Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Wow.   A bunch of spite and ad hominems there.   I'm sorry I wasted my time reading it.

Wouldn't have taken that long. For the record, I don't see any ad hominems there, it was the views rather than the man being attacked. Well, I suppose 'glorified troll' could be classed as ad hominem, but it really arose from the views and the potential damage they could do to monarchism's credibility. As for me, GRTBR was my own first reaction, but I didn't care enough to actually say anything. I never read MM anyway unless my attention was drawn to a specific post, and then I almost always either disliked or outright detested what I saw. Guess that won't be happening any more.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,495
Reply with quote  #17 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Wouldn't have taken that long.

 Every moment is precious.

Quote:
For the record, I don't see any ad hominems there, it was the views rather than the man being attacked.  Well, I suppose 'glorified troll' could be classed as ad hominem, but it really arose from the views and the potential damage they could do to monarchism's credibility.

In addition to the one you mentioned, I would include “a noisy specimen like MM” and “the man was some sort of Trotskyite mole”.   [There you made me read it again].  This should be viewed in the context and insulting tone of his rant that didn’t really examine any views or ideas, but labeled or strawmanned them.    I don’t ever remember MM writing this way – even when he called it a rant.   His rants (when he rarely did them) were generally about the state of the world or against a policy or idea.   He did not personally attack anyone.    So at least three ad hominems, but I don’t want to be too pedantic about it.  

 

Quote:
As for me, GRTBR was my own first reaction, but I didn't care enough to actually say anything.  I never read MM anyway unless my attention was drawn to a specific post, and then I almost always either disliked or outright detested what I saw.

GRTBR = "Good riddance to bad rubbish."   I had to look that one up.

I guess dismissive contempt interspersed with some recollection of detestation that you didn’t think important to mention initially is an improvement from the post we're talking about.  

I thought DutchMonarchist, VivatRS, and even David (especially his last post) were more fair and generous in their comments – they had disagreements with him and concerns, but can see the value of the weight of his work and appreciate the person who did it.  I certainly do.


__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #18 
If you liked it, fine. I didn't, but that's me, you're you. I didn't say anything on the thread initially on the basis of 'If you can't say anything nice...' John obviously felt differently, and made valid points, i.e. that MM actually did harm to the monarchist cause with his extreme views (which he had every right to express, of course, just as I had every right not to read them). Obviously you thought John was too harsh, I thought similarly about your response.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 852
Reply with quote  #19 
I find remarks like "glorified troll" or "Trotskyite mole" particularly unfair in this case because it just does not reflect the content of the blog at all. It seems absolutely clear to me that the MadMonarchist really believed in what he was saying. You do not spend so many of your years writing extensive blog posts just to troll, anyway.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,815
Reply with quote  #20 
I only speak from my experience because my dealings with MM were rather more direct, so I know what he's all about. My point is that he once was someone you could have a reasonable conversation with, but more recently that has not been the case.

What gets me is how Ponocrates is seemingly getting defensive over criticism of another person this way. John did not say anything that untruthful or construed a personal attack but rather statement of facts. I wouldn't say MM was a "glorified troll" or "Trotskyite mole" but surely he would know exactly what company he would attract with his positions.

The worrying thing is that similar views are being held in some form by people much closer to home, as it were. But the thing that strikes me is that arrogance of self-proclaimed "reactionaries" who think they alone are right and we must come around to them.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,495
Reply with quote  #21 
David, I'll respond line by line:

Quote:
I only speak from my experience because my dealings with MM were rather more direct, so I know what he's all about.


I don't think you know him that well and what he's all about.   Were you a good friend of his?   Or even a business associate?

Quote:
My point is that he once was someone you could have a reasonable conversation with, but more recently that has not been the case.


Ok, that's your impression, not mine.

Quote:
What gets me is how Ponocrates is seemingly getting defensive over criticism of another person this way.


I'm motivated by fairness and decency. 

Quote:
John did not say anything that untruthful or construed a personal attack but rather statement of facts.


This lends new meaning to the word "facts."   I guess it may be truthful about John's inner emotional state and what he intensely dislikes.  

Quote:
I wouldn't say MM was a "glorified troll" or "Trotskyite mole" but surely he would know exactly what company he would attract with his positions.


I just went over to his site and there are about 33 well-wishers who have left him comments.  They seem like a decent bunch.

Quote:
The worrying thing is that similar views are being held in some form by people much closer to home, as it were. But the thing that strikes me is that arrogance of self-proclaimed "reactionaries" who think they alone are right and we must come around to them.


I think "reactionaries" make arguments for their position.  But David, you seem to think you're right and that we must come around to your position.   How are you any different here?

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,495
Reply with quote  #22 
Here is a link to those well-wishers.

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2018/03/sayonara-for-now.html#comment-form

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,495
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
If you liked it, fine. I didn't, but that's me, you're you. I didn't say anything on the thread initially on the basis of 'If you can't say anything nice...' John obviously felt differently, and made valid points, i.e. that MM actually did harm to the monarchist cause with his extreme views (which he had every right to express, of course, just as I had every right not to read them). Obviously you thought John was too harsh, I thought similarly about your response.


We can agree to disagree here.  

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
jkelleher

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 281
Reply with quote  #24 

I am (apparently) at fault for speaking uncivilly of a man who regularly made a point of incivility. How often was MM "fair and decent" with those who had the temerity to disagree with him? If my obvious disgust with him is indicative of my "inner emotional state," what would MM's evident fondness for the sadistic and unbalanced Baron von Ungern-Sternberg say about his own? Surely that's not the sort of brand recognition we want for monarchism if we are serious about arguing for a space for constitutional monarchy in a modern liberal democracy.

If I seem to be in any sense unfair to the man, please consider some of these specimens from his own blog, in his own words:

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/09/king-harald-goes-full-sjw.html
>> "[T]his is the sort of thing that Crown Prince Haakon has been saying for years, going to the ends of the earth to give moral support to people with unnatural proclivities. Anyone remember his visit to show solidarity with the transvestites of Nepal?"

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-fascist-debate-and-christianity.html
>> "I can only believe that if anyone understood Fascism, I do not see how actual Christians could consider that the worst thing in the world to be, certainly worse than our own regime. [...] Consider it, particularly, from a traditional Christian perspective. In Fascist Italy, divorce was illegal. Abortion was illegal, gay “marriage” was certainly illegal and homosexuals or trans-genders and everything of that sort was nowhere to be seen. Men were encouraged to be masculine, women were encouraged to be feminine and the tax code encouraged people to get married and have large families, to, ‘replenish the earth’ if you like."

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/02/liberal-hypocrisy-on-display.html
>> "In the past I have pointed out how Mussolini, at the end of his career, predicted that Fascism would revive when the people realized that the liberals were hypocrites who loved to talk about freedom but only really believed in freedom for themselves, freedom for people who thought as they do. In other words, validating what he had frequently said about liberals and why they were ideological enemies of Fascism and why there could be no compromise between liberalism and Fascism."

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2013/07/beware-democracy.html
>> "Democracy would be wrong even if it were being adhered to honestly (which it is not) because it is spiritually wrong. [...] We have seen societies embrace things like abortion, contraception and unnatural sexual “lifestyles” and we have seen the same societies depopulate themselves."


His posts often derail into lengthy diatribes about his personal views on sexual morality issues like abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, etc, none of which have any conceivable connection to monarchy:

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2013/03/queen-signs-pledge-for-homosexuals.html
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2013/01/abortion-and-why-monarch-is-not-messiah.html
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2012/08/mad-analysis-what-does-tolerance-mean.html


He spends considerable time trying to rescue Italian-style Fascism, Romanian fascism, Corporatism, Rexism, and other failed 20th-century authoritarian models from the historical scrap-heap:

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/09/fascism-fascism-and-monarchy.html
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2012/02/monarchist-profile-corneliu-codreanu.html
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2013/09/monarchism-and-corporate-state-in.html
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/08/rexisme-and-leon-degrelle.html
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-strong-man-or-monarch.html


In this one, note how MM responds to one anonymous poster who challenged his assertion on a divinely-ordained "right and wrong":
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2012/11/mad-analysis-my-problems-with.html
>> "Oh. My. Please tell me you're just pretending to be this stupid. Your first paragraph -utterly and demonstrably false. [...] As to the second paragraph in this parade of ignorance, you need to look up what a theocracy is. You might also just try to exercise your puny little brain in contemplating the difference between enforcing a view of right and wrong based on religion as opposed to any other reason. [...] The bottom line for me is that any society that cannot agree on the difference between right and wrong and good and evil is a society that will not survive for long. But if you think the world can be saved by more butt sex and abortions, you and your fellow geniuses are certainly well on your way."


In this one, he holds out the dreadful Prince Bertrand of Orleans-Braganza as an example for other royal claimants to follow:
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-word-on-crisis-and-opportunity-in.html
>> "I have been more and more impressed with His Imperial and Royal Highness Prince Bertrand over the years who has set an example that I really wish more non-reigning royals would follow. He has not hesitated to advocate for the restoration of the monarchy and has also shown no hesitation in actually taking a position on issues that matter and I have been very impressed by his views on the state of the Catholic Church, his views on politics [...] All in all, Brazil could not ask for a better potential emperor."

Dom Bertrand vies with Prince Sixtus Henri of Bourbon-Parma for the dubious distinction of being the most offensive non-reigning royal claimant in the world. He refers to homosexuality as a "defect" and an "abomination against nature," claims that the deforestation of the Amazon is a "hoax" peddled by "eco-terrorists," and when asked about indigenous rights replied that "catechesis" was the best thing to give the Indians. A fine avatar for monarchy in the twenty-first century, indeed!

No, I am not generally fond of religious bigots or authoritarian fantasists, and I am far less fond of them when they latch onto monarchism as a convenient branding-logo for their nonsense. Yoking monarchy to social and religious reaction, antidemocratic day-dreaming, and polemical rhetoric isn't going to help anyone make the case for constitutional monarchy as a unifying symbol of a nation's shared historical experience. People like MM do, on the other hand, make it far easier for republicans to cast all monarchists as embittered nostalgics, at best.

Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,495
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John
I am (apparently) at fault for speaking uncivilly of a man who regularly made a point of incivility. How often was MM "fair and decent" within those who had the temerity to disagree with him? If my obvious disgust with him is indicative of my "inner emotional state," what would MM's evident fondness for the sadistic and unbalanced Baron von Ungern-Sternberg say about his own? Surely that's not the sort of brand recognition we want for monarchism if we are serious about arguing for a space for constitutional monarchy in a modern liberal democracy.

If I seem to be in any sense unfair to the man, please consider some of these specimens from his own blog, in his own words:


Ok, let’s look at one example at a time – not just with your cherry picked quotes.    This may take a few posts to go through them all.   Since I work for a living it may take a few days.

John’s Specimen #1 contra MM:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/09/king-harald-goes-full-sjw.html
>> "[T]his is the sort of thing that Crown Prince Haakon has been saying for years, going to the ends of the earth to give moral support to people with unnatural proclivities. Anyone remember his visit to show solidarity with the transvestites of Nepal?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by MM
Full Article “King Harald Goes Full SJW”

A few days ago His Majesty King Harald V of Norway gave what the mainstream media has been calling an emotional and heartfelt speech at a garden party at the Royal Palace in Oslo in which he went full blown 'Social Justice Warrior' on the assembled guests. The King managed to touch on just about every contentious issue and came down firmly on the wrong side. He decried national borders, saying "home is where the heart is" and touched all the other multicultural, diversity and tolerance chords. He called for "trust, solidarity and generosity" and said that, "Norwegians are girls who love girls, boys who love boys and boys and girls who love each other. Norwegians believe in God, Allah, everything and nothing" the last of which certainly seems true. As Mark Steyn has said, this is the attitude that 'our only value is that we have no values'. If one turns your ear slightly to the north, you might hear the faint sound of wailing as all the old Vikings in Valhalla howl in grief at what their modern-day descendants have fallen to. The King went full on 'Social Justice Warrior' and his comments fit in perfectly with them in both their content and the fact that they make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are full of contradictions.

After all, if Norwegians love God, as their forefathers certainly did (knights from Norway participated in the Crusades), they certainly would not make room for those who submit to Allah. Likewise, those who, in Norway or anywhere else, believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, gays and lesbians are certainly not the sort they will be prepared to tolerate. In a single speech, the King has essentially erased Norway entirely. If Norway is not a land defined by borders, nor a particular people nor a particular idea even, then what is left for it to be? To say that the Norse believe in everything and thus believe in nothing, is to bring relativism to its ultimate, logical conclusion. It would be nice, of course, in these days of largely ceremonial monarchs, to think that the King was simply giving the speech that his political captors forced him to give, but that seems unlikely for such an occasion as this and it comes at a time when the Norwegian government has moved somewhat, ever so slightly, to the right since 2013 when the Labor Party was finally evicted from office. Opposition to immigration has been on the rise and so, it seems, at least as likely that the King was being rather defiant in his remarks.

Since this speech hit the news, I have been asked several times to respond to it and asked why I have not responded already. Well, I was unprepared for how much of a stir it caused to be honest. I was more disappointed than shocked to hear it. As I have related here in the past, this is the sort of thing that Crown Prince Haakon has been saying for years, going to the ends of the earth to give moral support to people with unnatural proclivities. Anyone remember his visit to show solidarity with the transvestites of Nepal? If not, I assure you that is not a joke, that actually happened. I would have expected such words from him and have long worried what was going to happen when he takes the throne but I had thought the King himself to be more 'normal'. I was disappointed to see this but, again, not that surprised. Royals, as with anyone, cannot be unaffected by their environment, certainly not in Europe which is one reason why I have never been happy with the trend of sending royals to school rather than having private tutors. This is what they have been taught to believe, it is how they have been taught to think, and I feel more pity for them than anything else that they have been so blinded. It also remains to be seen how far they will be willing to go with this suicidal line of thinking.

Norway is not, I assure you, a piece of blank paper. It is a country, it has borders, it has a culture, it has traditions and it has a people. It is not "intolerant" to say so, nor is it "intolerant" to say that those borders matter, that culture is a Christian culture, those traditions are Nordic traditions and those people are Norse people. Norwegians are not Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus, they are not black or brown and they are not interchangeable or replaceable! Norway is beautiful, Norway is noble and its people are the inheritors of a proud legacy. If you encourage lifestyles that prevent them reproducing themselves, if you allow alien elements in to drown them with demography, all of that will be lost. You may still have an area on the map between Sweden and Denmark that is labeled "Norway" but it will not be the land of the Norsemen any longer. All that they are will be destroyed and lost forever. No salvation can be counted on from the colonies, for the same thing is happening in the American Midwest as well. In short, I could not disagree with King Harald more.

No one has asked but I have sensed some curiosity on this point so I will say that, no, this does not mean I will be cheering on the republican traitors in Norway from now on. I think the King is wrong, I think he has been misled and is dangerously mistaken. That does not change the fact that he is the King and he does not nor should not require my consent or approval to remain so. Right now, the monarchy is, as was addressed here not long ago, largely ceremonial and so I would urge Norwegians to simply pray for the King and vote in political leadership that will keep Norway Norwegian and not Arab, Somali or Sudanese. If the King is devoted to the constitution as it stands, he will be obliged to go along with this. If, on the other hand, the Norwegians do the right thing and the King attempts to resist them, I fear he may fall but I would still hope that does not happen. I would hope that loyal people would take him aside, make him see reason or, failing that, appoint a regent to carry on in his name until a more normal state of affairs can return. Treason, after all, is never the right answer and the monarchy is an integral part of the Norwegian culture that must be preserved and defended. My loyalty to the cause of kings has certainly never been dependent on my agreeing with their every position and point of view, otherwise I should have been lost quite a long time ago. No, rather, I say that Norwegians should disregard what King Harald has said, the words of a confused and mistaken monarch, but remain steadfastly loyal to the Crown and show that loyalty by coming to the rescue of their king and royal family from this disastrous way of thinking.
Ja, vi elsker dette landet!


Ok, I have no problem with anything he wrote here.   I don’t see the bloody shirt you're waving.   

I’ll continue with one specimen each day.


__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
jkelleher

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 281
Reply with quote  #26 
I recall MM actually caught a fair amount of negative attention for that post, especially from monarchists.  Calling the King of Norway an "SJW" because he stressed national unity over sectarian identity was more than a tad intemperate.  And do you truly have "no problem" with MM's description of the Crown Prince as someone who "gives moral support to people with unnatural proclivities?"  
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,495
Reply with quote  #27 
We had a thread on this a couple of years ago.   I stated my views in that thread.  Take a look.

http://royalcello.websitetoolbox.com/post/the-king-of-norway-embraces-multiculturalism-8236841?pid=1293349265

BTW, turning in, but will take a look at the next article tomorrow.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,815
Reply with quote  #28 
Here is the thread on Twitter where I called MM out on his distortion of history:
https://twitter.com/MadMonarchist1/status/862044262170451968
https://twitter.com/Everton4Life/status/862052326638362624

We are not talking about controversial views about immigration or homosexuality here. We are talking about his constant glorification of people like Mussolini, Codreanu and even Mosley on his Twitter and occasionally his blog. His attempt to portray Mussolini's adventures as something to be proud of, and Britain's East Africa campaign as some kind of disaster for Africa.

People like me hold strongly un-PC views on a wide range of topics - race relations, immigration, history, Western Civilisation, morality - but there are lines to be drawn. Taking a favourable view of discredited regimes and systems is one of those.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,180
Reply with quote  #29 
I could not tolerate MM after I saw his constant apologia for Mussolini and his murderous fascist thugs who massacred thousands of Ethiopians.  He bought into the laughable idea that the fascists abolished slavery in Ethiopia and that they were there to bring civilization to the country.  Twisted false fascist propoganda with zero basis in truth.  He also actually disseminated Derg and Fascist propoganda about Emperor Haile Selassie.  I just could not stomach him.  Monarchism is not served by the fascist tendencies of some of its adherents.  I won't miss him. Not one tiny bit.
__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,815
Reply with quote  #30 
Moreover, he seems to buy the line that British actions at the time in East Africa paved the way for Communism. It's just a parrot of the Far Right line that only fascism stood in the way of Communism, just as the Far Left believe they are the only real opponents of fascism. Funny how they agree.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.