Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #16 
jackist, social liberalism is in no way destructive, in fact, by allowing gays and blacks and women to live free and accepted and equal before the law, it is constructive. Remember that gays are the most persecuted people on Earth right now, with many countries guilty of murdering them as a matter of state policy. Also, remember that homophobia contributes to the suicide of gay children and teenagers, please don't be such a contributor yourself. 

Also, the U.S. Constitution does not provide for unilateral secession, and it supersedes Texas' Constitution. The US DoI is also not part of the fundamental laws of America, I believe. Also, the South lost the Civil War, get over it, bigotry is wrong.

As for Contra, insults are adjectives, and using autistic in a derogatory manner, as you did, IS in fact an insult. It is also incorrect, as autism does not render one incapable of understanding nuance or subtlety in every situation, only in social situations.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,038
Reply with quote  #17 
I might have expressed certain parts a little differently, but I think Contra's writings about women were largely correct. I would say that there is a wide range of forms the fundamental division of the sexes can take in a healthy society, but there is a difference between the sexes and some form of legal subordination of women is perfectly acceptable, even preferable, and certainly doesn't equate to an extreme version of subordination and domination.

On secession, I am really not sure why the constitution of the U.S., a republican constitution no less, would matter. If Texas wanted to leave it would not longer care for that document. I think conditions regarding secession have changed greatly since 1869. If Texans voted overwhelmingly for secession, could they be forced to stay in the union? Britain could not keep Scotland, really, if she voted to leave the union; it would look bad for them internationally, not to mention cause domestic chaos in Scotland and possibly even England. The contemporary international community, or even West, certainly doesn't recognise all secession attempts, so the U.S. might be able to ignore it, but it would be far from certain they could.

What social liberalism destroys is social bonds. It is a fundamentally atomistic doctrine, because it sees people as entirely equal and interchangeable in social terms. It, therefore, attacks social bonds and social associations, because these must be built out of asymmetric, yet mutually dependent, roles and functions. The latter view, by the way, is fundamental to monarchism. Monarchism is built on the idea there can be at least one asymmetric social or political role, where the monarch performs a function only they can and which the great mass of people cannot equally join in with.
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
jackist, social liberalism is in no way destructive, in fact, by allowing gays and blacks and women to live free and accepted and equal before the law, it is constructive. Remember that gays are the most persecuted people on Earth right now, with many countries guilty of murdering them as a matter of state policy. Also, remember that homophobia contributes to the suicide of gay children and teenagers, please don't be such a contributor yourself.


Social liberalism is the destruction of all human order, the solvent of all laws, customs, traditions, and human association itself.  The rest of what you say is laughable.  A man could easily be fired for speaking ill of "gays" at the workplace; soon, it wouldn't be surprising if, in the relatively near future, his children were to be taken away from him in some countries, since they are being "abused" by being "taught to hate," or some such nonsense.  If an employer were to disagree in his conscience, because of his beliefs, with extending benefits to a "gay" couple who had been given a government marriage certificate, he could be sued and lose everything.

In the West, people talk about freedom of this and freedom of that.  In reality, there is no freedom for the traditions of the West, for our patrimony and heritage, for the religion that built the West, for the natural law or the divine law. Liberalism is a kind of perverse self-destruction, a revolutionary movement against an acknowledged but hated order.  All of its positions are rejections of prior dogmas and laws.  The entire structure of the ideology is the negative image of the former, robust Christian culture.  The social democracy of the past one hundred years is a conscious rebellion, fueled by hatred.  It won't stop until we are stamped out forever.  It must be combatted.

You say "remember" as if you are stating objective facts, when you are actually delivering a chilling, conversation-destroying threat wrapped up as a mantra or affirmation.  These falsehoods are nothing to "remember."  They are a sort of poison injected into discourse, whereby people such as yourself inform the audience of the parametres of what you consider to be morally acceptable speech versus what you have deemed worthy of censure and destruction. You do not help "remember"; you police.

Quote:
Also, the U.S. Constitution does not provide for unilateral secession, and it supersedes Texas' Constitution.


It doesn't forbid it.  In any case, who cares ?  The US is, according to its claims, a democratic republic that derives its powers from the consent of the governed.  According to its avowed principles, it has no right to object if somebody wants to leave it, at least not without becoming hypocritical.  Perhaps you are so cynical that you take it for granted that the US is hypocritical.  If so, why do you engage in such shameless moral posturing ?

Quote:
The US DoI is also not part of the fundamental laws of America, I believe.


Oh, well then every United Statesian would proudly proclaim that his country was born in 1783 at the Treaty of Paris, no ?  One cannot eat his cake and have it, too.

Quote:
Also, the South lost the Civil War, get over it...


The principle of secession is bigger than the United States and its affairs.  The world is bigger than the United States.  Just because people in the United States believe that the moral significance of the War of Northern Aggression has been settled once and for all does not make it so.  The legal significance hasn't been decided, either.  After all, the US constitution is amendable, and the principles "for which the Republic stands" are enshrined, necessarily, in the US's declaration of independence from England, meaning that, by its own founding principles, it cannot object to secession from its government if it has become tyrannical.

Even so, it doesn't matter if the South lost that war.  It doesn't mean the South was wrong to fight, that the Union was more noble, or anything.  It only means that the Union had more men, guns, and money.  And that's it.

Quote:
bigotry is wrong.


Once again, you define bigotry as disagreement with your sinister and incredibly narrow-minded, self-serving view of the world.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

jackist

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
jackist, social liberalism is in no way destructive, in fact, by allowing gays and blacks and women to live free and accepted and equal before the law, it is constructive. Remember that gays are the most persecuted people on Earth right now, with many countries guilty of murdering them as a matter of state policy. Also, remember that homophobia contributes to the suicide of gay children and teenagers, please don't be such a contributor yourself. 

Also, the U.S. Constitution does not provide for unilateral secession, and it supersedes Texas' Constitution. The US DoI is also not part of the fundamental laws of America, I believe. Also, the South lost the Civil War, get over it, bigotry is wrong.

As for Contra, insults are adjectives, and using autistic in a derogatory manner, as you did, IS in fact an insult. It is also incorrect, as autism does not render one incapable of understanding nuance or subtlety in every situation, only in social situations.


I did not say anything about blacks or gays.  I find it interesting that you associate social liberalism with race and sexual attraction.  It speaks to the base nature of the philosophy.

Social liberalism also contributes to the suicide of gay children and teenagers.  We're all sinners, but liberals reject the possibility of redemption.  I remember the despair I felt when I embraced liberal ideas and faced my own limitations.  My heart goes out to gay children and teenagers who are being deprived of the healing power of Christ by a debased society.

 Texas has had 6 flags.  We were claimed by France and Spain.  We seceded from Spain as part of Mexico.  We seceded from Mexico to form our own country.  The United States recognized our secession.  Texas could not even join the United States if secession were illegitimate.  I never mentioned and certainly was not referring to the Civil War.  It sounds like you are the one that needs to "get over it."

Governments and borders change, irrespective of what the old order says or wrote on a piece of paper.  Indeed, most of what the government of the United States does is inconsistent with the piece of paper called the Constitution of the United States.
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackist
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.


That's fascinating.  I didn't know that.  Is it also true that the Texas National Guard answers directly to the Governor of Texas ?

Quote:
(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.


What about divorce and family law, anti-discrimination laws, women's suffrage, etc. ?  Texas has gone along with quite a bit of the US's socially destructive policies, as far as I can tell.  Perhaps it hasn't gone along with the past fifteen years' worth, which is of some benefit.  But I think it has compromised itself quite a bit.  What about people like the Mayor of Houston or the denizens of Austin ?  And aren't the "emo" culture and other damaging subcultures pretty prominent there ?

I just don't want you to have an overly rosy view of things.  But you know the situation on the ground better than I do.  I happen to know quite a few Texans who are Catholic monarchists, by the way.
  
Quote:
(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).


Do people talk about this sort of thing often ?  What would it take for Texas to secede ?  What would their policies be ?  Would they move closer to Russia and China, oppose the US, or what ?

Quote:
(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.


I'm not sure how much traction that idea would have.  I think the Iturbide heir lives in Australia and would probably not have the personal skills to succeed in the role.  Also, the current Texan economy seems to rely heavily on US markets to succeed.  What if the US embargoed it ?

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

jackist

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
That's fascinating.  I didn't know that.  Is it also true that the Texas National Guard answers directly to the Governor of Texas ?


Yes, it is true, but the Militia Act makes it more complicated than that.

Quote:
What about divorce and family law, anti-discrimination laws, women's suffrage, etc. ?  Texas has gone along with quite a bit of the US's socially destructive policies, as far as I can tell.  Perhaps it hasn't gone along with the past fifteen years' worth, which is of some benefit.  But I think it has compromised itself quite a bit.  What about people like the Mayor of Houston or the denizens of Austin ?  And aren't the "emo" culture and other damaging subcultures pretty prominent there ?


Fair point.  I should have stated that Texas has been less corrupted by socially destructive policies.

Quote:
I happen to know quite a few Texans who are Catholic monarchists, by the way.


If you think any of them would be interested in assisting with this project, please send them my way.  I'm particularly interested in finding an accountant and an attorney with experience forming non-profit organizations.  Again, there is money available to pay them for their services.

Quote:
Do people talk about this sort of thing often ?  What would it take for Texas to secede ?  What would their policies be ?  Would they move closer to Russia and China, oppose the US, or what ?


It's talked about somewhat frequently.  Polling information indicates about 20% of Texans strongly support secession with 33% strongly opposed. http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM350Y14/type/day/filters/DQSTATE:44/dates/20140823-20150619/collapsed/false  There are a few active active secession groups within the state (but as of yet no monarchist group) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements).  At the moment, we're too far away from it actually happening to state with any certainty what policies an independent Texas would adopt.  The Texas Nationalist Movement is libertarian learning on economic issues and "conservative" on social issues.

Quote:
I'm not sure how much traction that idea would have.  I think the Iturbide heir lives in Australia and would probably not have the personal skills to succeed in the role.  Also, the current Texan economy seems to rely heavily on US markets to succeed.  What if the US embargoed it ?


The current claimant is in Australia, but his son and heir is in Washington, DC. 

I do not think it would be in either Texas or the rest of the US's interest to seriously curtail trade, but we'll see what the future holds.


Chevalier

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYMonarchist
jackist, social liberalism is in no way destructive, in fact, by allowing gays and blacks and women to live free and accepted and equal before the law, it is constructive. Remember that gays are the most persecuted people on Earth right now, with many countries guilty of murdering them as a matter of state policy. Also, remember that homophobia contributes to the suicide of gay children and teenagers, please don't be such a contributor yourself. 

Also, the U.S. Constitution does not provide for unilateral secession, and it supersedes Texas' Constitution. The US DoI is also not part of the fundamental laws of America, I believe. Also, the South lost the Civil War, get over it, bigotry is wrong.

As for Contra, insults are adjectives, and using autistic in a derogatory manner, as you did, IS in fact an insult. It is also incorrect, as autism does not render one incapable of understanding nuance or subtlety in every situation, only in social situations.


...this is surely some form of satire, right?

__________________
"The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes a Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, but never Marcus Aurelius." -Antoine de Rivarol
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.