Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Or, if you, in your faux paganism


Indeed, a real pagan state would likely be less tolerant of left-liberal shibboleths being spouted out. I mean, since when was "paganism" meant to comprise such values as "do as you please" or "who cares how I behave" while simultaneously calling for the shutting down of anyone who steps out of line with what they think? I wonder how such people can even dare to call themselves "liberals" when a real liberal is supposed to be tolerant. Conservatives like me don't pretend to be tolerant and don't have to, but I make the point when someone is tolerant and shows respect for other views, then I will reciprocate. But since leftists (and some others) don't, why should I show tolerance in that case? I think my tolerance was broken in this case some time back.

But whatever. Why does it have to be hard to try and convince people of reason and balance?
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 368
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
Some people misinterpret the whole point about being traditionalist, conservative or reactionary. It doesn't mean that everything that was once considered acceptable in a past age should be acceptable today and here is where it fully applies. I may be decidedly un-PC on the issue of race relations and multiculturalism, but that doesn't mean I would want to see any return to Apartheid or Jim Crow (despite someone falsely accusing me of wanting to go back to Jim Crow). The same goes with anti-Semitism which undoubtedly was quite common and acceptable in a past age, not least on "our side" of the line, but has long been rendered unacceptable in civilised discourse. Just because something was once acceptable in mainstream discourse and society in the 19th century and before, doesn't mean that it can remain acceptable infinitely - since part of evolution and empiricism is to recognise that, even when one rejects such concepts as multiculturalism and religious liberty.

I think conservatism, especially traditionalist conservatism, is basically an anti-ideological ideology. It is the radical idea that a system that has worked for hundreds of years and evolved to cope with all the changes over that time might actually be better than something thought up by a group of bored armchair revolutionaries which has never been tested and requires considerable social change and usually some bloodshed to be implemented. It's the idea that traditions that have survived through the centuries might be a better guide than what it says in some book or political manifesto.

As for religious freedom, I'm a believer in tolerance and coexistence, but I believe that some faiths simply cannot coexist. Christians can live in harmony alongside Jews and Muslims, and Buddhists can live in harmony alongside Confucians and Shinto practitioners. But Christian moral sensibilities simply cannot tolerate the existence of anything as bloody as the human sacrifice practiced by the native Mexican peoples. Likewise the ancient Egyptians were willing to accept the existence of the Hittite gods and vice versa when the first peace treaty in history was written, calling upon all the Gods of Egypt and all the Gods of the Hittites to bless Pharaoh Ramesses II and King Hattusili III and hold them to the treaty, but Pharaoh Akhenaten's insistence that there was but one god, Aten, was condemned as heresy. The idea of there being many gods governing different peoples was fine, but monotheism? Unacceptable.

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #33 
I would argue that the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" do not refer to specific ideologies in rigid, abstract terms, but are applicable relative to time and circumstance. Each nation has its particular political evolution out of which its liberal and conservative movements grew. Of course, while liberal and conservative movements in each country are different, according to their own particular circumstances and traditions, they also share similar if not always identical assumptions. Although when I speak of the "Conservative Movement" which I see myself as being part of, I speak of what encompasses many if not all of the above with certain common reference points socially, culturally, historically, etc. Not to mention the ability of movements in one country (not least in the Commonwealth) to adopt ideas from elsewhere to local conditions.

When I say that "a real liberal is tolerant", it is to their great credit that most liberal or even left-wing monarchists we know of, here and elsewhere, are real liberals in the sense of being tolerant and civilised, since they have the good sense not to pick fights with their more conservative comrades.

Perhaps this has gotten off track though I hope something comes of this and things have been sufficiently clarified. We began after with by a member petulantly defending his bizarre and unacceptable positions, breaking our moderator's long-held tolerance (which of itself was remarkable), and focusing debate on what us as monarchists need to do, and what we need to not do. Maybe it's just my own frustrations about trying to bring monarchists together and locating the best strategy to make a difference. Or tiring of having to tell people "please stay on this path and don't stray into the danger zone". Whatever.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,581
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
Christians can live in harmony alongside ... Muslims...


Out of curiosity, when did this happen? I know there was an uneasy, armed truce from the defeat of the Ottomans in 1918 until the current troubles ramped up in the 1970s, but other than that? My reading of history is that there has been almost constant warfare between Christians and Muslims since they exploded out of the Arabian peninsula bound on the conquest of all non-Muslim lands. The first few hundred years were Muslims rolling over Christian lands and then beginning with Covadonga in Iberia and Vienna in Central Europe the story has been the slow (and unfinished) reconquest of Christian lands from the Muslim invaders.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #35 
I think it could reasonably be argued that after 1683, when the Ottoman Empire would begin its slow demise (as its long-suffering Balkan, Arab, Armenian, etc populations grew more restive- so it wasn't all about Islam either) until after World War II, the West generally did not worry about a threat from the Islamic world. I'm not sure whether the Arab-Israeli conflict began this, or the Islamic Revolution in 1979 did, coupled with the advent of mass immigration and multiculturalism in the West. And isn't this part of why the demise of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be a good thing for the world?

Death to the IRI and Death to Hezbollah!
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,581
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
I think it could reasonably be argued that after 1683, when the Ottoman Empire would begin its slow demise (as its long-suffering Balkan, Arab, Armenian, etc populations grew more restive- so it wasn't all about Islam either) until after World War II, the West generally did not worry about a threat from the Islamic world.


Yes, the west was blinded by its own complacency, but I have friends whose grandparents were slaughtered by the Muslims, in the 20th century, for the 'crime' of being Christian. I don't like people handing out crap about how Muslims and Christians can peacefully coexist. It's never happened and I don't see it happening in the future.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #37 
Part of it too has been the cynical exploitation of the Palestinian issue by Arabs, Muslims and useful idiots in the West, who really don't care at all for the welfare of Palestinians. Of course, the Left in the West exploit their issue as part of their agenda against Western civilisation. It is the genius of propaganda, I guess, to make out that Palestinians are always victims, and Yasser Arafat winning a Nobel Peace Prize, despite the PLO committing atrocities against Lebanese Christians.

What a sick game. Has any conflict ever been so poisonous and divisive for the entire world by virtue of being seemingly interminable?
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 858
Reply with quote  #38 
Jovan, in my eyes, Muslims and Christians live peacefully together in most western countries for many decades. Of course there are some religious fanatics on the side of Islam, but the vast majority of the Muslims are in no way aggressive to our culture. 

And even if your thesis about Christians and Muslims is correct, what do you suggest we do about the millions of Muslims who live in the west these days? As it seems to me the dangerous consequence of your idea would be some kind of mass deportation. 
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 368
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
Christians can live in harmony alongside ... Muslims...


Out of curiosity, when did this happen? I know there was an uneasy, armed truce from the defeat of the Ottomans in 1918 until the current troubles ramped up in the 1970s, but other than that? My reading of history is that there has been almost constant warfare between Christians and Muslims since they exploded out of the Arabian peninsula bound on the conquest of all non-Muslim lands. The first few hundred years were Muslims rolling over Christian lands and then beginning with Covadonga in Iberia and Vienna in Central Europe the story has been the slow (and unfinished) reconquest of Christian lands from the Muslim invaders.

Under the Ottoman Empire Orthodox Christians lived in relative peace with Muslims, and Coptic Christians have lived peacefully in Egypt under Islamic rule for centuries.

The Quran does actually cite Christians as "People of the Book", granted freedom of worship under sharia law. "Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'rûf and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqûn .(3:113-115)."

"And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit. (29:46)"


Not to mention the thousands of Western Muslims who have successfully retained their faith while assimilating into their adoptive countries. I see no reason why Muslims cannot get along with Christians. I will not comment on the Israel-Palestine issue because if there is one thing I have learned about it, it is that the situation is complex and I am not qualified to make a judgement on it. That said, I always maintain that everything went to hell in the Middle East only with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #40 
Well haven't I always said that the biggest danger comes not from Islam or from Muslims anywhere, but from among our own - the "progressive" crowd in the West who have subverted and undermined our own civilisation for decades, and the whole drive to de-Christianise the West. Viktor Orban underlined precisely what the problem is - people and leaders losing faith in what made our civilisation great, unlike the Arab and Asian nations that cling to their traditions and values while achieving economic success. Meanwhile, the New Faith, which is Secular Humanism and Cultural Marxism, enforced on us since the 60s, has proven a huge failure hasn't it? If we believed in our values and culture and had zeal in our Christian faith we would not be facing these problems!

The problem is not Islam, the problem to me is the decades of left-liberal poison that has consumed the "Free" World and made it decidedly less free since it has made people too frightened to question its orthodoxy for fear of being called "fascists", "racists" and "bigots" etc. Which, as I said, has only fed nasty groups like Golden Dawn and could feed similar groups elsewhere in the West if we are not careful. An enemy within is always more dangerous than an enemy without.

The problem with multiculturalism is that it means that immigrants are not expected to assimilate or respect the dominant values and culture of a society, but believe we should be accommodating to them. It a deprivation of liberty and sovereignty on a grand scale. The idiot Leftists like to tell us the whole idea of nationhood and identity is "bad", yet they simultaneously say that Palestinians have a right to their homeland, and embrace other "trendy" causes. What fools! What hypocrites!

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And we need to be vigilant else we will lose all we cherish.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,581
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
 That said, I always maintain that everything went to hell in the Middle East only with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.


Well, it was the Ottoman Empire that did the slaughtering I'm talking about.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 368
Reply with quote  #42 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
 That said, I always maintain that everything went to hell in the Middle East only with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.


Well, it was the Ottoman Empire that did the slaughtering I'm talking about.

Christian crusaders and Islamic jihadists were slaughtering each other throughout the Middle Ages. However, for most of its history the Ottoman Empire did maintain peace and stability in the Middle East, and was more tolerant of Christians and Jews than many Catholic nations were of other faiths- and probably more tolerant than many of its successor states. Don't get me wrong, I would swap the Islamic Ottoman Empire for the Greek Orthodox Byzantine Empire any day, but I'd rather have an Ottoman Empire than the current unstable cluster of republican dictatorships fighting over whether to condemn their people to Islamism or Marxism. Say what you like, the Empire held things together and maintained some semblance of peace.

DavidV, not sure what you mean by Asian countries clinging to their traditions- China and Vietnam are both ruled by Communist regimes that are only just beginning to accept traditional philosophies, religions and traditions, while Japan might have held on to its Emperor but still has a large and influential communist party and is suffering a major decline in the number of people belonging to any religion. Let's not even mention North Korea.


__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
 That said, I always maintain that everything went to hell in the Middle East only with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.


Well, it was the Ottoman Empire that did the slaughtering I'm talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum


Christian crusaders and Islamic jihadists were slaughtering each other throughout the Middle Ages. However, for most of its history the Ottoman Empire did maintain peace and stability in the Middle East, and was more tolerant of Christians and Jews than many Catholic nations were of other faiths- and probably more tolerant than many of its successor states. Don't get me wrong, I would swap the Islamic Ottoman Empire for the Greek Orthodox Byzantine Empire any day, but I'd rather have an Ottoman Empire than the current unstable cluster of republican dictatorships fighting over whether to condemn their people to Islamism or Marxism. Say what you like, the Empire held things together and maintained some semblance of peace.


Though not without its moments, the Ottoman Empire does not rank among my most favourite monarchies, with which not only the peoples of the Balkans would agree but also the Arabs and Armenians. What was the Arab Revolt about, after all? Its dreams were not fulfilled in the way they had hoped since only Jordan remains under Hashemite rule today when it could have been far more than that. At times too, Persia challenged Ottoman hegemony in the region and indeed Armenians under Persian and Russian rule fared better than under Ottoman rule.

I could pinpoint things beginning with the overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy in 1952, followed by Tunisia (1957), Iraq (1958), Yemen (1962) and Libya (1969), not to mention Syria coming under Baathist rule. All of those republican regimes were/are horrible and ugly, and most of the region's monarchies are shining lights in comparison. The failures and crimes of those regimes, who were/are deservedly hated by those that lived under them, serves as a powerful weapon for monarchists to use. Likewise, the horrors and excesses of the Islamic Republic of Iran which shares with those regimes certain similar traits (not least exploiting the Palestinian issue, while not caring for the welfare of them or their own people).

Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
DavidV, not sure what you mean by Asian countries clinging to their traditions- China and Vietnam are both ruled by Communist regimes that are only just beginning to accept traditional philosophies, religions and traditions, while Japan might have held on to its Emperor but still has a large and influential communist party and is suffering a major decline in the number of people belonging to any religion. Let's not even mention North Korea.



Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore all avoided the plague of Marxism unlike China or Vietnam, and consequently built societies of considerable prosperity for their peoples (they are also, for most part, societies where PC does not exist and where nationalism is seen as a virtue), whereas China and Vietnam could only "take off" once they abandoned Communism. North Korea, on the other hand, has evolved into something else - it has essentially abandoned Marxism for Juche which is really a religion in any case. And China, I'm sure you'd agree, is really a screwed up place despite all the material progress (which does not affect the masses of rural poor).

Now, you see the point I make is that it isn't other cultures or religions which I rail against but rather the poisonous suicidal thinking which has consumed the West especially in the last 50 years. It isn't too late to turn it around, if we have a new generation of thinkers and leaders who are willing to fight back. Hence it is the Left I rail against consistently, since they have taken away our right to be free and safe in our own countries!

But we have to come around to what we have been discussing here. The characteristic of the Left has been a nihilistic rejection of Western culture and values, which has led them to siding with the very enemies of our civilisation. I expect those on the Left, and on the "Far Right" (neo-Nazis and the like), to embrace all sorts of stupidity. And of course we can see in someone like John Walker Lindh (who had a typical left-liberal upbringing in Marin County, California) the most extreme and extraordinary example of this slippery slope.

Yet the OP, who has since been banned, demonstrated that similar slippery slope (I'm not making an absurd comparison but demonstrating what is possible) when he evidently endorsed a regime and ideas which are inimical to the very Western and Christian civilisation and causes he claims to champion. For someone who shares my faith (Catholic) and supposedly my cause (monarchist), to indulge in thinking that leads one straight to our enemies, is something even words may not suffice for. At the end of the day, I take lines that at least are consistent with the support and defence of monarchy, regardless of religion, which is what we are here for.

Is it because of the crisis of Western civilisation that leads to this screwed-up thinking? Or makes people confused and incoherent?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.