Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Horthy
Too bad that the Empire couldn't, or didn't, evolve into a Commonwealth with a common defense and currency but with greater internal autonomy among the constituent nations.


To return to the subject at hand, the recent book “Hitler and the Habsburgs” portrays Archduke Franz Ferdinand as having ideas that may have led to such a revolutionary concept. The author links the terrible timing of his being sent to Sarajevo, the utter lack of appropriate security measures provided for the visit, and the obvious relief on the part of many in the Austrian hierarchy following his death, to the holy terror on the part of the powers-that-be concerning FF's perceived agenda for the future dual monarchy.

__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #17 
It is true that he had such a plan, true also that the security was disgracefully lax (for which no one was punished, or even reprimanded), and true finally that the Austro-Hungarian establishment did not seem to mourn the loss of what would have been their Emperor in the slightest. The problem with the plan, and any other plan like it, was and always would have been the unrelenting opposition of the Magyars to any loosening of their grip on their minorities. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was fully aware of this and prepared for the confrontation; others were glad to avert it. Of course, the way things actually worked out was worse by a very, very long way than any imaginable scenario with Emperor Franz II (this was his intended style) surviving to take the throne.
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The problem with the plan, and any other plan like it, was and always would have been the unrelenting opposition of the Magyars to any loosening of their grip on their minorities.


The more things change, the more they remain the same. Nowadays a comparatively puny, insular and ethnically pure Magyar state still possesses a political machinery that reacts with hostility toward those regarded as “other.”  The old multinational kingdom, had it survived to this day with its 1867 boundaries intact, would likely have enjoyed greater economic prosperity and international leverage than either rump-Hungary or the various nations who benefited from the kingdom's partitioning. However, this would have required an ever-evolving spirit of egalitarianism, a concept that remains very difficult for majority or dominant groups to fully embrace.

__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallavicini


The more things change, the more they remain the same. Nowadays a comparatively puny, insular and ethnically pure Magyar state still possesses a political machinery that reacts with hostility toward those regarded as “other.”  The old multinational kingdom, had it survived to this day with its 1867 boundaries intact, would likely have enjoyed greater economic prosperity and international leverage than either rump-Hungary or the various nations who benefited from the kingdom's partitioning. However, this would have required an ever-evolving spirit of egalitarianism, a concept that remains very difficult for majority or dominant groups to fully embrace.

I admire Viktor Orban. Hungary is better off as an independent state than as a part of the Austrian Empire. Most Hungarians being opposed to immigration to Hungary is hardly surprising, because non-European mass immigration to Western Europe has caused a lot of problems. Many Muslim immigrants to Western Europe and descendants of Muslim immigrants to Western Europe support political Islam, and the crime rate of non-European immigrants and descendants of non-European immigrants are far higher than the crime rate of native Western Europeans. The African and Middle Eastern immigrants, who currently lives in Europe, ought to be allowed to stay in Europe, but non-European immigration to Europe ought to be banned in the future.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #20 
I see no need for those who aren't proper refugees to be granted residency rights in Europe. It's up to the other nations to decide what they want to do, but I see no reason why illegal immigrants and those without proper claims to asylum should not face deportation. But I agree that Hungary's response to the recent immigration crisis was relatively sensible. It was Merkel's whose response was insane. It should be obvious that the West cannot just open its borders without be overwhelmed, financially, socially, culturally, and hence be unable to do good for anyone, whether its own citizens or the rest of the world.
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #21 
Yeah, those pesky “Least of our Brethren,” forever fleeing some war, being poor and/or persecuted, and wanting us Christians to love them, to feed and shelter them, and give them the very cloaks off our backs.

I mean, who the Puck do they think we are?   Don't they realize we already have a billionaire class to support?

__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
felipe31

Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I admire Viktor Orban. Hungary is better off as an independent state than as a part of the Austrian Empire. Most Hungarians being opposed to immigration to Hungary is hardly surprising, because non-European mass immigration to Western Europe has caused a lot of problems. Many Muslim immigrants to Western Europe and descendants of Muslim immigrants to Western Europe support political Islam, and the crime rate of non-European immigrants and descendants of non-European immigrants are far higher than the crime rate of native Western Europeans. The African and Middle Eastern immigrants, who currently lives in Europe, ought to be allowed to stay in Europe, but non-European immigration to Europe ought to be banned in the future.


the Hungarians were well under the empire and were the most reactionary groups to change any structure within the empire to make it a modern state. They were happy with the dual monarchy.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallavicini
Yeah, those pesky “Least of our Brethren,” forever fleeing some war, being poor and/or persecuted, and wanting us Christians to love them, to feed and shelter them, and give them the very cloaks off our backs.

I mean, who the Puck do they think we are?   Don't they realize we already have a billionaire class to support?


That's simplistic in the extreme, of course, not just because the state and the individual have different duties, but, as mentioned in the very post you (barely) were replying to, flinging open borders will ultimately undermine the ability of Western States to aid anyone, whether their own citizens or those from the developing world. There are billions of people who would like to move to Europe. A little bit of thought should tell us that isn't possible.

Look, I wouldn't go the other direction and say we have no duties, individually or even as states, to the developing world. The state's first responsibility is to its own citizens. That's why it exists. But it does have secondary duties to those outside. It's a complex matter how to juggle these. As individuals we certainly need to show charity to those in need, in our own countries or beyond, but it doesn't necessarily follow that just inviting half the world in to our nations is how we do that, not least, again, because that will likely undermine our ability to help anyone.
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
 That's simplistic in the extreme.


Yes.  As as are all Christ's teachings.

He preached to the masses love, compassion & forgiveness - and kindness to strangers. He did not exempt any group or any nation when he invoked the two greatest commandments  or preached the Beatitudes. A refugee himself at one time and a whipper of money-lenders, it is hard to imagine he is today siding with the billionaire welfare-states against desperate people with sick children fleeing war and persecution.

__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 269
Reply with quote  #25 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallavicini


Yes.  As as are all Christ's teachings.

He preached to the masses love, compassion & forgiveness - and kindness to strangers. He did not exempt any group or any nation when he invoked the two greatest commandments  or preached the Beatitudes. A refugee himself at one time and a whipper of money-lenders, it is hard to imagine he is today siding with the billionaire welfare-states against desperate people with sick children fleeing war and persecution.

Moving from one Roman province (Judea) to another, (Egypt) is quite unlike moden refugee status.

Whilst I agree that Jesus cares for the desperate, I think it's time we retire the "Jesus was a refugee" arguement.


__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor


Moving from one Roman province (Judea) to another, (Egypt) is quite unlike moden refugee status.

Whilst I agree that Jesus cares for the desperate, I think it's time we retire the "Jesus was a refugee" arguement.



You are hair-splitting - perhaps to give cover for your sympathy with xenophobic practices that are utterly contrary to Christ's teaching.

As for the Holy Family's refugee experience,

“Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

You may label jurisdictions to alter the narrative, and replace ”flee” with ”move,” but the Holy Family fled their land to another land where their child's life would be safe. I have known scores of young adults whose parents did exactly the same.

When Jesus called for kindness to strangers and love for the least of our brethren, he made no exception.


__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 365
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor


Moving from one Roman province (Judea) to another, (Egypt) is quite unlike moden refugee status.

Whilst I agree that Jesus cares for the desperate, I think it's time we retire the "Jesus was a refugee" arguement.


The Holy Family were not moving from one Roman province to another, they were fleeing to Roman Egypt from the Roman client kingdom of Judea- if the Biblical account can be taken at face value, in order to escape King Herod the Great, the ruling political authority in Judea. Insisting that they were not political refugees is like insisting that the sky isn't blue.

__________________
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
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 269
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallavicini


You are hair-splitting - perhaps to give cover for your sympathy with xenophobic practices that are utterly contrary to Christ's teaching.

As for the Holy Family's refugee experience,

“Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

You may label jurisdictions to alter the narrative, and replace ”flee” with ”move,” but the Holy Family fled their land to another land where their child's life would be safe. I have known scores of young adults whose parents did exactly the same.

When Jesus called for kindness to strangers and love for the least of our brethren, he made no exception.


I'm not denying that they faced persecution and I am in no way denying that we should care for current refugees. Nonetheless, they did not leave a zone of sovereignty, and so I do not feel that the status of "refugee" is warrented. They were still under the Roman "state", they simply escaped Herod's tyranny.
Indeed if a British Overseas Territory found its children being massacred, I'd welcome the families to the United Kingdom with open arms.
Nonetheless, I would not call them refugees, since they would already be "British".

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #29 
The Holy Family were political refugees. Notice, three things, though. Firstly, they were actually refugees and fleeing death, not economic migrants. Secondly, they went to the nearest country/province. They didn't move through others first without claiming asylum. Thirdly, they stayed temporarily and then went home. I could even add a fourth - they lived in a pre-welfare age, which does make a difference. I think there are social, cultural, and economic reasons against mass immigration, but one important reason is the welfare state. It's very hard to combine open borders and a modern welfare state, as even Bernie Sanders agreed until quite recently.

Anyway, as I said, your argument is simplistic in the extreme. Simply claiming Christ's teachings are simple is hardly convincing. Christ taught us to care for the downtrodden, certainly. But that doesn't mean he thought we should entirely do away with the state and its role, nor that he didn't see any difference between the role of the state and the role of the individual. Christ, though, said, in fact:


"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

The apostle goes even further and notes even the right of the state to put criminals to death (and this is one of the proof texts for the Orthodox and Catholic affirmation of the licit nature of the death penalty):

"13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Saying that Jesus' teaching are always simple and literal would force us, for example, to say no one should ever be punished because he tells us never to judge and always forgive. It would lead to absurd consequences, like doing away with prisons or any other punishment. I have in fact met people who argue that. It's an absurd mangling of Christ's teaching. Christ taught turning the other cheek. That doesn't mean he taught pacifism as a philosophy of state, and so on and so on. I have met people who interpret the same range of Christ's actions and words, as well as the sharing of goods amongst Christians in Acta, to affirm some kind of pacifistic anarcho-communism. There are single verses that can be interpreted, in a simplistic and myopic fashion, in such a way, but as a holistic interpretation of Christ's message, it's a huge stretch. The Fathers and the Church certainly do not interpret him in this way. What you are offering is not Christ's message, but a counterfeit, modern sentimentalism in its place. Indeed, as Matthew pointed out, the idea that Christ is always nice is a misconception. Christ could be harsh to sinners. I also sometimes scratch my head when people imply Christ was this kind of hippie and it was Paul that brought the stern side back to the faith. Actually, Jesus often seems to be talking to the Saint and setting out the saintly path. For example, when he talks about looking at anyone with lust counting as adultery. It is Paul who sets out, often, how us non-saints are to live up to Christ's teaching. Of course, Paul is also no sentimentalist, and modern sentimentalists tend to ignore him and most of the rest of the Bible.

Anyway, part of my point is that your approach is unworkable. There are billions of people in the developing world who would love to come to Europe. The European economic, welfare, and social systems simply wouldn't survive that. In the Nordic countries, as Nima Sanandaji points out, one of the reasons they rolled back their welfare programs somewhat in recent decades is because of an increase in the immigrant population - and he's talking pre-2015 even. Immigrants in those countries tend to draw from the system at a higher rate than natives. It is also the case that what made the systems work, with their high levels of taxation, is a combination of a traditional reluctance of people to draw from the system unless absolutely needed, which isn't shared to the same degree by migrant populations in those countries, and a social solidarity formed by a shared culture and a sense that they are all paying into the system. Obviously, I'm talking about issues raised by high, but somewhat manageable levels of mass immigration. If you just open the borders to half the world, these countries will likely just collapse, at least as we know it. We have to remember, Merkel basically did that. She basically just said, "Come, one and all, if you want."

This kind of movement also does hurt developing countries. It tends to lead to a drain of people and talent as they move to developed nations. The more motivated and talented are highly likely to be overrepresented amongst the migrants.

Finally, obviously you are aiming to integrate Christian principles into your understanding of how the state should act. I agree with that approach, as it happens. However, someone who starts from a secular position wouldn't agree. There are obviously various secular political philosophies, but from an important one, the Aristotelian, the point of the state is to serve the common good of its citizens. This is its primary purpose. It may have duties to non-citizens, but these are secondary to the good of its citizens. In particular, it wouldn't sacrifice its very existence and stability for non-citizens.

I also wonder whether you are consistent in your Christian political philosophy. Would you allow purely Christian reasons for the state to oppose social liberal sacred cows, say by restricting or outlawing abortion? Or would you resort to a strict secularism then ? Not that I accept there are no good non-religious arguments against abortion and other socially liberal shibboleths, but t for the sake of argument)?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #30 
The essence of sentimentalism is to go with the feeling of sympathy and leave out all other considerations, whether justice, rigour, the consequences, etc.

A clear example is the former Labor government's approach to off-shore detention of people trying to come to Australia by boat. The Howard government, trying to stem the flow, had made it so those intercepted would be processed outside Australia, on Pacific Islands. The Rudd Labor government considered this harsh, so they ended the policy. What happened? People-smugglers and migrants saw it as open season and the boats coming greatly increased. Up to a thousand died at sea before the Gillard Labor government was forced to reinstate the off-shore detention policy and make it clear those trying to come to Australia by boat would not settle here. The sentimental policy cost lives, because it didn't consider the full picture and the consequences. It was just based on the sympathetic urge to help those trying to arrive by boat (many of which were economic migrants, as the former foreign secretary, Bob Carr, admitted) without further thought.

If you wish to do something more practical for the developing world than allowing hundreds of millions of people to flood into Europe, here's an idea: campaign for the removal or at least restriction of intellectual property rights. These are one of the biggest exports of the West today and hamper the development of industries in the third world. As a something of Distributist and Mutualist, I think they're bad for most of us in the West as well, but that's a slightly different issue. The West, for decades, has actually been pushing the developing world to adopt more a generous (to Western corporations) intellectual property regime.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.