Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 9 of 12     «   Prev   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   Next
VasilyBloksin17

Registered:
Posts: 56
Reply with quote  #121 
>Note where it says the African-Americsn population is 40,695,277.

More then 40 mil

> I could tear apart your idiocy, but what's the point?

Palpatine-Do it!

>internet 4 chan

Sorry man.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #122 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchMonarchist
I would say we're on the same page concerning the defense of monarchies. We certainly had some very big disagreements on other topics, but that's nothing new compared to what you can read on older threads on the forum.


An earlier division that we had on this forum was between Catholic Trads and everyone else.    The former have mostly left.   The new division might be between liberal monarchists vs reactionary monarchists.   I identify more with the latter, which is why I have mostly dropped off.   This was made more explicit when we discussed the Mad Monarchist about a week ago or so ago.   Some of our most substantial contributors took a swipe at him for something he may have said in the midst of his very prodigious output for the last decade.   I tend to agree with MM, but didn't know how to respond to this host of criticism.  I was a bit taken aback and not sure it was worth the fight.  We may all support monarchies, but we don't all agree about civilization, history, or anything else.  This is what I meant about not being on the same page.

__________________
"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: 5,040
Reply with quote  #123 
Because MadMonarchist acted in ways that I consider to be beyond the pale. His wholehearted embrace of fascism and a false historical narrative are offensive. If you want to embrace fascism, why not embrace Islamists or Irish Republicans as well? They're all just as bad.

Basically he got defensive because I called him out about the lies he spouts regarding history which I consider to be a great dishonour to monarchies.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #124 
Quote:
Because MadMonarchist acted in ways that I consider to be beyond the pale. His wholehearted embrace of fascism and a false historical narrative are offensive. If you want to embrace fascism, why not embrace Islamists or Irish Republicans as well? They're all just as bad.

Basically he got defensive because I called him out about the lies he spouts regarding history which I consider to be a great dishonour to monarchies.


I've read his output and this seems to be a smear against him.   True, he doesn't adopt the liberal narrative of Mussolini, but you go too far to say he wholeheartedly supported him.   When comparing the two, however, liberal America is not necessarily better.  

__________________
"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: 5,040
Reply with quote  #125 
What "liberal narrative"? He is basically promoting a revisionist view that whitewashes crimes against humanity and conquest of certain countries. It's an indefensible position for anyone to take. He fails to produce concrete evidence to back up his bizarre claims.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,815
Reply with quote  #126 

It's true that I've been paying less attention to my own forum recently. I'm not entirely sure why but I just haven't been as inclined to check it or participate as frequently. Today being the 17th anniversary of my website, perhaps I should make more of an effort again. I did finally ban the troll as requested.

 

I disagree with Mad Monarchist about Ethiopia, but having known him for a long time and admired much of his work I'm not willing to write him off over one issue. Yes, he's a bit soft on Italian fascism. So are a few of my other friends. I don't think the analogy with Irish Republicanism works because Irish Republicanism (for which I proudly have zero tolerance) is in its essence and by definition opposed to Monarchy, whereas the fact is that fascism did coexist (albeit uneasily) with Monarchy. (I'm NOT saying I think it's a good idea to defend it today!) Some royalty, notably Princess Helene Duchess of Aosta (1871-1951) whose biography I recently finished reading, supported fascism, whereas I can't imagine royalty supporting the IRA.

For what it's worth, I still consider Ponocrates, Peter, DutchMonarchist, and DavidV all to be essentially my allies.

 

 

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #127 
Ave atque vale, Vasily. Actually, you can leave out the 'Ave' part. I know he's not here to defend himself any more, but I more or less said it when he was; a twit who was irritating for the sake of being irritating, and offered nothing of the slightest worth. Yes, we all differ on various points, but I still consider us all friends, and allies as admirers and supporters of monarchism. It's not so much support of fascism that puts MM beyond the pale, though that certainly doesn't help, as tolerance verging on outright approbation for the rape of Ethiopia. Cannot be defended in any terms, a completely disgraceful and tragic episode. Though, as I have indicated before, I have always found MM's perspective uncongenial in any case.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 857
Reply with quote  #128 
Ponocrates, I'm not sure there is nothing else we agree on besides monarchy. For example, I think we may agree on some economic matters as well, or on military intervention. I suppose it's that we are mostly interested in cultural matters and that there are some big disagreements there. Regardless I hope you, Royalcello and others will just continue to participate. I don't think anyone is trying to make you leave.

On the whole fascism issue, I also think it's too simplistic to write off MadMonarchist just because of that topic. True, the Italians did do terrible things in Ethiopia, but didn't they also do a few good things like abolishing slaverny? That alone surely does not justify occupying a whole country, but consider that other European countries had also built vast colonial empires. Is it just to single out the Italians on that matter when compared to, say, the Belgians in Congo or other examples?

On the other side, some things that fascism gets praised for by reactionaries are things it only did out of necessity. It simply had to coexist with the Italian monarchy to ever be able to take power and it wanted the support of the church for its own purposes. It is quite clear from Mussolini's earlier and later words that he never really supported these institutions. His party did not start as the Revolutionary Fascist party for nothing and it did not end as the Republican Fascist Party for nothing either.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #129 
I certainly hope that all will continue participation, and would particularly welcome royalcello being more active. And if MM were to resume here I wouldn't in any way seek to either silence him again or drive him out. Although just having the temerity to argue with him seems to have that effect. Italian fascism can't, in my opinion, reasonably be regarded as being as reprehensible as either Nazism or Soviet Communism. That does though leave plenty of scope for it to be reprehensible, which it was, and never more than in its colonial adventures.

Moving into tribal lands, viewed as being without a sovereign, with at least somewhat benign as well as selfish intentions and in an era when such was universally regarded as unexceptionable, was one thing (the Congo was different because of the utter nakedness and cruelty of the exploitation, as repugnant to the people of the time as it seems today). The violent conquest of an ancient and internationally recognised Christian realm from sheer greed and triumphalism, in an age when the moral turpitude of such actions was beginning to be fully recognised, was quite another. Slavery was but a figleaf. Native Emperors had been trying to get rid of the institution since the mid-19th century at least, but so entrenched was it in the Ethiopian society and economy that their efforts had had little effect.

Ethiopia had only been admitted to the League of Nations upon agreeing to final and complete abolition, but had failed to achieve this. That was justification for sanctions and economic and diplomatic pressure, not violent invasion with huge loss of life and destruction of the liberties the Ethiopian people did enjoy. It is true that the Italian occupying authorities abolished the institution entirely, but of course all their acts were illegal and void since they had no rightful jurisdiction. Upon restoration Emperor Haile Selassie issued a legal instrument of abolition, with effect this time, also though considerably later abolishing serfdom. Both these things would inevitably have happened anyway and soon enough, even if long overdue looked at another way.

Finally, although I know you certainly aren't included in that group, it is ironic that those most likely to defend the morally bankrupt Italian invasion on slavery grounds are also most likely to defend the South in the American Civil War, which they of course always call the War Between the States. And they will use every other circumlocution they can find to obscure the fact that the fundamental cause of the war was the South's insistence on keeping their slaves, and slavery. Which, much though I hate to echo Vasily, was apparently quite OK if you were white, not so much if you were black. Even if your slaves were too. As for whether I regard the North as being justified in beginning the war on such grounds, I am saved from having to answer by the fact that it didn't. Begin the war, that is, that would be the South.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #130 
MM and a few others work on the premise that right-wing Anglophile monarchists like me are unapologetic about British history, but critical of fascism and the occupation of Ethiopia. There's no inconsistency as far as I'm concerned because the immeasurable achievements of the British Empire created democratic, law-governed countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and that many countries have been worse off since decolonisation.

But what MM seems to think was that Mussolini did a good job, and the British liberation of Ethiopia paved the way for republicanism and Communism, which as we know is a blatant lie. The liberation of Ethiopia wasn't what paved the way for Communism.

Furthermore, far more focus on the alleged evils of "Western Imperialism" by Leftist intelligentsia today is really bashing Britain, the Commonwealth and the US for "imperialism" while whitewashing the crimes of Communism and anything else really. Most long-deposed monarchies (save perhaps for those of Iran and Ethiopia) are spared the bile directed towards Britain and the Empire.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 857
Reply with quote  #131 
The British Empire indeed created some law-governed countries, but the examples that you provide are all countries mostly made up of European immigrants. Looking at the colonies in Africa which are still mostly made up of their native population, that's not really the case for every former British colony, correct? So I don't see why that's a relevant difference with the Italian colonies in Africa.

My main question here is if we are holding Italy to the same standards as other European countries. I think Peter made a valid point by saying that Ethiopia was a bit of a different case than the rest of Africa because it was colonized at such a late moment in time. Still, if you praise Britain for spreading civilization across the globe, is it consistent not to praise the Italians for abolishing slavery in Ethiopia? Certainly Ethiopia also abolished it once more after it regained independence, but that may have been made a lot easier by the fact that the institution had already been gone for a number of years.

Though I will say that I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate here, and I'm still trying to sort this thing out in my own mind.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #132 
Well we can talk about the regions of southern Africa that were settled by Europeans but we know it's not PC to do so, even though we know the truth the Left won't tell. It is precisely the point that decolonisation in Africa and elsewhere brought to power far worse regimes, just as the fall of monarchies elsewhere (especially the Middle East) also brought to power far worse regimes, almost always inimical to the West.

Firstly, Ethiopia was/is an ancient Christian culture and civilisation and was internationally recognised, and secondly, there is overwhelming evidence of atrocities committed by occupying forces in Ethiopia, in addition to the Italian colonial forces' use of collaborators from places like Somalia and Eritrea (Hamid Idris Awate, who was a colonial soldier, was one of the fathers of modern Eritrean nationalism) often implying favouritism towards Islam.

Furthermore, the attack upon Western Civilisation after World War II including propaganda against the British Empire, continuing to this day in Leftist academia and media, was undeniably a product of the Cold War. It was all about demoralising Western societies from within, and all about weakening Western hegemony in the Third World, to the benefit of the Soviets. That's where it all came from.

It's just that many of us get sick about the whining from minority activist groups on how awful we supposedly are, despite the fact that these people can enjoy the benefits and freedoms of Western liberal democracies they very much despise. We know that whenever things like slavery, colonialism et al are brought up with calls for apologies, reparations etc is not driven by any love, equality or justice but by racial hatred, just that they're dishonest about it. It's because ethnic minority groups in today's multicultural ideology tend to be represented by the most hostile, unpleasant and radical voices.

Bottom line is that people like MM trying to defend the indefensible is profoundly unhelpful when we are faced with Leftist, Islamist and other foes who are far more dangerous.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #133 
There's India, which is certainly mostly still made up of its native population, rather more than mostly in fact. I would venture to suggest that it had never been so well-governed as under the Raj, and it has since independence remained an on the whole stable and democratic society under the rule of law. I am not decrying the ancientness or the cultural achievements of the empires that succeeded one another before the Raj, stretching back to the beginning of recorded history, but I do regard the India of today as a legacy of British colonialism to be proud of.

It is, to say the least, not an easy thing to sort out. I'm certainly not easy in my mind about all aspects of either colonialism in general or the British version in particular, but I do disagree with blanket condemnation. There was, I quite strongly feel, good mixed in with the bad. And we have to be careful about judging the acts of the past by the standards we are used to, even if we think those standards better. Which I do think. Your own country of course had a colonial past too, ruling immense territories until after WWII with, as we have, the odd remnant left today. What do you think about the Dutch legacy of colonialism? Ignorance precludes me having any opinion on it myself.

ETA: the above was a reply only to DM, not David with whom I cross-posted. I sort of agree with most of what David said, even if I would not put it in quite the same way.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #134 
Unfortunately, hatemongers like Shashi Tharoor and Laurie Penny were given a platform on BBC to spout their hatred of Britain. It's clear that this ties in with the narrative the Left have been promoting in wake of Charlottesville about "white supremacy". We've seen comparison of of Britain and even Australia with Nazi Germany, FFS.

Any backlash against this will benefit the Far Right and some very unwelcome elements.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 857
Reply with quote  #135 
Peter, Indonesia was actually our theme for our year's high school history exams about ten years ago, so I had to learn a lot about it then. The general idea seemed to be that for us colonialism was mostly about making a profit in the time of the VOC and in the mid-nineteenth century, when we had the so-called 'cultivation' system that enforced a certain level of export on the local population. From the late 1900s the idea of spreading civilization became more and more intertwined with it. At least, that's how my father thought us about it based on a book by my uncle (no joke: my father was our history teacher in my final year and my uncle had written the most popular handbook used to prepare the high school students across the country; both wrote a master thesis about the indies not too long ago).

DavidV, the point you bring up about decolonization bringing to power far worse regimes could also be made for Italian colonies. Not as immediately as was the case with some British or French colonies, but in the long run. I think that's also the argument the MadMonarchist is trying to make. The problem with his writings seems to be that he only mentions the good the Italians did in Africa and not the bad, while others sometimes do the exact opposite.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.