Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Registered:
Posts: 852
Reply with quote  #46 
Thank you for the explanation.

That would mean the Wikipedia page about the matter contains outright false information, as it states "Despite the apparent measures to the contrary, slavery continued to be legal in Ethiopia even with its signing of the slavery convention of 1926" and "During Italian rule, the Italians definitely abolished slavery". Of course Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, but it does refer to a book that seemed reliable as a source for the first quote. More reliable internet sources like the library of congress also suggest that the Ethiopian legislation adopted during the 1920s and amended in 1931 only included provisions that would lead to the gradual disappearance of slavery (for example, children of slaves would be free and slaves would be free once their master died) and that the emperor still considered such a gradual approach when he returned to the throne in the 1940s, only to abolish slavery completely then. I find such information pretty much everywhere I look online - would what you say mean that this is all untrue?

For the Wikipedia page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Ethiopia
For the library of Congress page, see https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/02/abolition-of-slavery-in-ethiopia/

Of course, I get that for the Italians this was only a useful propaganda tool and not their real motive for invading the course - no questions there.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,914
Reply with quote  #47 
Here is an example of how MM twists history to suit his agenda:
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/british-virtue-signaling-and-african.html

His view is that British actions in East Africa in WWII helped pave the way for its own downfall and for Communism to take over. Funnily enough, he doesn't mention the fact that it was the Soviet Union, not Britain, which spread Communism in Africa.
Admiral_Horthy

Registered:
Posts: 44
Reply with quote  #48 
I will certainly miss his histories of monarchs and monarchies.
kalfukura

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 23
Reply with quote  #49 
Wow!  What a lengthy thread!  Clearly the MM had a substantial affect on our small community.  I enjoyed his punch and wit, his enthusiasms and idiosyncrasies.  And as for his shortcomings -- a variety of wrong opinions and the occasional fit of pique -- well, I have been guilty of the same and worse.

I am less interested in the particulars of this or that issue -- there is a personality type [one that seems to be over-represented on the internet] that sees the trees [and the twigs of the trees] but misses the forest -- and more interested in how a character like MM fits into the dynamics of internet community and conversation.  The internet is a godsend for monarchists because we are such a low-density interest group.  I live in a city of 2 million people -- how many monarchist in this town could I possibly meet for coffee?  But on the internet, we are able to meet monarchists of all stripes from all around the globe.  And some of those monarchists are people like MM.  

For me, the take away is this: just as the internet, with its anonymity and lack of real-time social cues [and, frankly, with its superabundance of people who lack the ability, even in real-time, to read social cues] gives rise to overly-arch, overly-dramatic, overly-dogmatic statements, so also those who use this medium should heighten their own social shock-absorbers and not overreact to those who are overly arch.

For me, the great tedium of these conversations are the line-by-line rebuttals and micro-grievance-accountings that are all too common.

Appreciate MM for who he is/was.  Recognize your own sensitivities when he strikes certain notes.  And enjoy your day anyway!

Finally, for all those who take deep and personal umbrage at MM, please note that he did have the candor to call himself the Mad Monarchist.

-- Dan Morrison

__________________
http://www.steelcrown.org
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,914
Reply with quote  #50 
I think what you may touch on is the fact that there is a disconnect between the kind of monarchists who tend to be active on the Internet, and those who are out there in the real world (like myself) even if they're on the Internet. I attended an AML National Conference last year so I've got a good idea of what this is all about.

Most of us are ordinary people who simply want to preserve our system of government, heritage and way of life. Nothing more, nothing less. Some of us want to resurrect monarchies that have fallen in our lifetimes or before then. Also an entirely legitimate endeavour.

I believe in British civic culture and values as established in the Empire and the Commonwealth, of the Crown, parliamentary democracy and Common Law. I defend thes things in face of our enemies, mainly Leftist and Islamist. I frankly don't care what sort of monarchy may exist - constitutional, absolute, Christian, non-Christian or whatnot, I consider them worth defending and preserving, or honouring in any case. Because a monarchy is a beautiful thing, in contrast to the ugliness of the above ideologies.

That's why praising fascism in the form of Mussolini and Codreanu makes no sense. It does nothing to enhance or advance our cause, and when people google for monarchism, it's not going to be a good look. That's why MM and his defenders warrant the criticism I've given him.

I've done my share both here and out there in the world to promote monarchism. I have little time to argue with pretentious philosopher types on here.

I appreciated Mad Monarchist's contribution in blogging about royalty and monarchy, but it is entirely right and proper to point out that he (and some others) have become too much of a liability by virtue of their own positions and actions.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 852
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalfukura
I am less interested in the particulars of this or that issue -- there is a personality type [one that seems to be over-represented on the internet] that sees the trees [and the twigs of the trees] but misses the forest -- and more interested in how a character like MM fits into the dynamics of internet community and conversation. 



I would say that it is precisely by not going into any detail that you often end up with overdramatic statements, angry arguments, etc. Besides, I just find historical details interesting, but that's a matter of taste.

To me, the examples that we discussed here stand for a quite fundamental issue, which is how monarchism relates to other right-wing movements. The MadMonarchist's individual articles about fascism, rexism and the like may have been the trees, but behind it I see a forest that continuously sent a simple message: countries can become great (in the moral sense) by expanding their territority via the conquest of others.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,914
Reply with quote  #52 
Well, empires have historically conquered - Macedonia, Rome, Persia, China, etc all did their share and today's Greeks, Iranians and Chinese are proud of those achievements, but colonial empires are the subject of much greater controversy today because it forms part of the Left's attack on civilisation from within to teach people that their existence is an original sin.

If we are to defend the honour of our civilisation, trying to rewrite history by trying to make fascism look "good" is not the way to go about it.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 852
Reply with quote  #53 
All countries had to be formed by conquest at some point and most colonies were formed in places where no states had been recognized yet. The difference with fascism and related ideologies would be that they believed in the conquest of other places that they have previously recognized as states and that this all took place in a different era when conquering other nations was no longer considered acceptable by international norms.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,914
Reply with quote  #54 
It depends what you want. Do you want to live in a free, law-governed country where the government abides by its own laws, or do you want to live in a lawless state where the government can do whatever it likes to whoever it likes? One of the big problems of left-liberal Political Correctness is not only the sprawling bureaucracy it creates, but also the increasing ideological zeal that leads to the kind of lawlessness associated with Communism and fascism. Being a monarchist should mean a rejection of this very kind of thing.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,808
Reply with quote  #55 
Wow, this is quite a thread. I had my own disagreements with MM (who I've known online since 2001, but never met, even though we've lived in the same state since 2008) over the years--he never liked it when I expressed anti-American sentiments--but in the end I always came back to liking him and admiring his writing, though I can understand why this is not possible for Ethiomonarchist. Certainly he produced much more content than I do, and as a somewhat lazy blogger myself I respected that. On the whole I agreed with him much more than I disagreed.
Royallover

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #56 
I will miss him deeply. He was the second blog I ever found and opened the world to me to other royalist. He made great points and was hard to handle but at the same time we can't be calm and cool while Republicans try and destroy the world.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,914
Reply with quote  #57 
I think it is more that you need to ask yourself what is good for monarchism and how will embracing certain things help our own cause. MM's praise of not only Mussolini but also Mosley and Codreanu was beyond the pale. After all, one of the biggest promoters of Codreanu and his ideology lately is a certain Matt Heimbach, you know, one of the leading figures in the whole Charlottesville incident and and recently arrested for domestic violence.

How will it help the cause of defending the British monarchy, the Commonwealth and the civilisation it has built if you embrace this kind of thing?

How will it help restore monarchies in Serbia, Georgia, Romania, Albania and outside Europe if you embrace this kind of thing?

How will it help overcome our multiple foes out there (I don't need to spell them out again here)?

I'm reminded of something Charlie Kirk recently said about the anti-gun rally: a lot of emotion, a lot of feeling, not a lot of thinking.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #58 
Interesting thread. I haven't read much of the MM's writings, so can't give any detailed comment. On fascism and reaction, I think it good to distinguish different types, as well as how they at being advocated. I agree that Mussolini's fascism and his invasion of Ethiopia can have little to entice the monarchist. However, thinking absolute monarchy a good idea is a different matter. One can argue that it isn't a good idea to try to create an absolute monarchy today in such and such a country (something I'd agree with in the West), but I don't think there is anything wrong with a monarchist preferring, if possible, that the monarchy have supreme authority. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #59 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkelleher

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.

It does seem to me that your position would cast out any socially or culturally conservative monarchist, not to mention any monarchist who wasn't a principled constitutional monarchist. Much of what you quote is far beyond simply objecting to MM's sympathetic take on Italian fascism. I know there are other monarchists around here who agree with you, but let's not pretend it isn't taking a very particular (in some ways extreme in the opposite direction) view on monarchism and how monarchists should deal with contemporary values and politics. 

One can also retort that yoking monarchism too much to contemporary egalitarian and anti-traditional sentiments is hardly going to ensure its longevity. In the end, if advanced as absolute values, democracy and egalitarianism leave little space for monarchism, and, as well as, monarchy tends to require tradition to nourish it. The issue for contemporary monarchists is how to adapt to the contemporary situation whilst maintaining an environment where monarchy can survive. Frankly, you don't do that by becoming an enthusiast for each bien pesant intellectual and cultural fad (any more than you do by being an unthinking reactionary).  

I agree that it is foolish to campaign for absolute or undemocratic monarchism in the contemporary West, not least because I think that anything that would likely replace our liberal democratic polities (which, I think, are likely to face more and more pressure in the future, from increasingly illiberal forces, on the left and right) is not likely to be an improvement. But those who consider, in the abstract, that absolute monarchy has its attractions, shouldn't be abused by fellow monarchists.  


Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
John’s Specimen #2 contra MM:




Full Article “The Fascist Debate and Christianity ”  August 27, 2017



So I've read this.  It seems well-argued and reasonable.   People may react emotionally to it (which he anticipated) because he challenges the taboo that Mussolini should not be seen favorably in any respect, especially compared to the people who won the war.   "The victors write the.... etc."   Let's put the value judgment aside for a moment.   Did he lie anywhere in this post?   Did he misrepresent anything?   Was he untruthful?  The truth of course often isn't wise or prudent.   In fact, it can destroy you.  If he is lying anywhere here, please enlighten me.


One of my issues with that essay is it ignores the complex relationship that the fascists had with traditional morality, culture, and Christianity. They may have given some support to these, but they had their own ideas about exalting the nation, the people, and the party, often above what a traditional conservative and Christian values. For the fascists, it was the state, seen as a semi-divine entity in its own right, that was at the centre of their worldview, not Christ or the Church. 


I also think that a classical liberal case can be mounted against the identity politics that it taking over the mainstream left (and is one of the forces that may overthrow the broad liberal democratic consensus we have long lived under). MM is correct this agenda often advances because it convinces the uncommitted, confused middle that it is all just a matter of advancing the same basic values of treating people with equal respect that liberals, left and right, have long cherished. But this is a sleight of hand. Cultural Marxism is a clumsy term, but it does express the Marxist and radical antecedents of left-wing identity politics, which in the end is illiberal and collectivist, and cannot be made compatible with the broad liberal tradition. This is not brought home enough to those in the centre and centre-left of our politics. But even some left-liberals sense something of the tension: where once they were advancing social liberalism on the basis of just leaving people alone to live their own lives (that is how they argued for it at least), social liberalism is now more and more about restrictions and intervention in people's lives. Even reliably trendy left-liberals like Stephen Fry baulk at aspects of the identity politics agenda. Who knows if this division will go anywhere, or perhaps much of the left will allow itself to become illiberal. But it is worth pointing out, including to left-liberals, that identity politics and its assorted platforms and issues are not liberal.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.