laws are merely the "rules of society."  Sorry, but classical liberal-modern understanding of what the US is died about one hundred years ago.  The actual government of the US does not interpret itself in the way that the pledge would have one believe.  The US government is very much a positivist thing.  Whatever is passed as law and voted on by all people is considered true and binding as much as anything else -- at least, that's how the US government believes, in a nutshell.

"Indivisible" is an adjective appended onto either the word "Republic" or the word "Nation."  Is one bound to believe that the borders of the US are actually sacred, and that they can never change ?  What about the Adams-Onis treaty of 1819 ?  That was a land grant to Spain whereby land claimed by the US (though of questionable legal ownership, naturally) was ceded to Spain in return for possession of Florida.  The US also once controlled the Philippines and was thrown out by the Filipinos.  Are people who take the pledge bound to desire the reconquest of the Philippines by the US military ?

And, with regard to "liberty and 
justice for all," what if neither of those things are actually the case at all ?  What if one believes that liberty and justice are systematically denied by what the "republic" stands for, or that indivisibility is something that is opposed to liberty and justice for all, or that the US being "one Nation" is opposed to liberty and justice ?  What if somebody thinks that the US government is more or less tyrannical and that one can only maintain liberty and justice by seceding from it ?

You see, now we have established a hierarchy of goods.  One must pick the highest good or the highest loyalty, or he does wrong.  What is one to do ?

It's a tangled web.  I think the only thing that smooths out all these bumps, for most United-Statesians, is patriotic rhetoric and imagery.  It doesn't matter if it's all fanciful -- it touches the emotional parts and overrides one's brain.

I don't think that many people would consider a Texas secessionist a traitor.  The US's laws are too complicated and self-defeating.  They don't set-up a binary test of loyalty so simply.  Taking the broad view of history, very few judges would probably condemn a Texas secessionist as somehow being disgraceful.  After all, he would only have to cite the Declaration of Independence.

I mean, that would be a little disgraceful in my mind -- it's a wretched document.  He should instead mention that he has a duty to be virtuous, that Texas is an unjustly subjected land, that Texas cannot continue to remain part of the United States without injuring the common weal, and that the men of Texas must go their own way lest they lose their families, further spoil their women, tarnish their honour, and likely condemn their immortal souls.  But that's not convincing to people, and they will most likely instead invoke democracy and so on.  Too bad.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #11 
Contra, your view on women seems to amount to that their freedom is to do exactly as their husbands say. This is ideologically much closer to fascism, the ISIL barbarians, and even the IRI. Is that really the company you want to be in? Also, have you ever considered what the likely reaction of women would be were you to say such things to their faces? You'd probably get slapped. I'm also curious what kasiac, a female member of this forum, has to say about this post of Contra's.

Also, the question of secession in the USA was settled by the Civil War and also the Supreme Court case of Texas v. White in 1869, which held that unilateral secession was unconstitutional. Also, there was never any agreement with Texas to allow them to secede, and I would like to hear the exact provision of the US Constitution that you think permits secession.
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
Contra, your view on women seems to amount to that their freedom is to do exactly as their husbands say.


You misunderstand and exaggerate.

Quote:
This is ideologically much closer to fascism, the ISIL barbarians, and even the IRI. Is that really the company you want to be in?


I am merely repeating what almost every European Catholic man believed for thousands of years, and the Romans and Greeks before them.  I'm actually far friendlier to women than the ancient Greeks and Romans were.  In fact, I am repeating St Thomas Aquinas, who is informed by Aristotle.  You seem to have the autistic reaction of modern left-wing fanatics, who either want a perfect equality or imagine slavery and burkas.  No nuance, no differences between people, no groups.  Everybody is either the same or else there is pandemonium and then Hitler makes a surprise appearance.  It's ridiculous.  Grow up.

Women were not historically oppressed in Europe except in isolated cases.  They lived good lives and had strong families, for the most part, and most couples stayed together until old age and were reasonably happy.  That is more than could be said now.  The women were feminine and pursued the womanly virtues.  The men were masculine and pursued the manly virtues.  People fell short, but at least they didn't systematically rebel against their natures.  You want to shame me into thinking that I think of women like the radical Mohammedans do, but it's absurd.  Christianity and natural philosophy teach things different than what ISIS or whatever Mohammedan group does.  Look at, for instance, somebody like Isabella the Catholic or the various consorts of Kings and Emperors for thousands of years.  Were they treated like chattel, as the Mohammedans treat their women ?  Only the most deluded radical could make that claim with a straight face.  He would be doing so against all historical evidence, the evidence from how Catholics believe, etc.

Quote:
Also, have you ever considered what the likely reaction of women would be were you to say such things to their faces? You'd probably get slapped. I'm also curious what kasiac, a female member of this forum, has to say about this post of Contra's.


You act like I have no familiarity with women.  I am married and know plenty of traditional Catholic women, and they all revere the Blessed Virgin Mary and believe in the womanly virtues and try to advance in them.  You want to denigrate womanly virtue, apparently.  I wonder what these women, who try to imitate the female saints, would have to say to you, for essentially saying that by doing so they are living miserable lives and are prisoners of their husbands and of priests.  Better yet, I wonder what their husbands would have to say.  I would enjoy watching that exchange.

Better yet, I grew up without any traditional Catholic women around.  That's one of the reasons that I am so confident about my beliefs.  They are squarely anchored in a lifetime of consistent experience.

Not that any of these words will be received by you; you will instead try to get me removed from the forum, attempt to guilt me, or try to intimidate me by appealing to how my words would go over in x audience.  You don't engage with ideas, only with slogans and bien pensant causes.  Go on, preach away. I know I can't stop you.

Quote:
Also, the question of secession in the USA was settled by the Civil War and also the Supreme Court case of Texas v. White in 1869, which held that unilateral secession was unconstitutional.


Something that was settled by armed conflict and the say-so of a packed court can be easily reversed.  I doubt you believe, for instance, in the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling.  Secession from the US is far from settled, since it will probably be a reality within our lifetimes.  Appealing to Texas v. White is laughable.

Quote:
Also, there was never any agreement with Texas to allow them to secede, and I would like to hear the exact provision of the US Constitution that you think permits secession.


Apparently I misunderstood.  I had thought that Texas reserved the right to secede when admitted as a state into the United States.  Apparently, that is not true.

Here are the facts as represented by a Texan secessionist :

"http://www.texassecede.com/faq.php"

In any case, it doesn't matter.  If Texas secedes, it will likely be because it is in its self interest and it cannot be prevented from doing so.  It can cite the US's "Declaration" and the US Constitution's clause that claims that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," while noting that Texas only subjected itself when admitted as a state to the US Constitution, not to the US President or any other entity.  Thus, it could easily make the argument that other states and corrupt courts have abandoned the US Constitution and that it therefore has the right to go its own separate way to ensure the best for its people.

There are plenty of legal arguments that can be made.  It's not much of an obstacle, considering the principles upon which the US itself was founded.  But I don't think that a Texas monarchy would be sitting on a very firm foundation if it seceded under those principles.  The movements would have to be distinct, or the principles behind the secession would have to be changed (which would be optimal).

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #13 
Did you really just use "autistic" as an insult, Contra? I have Asperger's Syndrome, you know. 
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
Did you really just use "autistic" as an insult, Contra? I have Asperger's Syndrome, you know. 


I used autistic as an adjective, in this case to describe the quality of being apparently incapable of understanding nuance, subtlety, or exceptions.  As for you having Asperger's syndrome, I am well aware.  But I don't know what you want me to do with that information.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

jackist

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #15 
A couple of comments to assist the non-Texans on the forum.

(1)  Texans state a pledge of allegiance to both the US flag and the Texas flag at state functions, in school, etc. 
(2)  Under both the Texas Constitution and the United States Declaration of Independence, the people have the right to alter or abolish their government.  If the people of Texas want to secede, then under the theory of government proposed by the existing sovereigns, we can.
(3)  Part of what makes Texas successful is that we have not adopted the socially destructive policies of the rest of the United States.  Part of the appeal of an independent Texas is that we would no longer have to suffer the negative policies of social liberalism.  
(4)  The question is not if, but when, Texas tries to secede.  Many projects are already underway (see, e.g., http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-law-first-state-gold-bullion-depository-federal-reserve).
(5)  The current secessionist movements are republican, but I think monarchy actually addresses many of the problems that opponents of secession raise.  Accordingly, I think an institute can steer the conversation in a more productive direction.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: