Monarchist Manifesto

                                                                                                                                                                      

I would know by what power I am called hither ... I would know by what authority, I mean lawful; there are many unlawful authorities in the world; thieves and robbers by the high-ways ... Remember, I am your King, your lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgement of God upon this land. Think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater ... I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it, to answer a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me.

I do stand more for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges ... I do not come here as submitting to the Court. I will stand as much for the privilege of the House of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever: I see no House of Lords here, that may constitute a Parliament ... Let me see a legal authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or warranted by the constitutions of the Kingdom, and I will answer.

It is not a slight thing you are about. I am sworn to keep the peace, by that duty I owe to God and my country; and I will do it to the last breath of my body. And therefore ye shall do well to satisfy, first, God, and then the country, by what authority you do it. If you do it by an usurped authority, you cannot answer it; there is a God in Heaven, that will call you, and all that give you power, to account.

If it were only my own particular case, I would have satisfied myself with the protestation I made the last time I was here, against the legality of the Court, and that a King cannot be tried by any superior jurisdiction on earth: but it is not my case alone, it is the freedom and the liberty of the people of England; and do you pretend what you will, I stand more for their liberties. For if power without law, may make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, I do not know what subject he is in England that can be sure of his life, or any thing that he calls his own.

I do not know the forms of law; I do know law and reason, though I am no lawyer professed: but I know as much law as any gentleman in England, and therefore, under favour, I do plead for the liberties of the people of England more than you do; and therefore if I should impose a belief upon any man without reasons given for it, it were unreasonable ... The Commons of England was never a Court of Judicature; I would know how they came to be so.

It was the liberty, freedom, and laws of the subject that ever I took - defended myself with arms. I never took up arms against the people, but for the laws ... For the charge, I value it not a rush. It is the liberty of the people of England that I stand for. For me to acknowledge a new Court that I never heard of before, I that am your King, that should be an example to all the people of England, for to uphold justice, to maintain the old laws, indeed I do not know how to do it.

This many-a-day all things have been taken away from me, but that that I call more dear to me than my life, which is my conscience, and my honour: and if I had a respect to my life more than the peace of the Kingdom, and the liberty of the subject, certainly I should have made a particular defence for my self; for by that at leastwise I might have delayed an ugly sentence, which I believe will pass upon me ... Now, sir, I conceive that an hasty sentence once passed, may sooner be repented of than recalled: and truly, the self-same desire that I have for the peace of the Kingdom, and the liberty of the subject, more than my own particular ends, makes me now at lest desire, before sentence be given, that I may be heard ... before the Lords and Commons ... If I cannot get this liberty, I do protest, that these fair shows of liberty and peace are pure shows and that you will not hear your King."

Inequality, something that the socialists despise and attempt to destroy by all possible means. 

Yet when look at the idea of equality from a historic perspective, I see the opposite to what the socialists agitate for. As a vivid example, let us make an investigation of the tribes of the Ancient era. Let us suppose we were to look upon a Germanic tribe and the Roman province, occupying two opposite banks of the Rhine.  The two banks are similar in most initial characteristics thus the comparison has something to investigate. According to the Socialist perspective, whichever society is more equal is the one which has more socialist elements and what modern societies should be aiming for. Using these most inspirational and wise words,we will come to the conclusion that a society of the barbaric tribe is better than the Roman!

Why?

 The facts: The barbarian tribe consists of generally people who are both peasants and soldiers at the same time.  In both, they are very inefficient. The difference between the wealthy and ones in poverty would be at its minimum-minimorum, even the food they would eat would be almost the same. If the tribe was to go to war, it would find itself armed with a horde of untrained and undisciplined пangs armed at the best with bronze swords, and at the common level with wooden clubs and stones. They would be led to battle by the best or most popular warrior who would have no training to his role and upon return will again plow his land and raise livestock. The total absence of logistics,intelligence or simply any order! All, efficiency, justice, development and fairness,is given up in the name of equality where the common warrior and chief eat the same broth. A dream society: equal, ineffective and stagnating! The culmination and ideal example of socialism!

The Roman Empire on the other hand, is the culmination of the evil the socialists attempt to fight. The rich and poor experience such inequality! The rich senators own dozens of enormous latifundia, live in lavish villas and eat well while the common man must at the dinner table has to be accompanied by the simple bread,vegetables and wine. Is this not anti-socialist? Patience and the army will reveal the most fearsome of socialist horrors.

The inequality of the army is even greater than the one of the civil society. Here the average legionary must live in a tent with seven commilitones while the chief officer in the Legion(the Legate) alone lives in a one that is a few times vaster. The pay a legionary gets is far below the one of a Legate! Even more, the legionary cannot become a legate and instead only the trained professionals are allowed to command armies! In terms of protection the Legate's protection is far beyond the legionary lorica! Horrible is it not?

Of course the Roman army is more effective and can easily overcome a barbarian force a few times greater in number. Of course the average Roman eats if not as well as the senator but certainly his meal is far better than the one of any barbarian.But the socialist perspective demands: "Everyone must be equal, and if there is no equality the government must make everyone equal".

The fact is, There are never enough of resources, so sooner or later the government must decide how to distribute the wealth.the empire isn’t able to provide each Legionary with armor as good as of his commander. Nor is it possible to make each citizen of Rome as affluent as the richest Senators.  There is a different approach taken, which can be said to be“The man receives rewards according to his deeds”.

The senators are members of families that have served the Republic and Empire through centuries.These families fought for Rome, governed provinces and multiplied the riches ofRome from the beginning of Rome's existence. They organize the economic life of the empire, through trade and production supplying the citizens of Rome with all necessary and demanded goods. Is it not fair that they receive more than those who have not made anything comparable, such as thieves?

According to the socialists the answer is no.

Is it justified to confiscate what their ancestors and they had earned by their works for the glory of Rome, and hand it out to those who have nothing to be accountable for?

According to the Socialists, the answer is yes.

They claim that the works of a family or one should not be taken into account, and if one earns more then the government must heavily tax them since “Everyone must be equal”. In the everyone, they place the Roman Legate, who spent time in the woods of Germany,deserts of Syria and hills of Thracia risking his life, the Roman senator who owns latifundia and supplies the city of Rome with grain, and the common thief,who has not done any good for Rome and instead used his time to “attempt to achieve equality” through means of theft. 

Let us make an impossible presumption that a socialist power came to power in Rome. What would be the focuses of the socialist policy? How would the Socialists attempt to change the mightiest empire of its' time?

Equality. The foundation of socialism that the hypothetical socialist power would attempt to enforce as a universal determinant for all national policies.  Everyone has to be equal, thus a legate, who went through the fiery battles for the glory of Rome, and a thief, who has not done anything for the benefit of Rome,must get the same reward, as if the effect they have on Rome is equally beneficial. If the Senator has inherited property from his ancestors, who earned it by their deeds, in the name of equality the new owner has to pay forthe accomplishments and abilities of his ancestors in order to give those who had not achieved anything.   Absolute disregard to fairness and effectiveness: the key of socialist policies. We can probably see the long-termув effect of this policy.

But at the same time, how much has the empire achieved through this inequality? Was it not the so hated by the socialist circles inequality that promoted the talented to being commanders of armies that protected and glorified the city of Rome? Was it not fairness that allowed the Roman society to develop its’ economy? Was it not the rejection of socialism that gave Rome development from a Lilliputian colony of Alba-Longa to the mightiest power of Europe that ever existed?

What will the removal of this “intolerable equality” provide to Rome?

If the experienced commander of the Legion is replaced with a random fellow without the least thought of how to operate the military unit, will the combat performance of the Legion improve? If the senators will have to pay more taxes will that motivate them better to increase the economic power of the empire? If the thief gets the same living conditions as the senator, will that influence the following generations to develop and use the gifts of God they have received and work for the glory of the state, or remain passive and not do anything, since the responsibility will increase whereas the pay will stay the same?

Why should civilization regress back to the stage of barbaric primitiveness? As shown above this will not have any gains in efficiency. This will not be a step forward in development and will bring closer the barbaric tribes across the Rhine and their Roman counterparts closer to each other in terms of development.

To be brief fact is,equality is not natural. There are never enough resources to have everyone at the same level, some will always have more since they are more able, talented and responsible or even valuable. The Roman armories cannot equip all Legionaries with the armor a legate wears because it would be too expensive and unpractical. What they can do, is attempt to create the best possible armor for the majority and exceptionally good armor for the Legate. And this unequal distribution of protection is justified, since if the Legate is killed or wounded, over 10,000 people would not be properly commanded. And at the same time, that does not leave the legionary without protection, it just means that the use of the finest armor is reasonable and logical and the advantages of it are used to achieve maximum efficiency. Using the resources inefficiently leads to an absence of development, irrational use of what is available and is overall unreasonable. These socialist ideas are what leads to the stagnation in the same stage for centuries, as the one the Germans were in. While the Romans developed in all aspects by rejecting Socialist concepts and implementing the rational and efficient ideas. This is perfectly depicted by the barbarian tribes of ancient times which lived for centuries in the same stage of development due to their policies of socialism and equality.

Rather than taking apart the Roman military machine and giving its parts to random people, as the socialist concepts demand, the machine works as a system. The father in the family does not take his car apart to give the windshield to the son, the fuel tank to his daughter, and the brakes to his wife, but keeps these parts in a system that permits the most efficient use for the benefit of all members of the family.

Socialism is a dead-born ideology because there is simply not a possibility to achieve equality by the means of improving since if improvement would be possible it would have already been done. If a socialist was to come to power in Rome and attempt to implement the ideals of socialism in the army by the order to “give every legionary the armor of a legate” there would theoretically be two possibilities:

a.      Decrease the number of legionaries to the number of available armor

or

b.     Leave both commanders and soldiers without protection

Would any of those two choices increase the efficiency of the Roman army? If there would be a possibility to improve the armor, this would have been done before, since the army wishes to prevent the death of the well trained veterans by all possible means. But since there isn't an infinite amount of resources available the army uses the most efficient option available. But if a Socialist was in power, the army as a tribute to the Socialist ideas would have to decrease its' efficiency by decreasing the protection of its' commanders or even leaving everyone unprotected like the more "Socialist-progressive" barbarians.

 In other words the anti-socialist concept would have a rational and justified basis that can be characterized by this phrase: “If there is a possibility it should be used. If there isn’t one, the objective is to make the most efficient and reasonable use of available resources”

The socialist concept would have a strictly irrational and absurd foundation: “If there is no equality, it must be changed. Regardless of the possibilities and efficiency”

As a joke back from the1930s about Stalin’s USSR shows this perfectly:

Soviet Newspapers article title: “The government puts much effort into decreasing the number of those hungry”

White Russian Newspapers article title on the same event: “The Soviet government is shooting its peasants who kept the wheat they grew to themselves.”

A perfect example of socialism in action.

If we were to glance at the Roman Empire and the developed countries of the beginning of the 20th century what would we notice? Although the living conditions improved, equality was not achieved. Why? Since yes people began to find their meals more ample, but there was still logic used to make decisions which showed that it is neither just nor beneficial to reward those who do not wish to work. Instead greater rewards were given to those who deserve them, to achieve justice and fairness.And as a result, the civilized concepts brought a bounty which we still are feeding from to this day.

Even the tribe described above, in order to civilize and evolve had its members specialize and form an aristocracy, professional army and constant governing body of its own.  Tobe mentioned also that at the time of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, the more civilized tribes of the Gauls had one of their distinct differences from their German counterparts in having an upper class. This allowed a more effective use of resources than the barbarian "equality". Whereas in the most recent while, having the most productive and valuable members of society get more than others is found “not progressive” or even “reactionary”. Of course,from the socialist perspective, the primitive system of the barbaric tribes is “innovative and progressive”.  

Yet, in the outrageously true to socialists facts this “reactionary way” resulted in the improvement of living conditions for the lower classes rather than the opposite.  If we were to investigate the living conditions of the Roman and his Barbarian vis-à-vis , we would clearly find that the Roman would experience a better living standard. At the worst, the lowest possible class of the Roman society may have living conditions similar to the common ones of the barbarians, but again that is the lowest class of the non-socialist society compared to the middle(or even upper) strata of the more socialist society! Why? Because rather than dividing the riches of Rome earned through hard work and give it out to everyone regardless of the achievements, Rome rewarded the finest of its citizens and attempted to increase the richness through fairness.And this allowed to progress to a higher level of civilization and development.

The Romans did not destroy the marble statue so that all of the people could have some marble rubble.Instead they kept the marble  together in the form of a  statue having aesthetic value.

Rather than irrationally and randomly giving out rewards the Romans gave recognition to the deeds and abilities of each person in society and achieved fairness through rejecting Socialism. Yet once the empire disappeared and the Vandals captured Rome they fulfilled the most desired wishes of any socialist, this was later known as“Vandalism”(am I the only one that sees the parallel between the acts of the Vandals in Rome and the acts of the socialists when they come to power?) .

One could say, that Rome fell while the tribes lived on to become modern France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. But Rome fell not because of its’ non-socialist attitude but for different reasons. The accomplishments of Rome in many areas remained unmatched up to the 18th or even 20th centuries. The victorious Germanic tribes, freed themselves from the tribal attitudes to become civilized and non-socialist,incorporating much from the Roman Empire into their society. The temples, the statues the cities once again emerged from the ruins. If the tribes remained in their socialist barbarity they would not develop at all and would eventually be defeated by their civilized neighbors.

But today after we have regained what has been lost through acts of destruction, certain individuals believe society must return to the concepts that were the foundation of barbarity. Only for some bizarre reasoning of the socialists, the ideas that proved themselves successful, just and based on hundreds of years of experience are declared “Old and obsolete”, while those that were rejected a long time ago due to their low efficiency are now “New and progressive”.It must be that a regress to the stone age must be the most progressive idea from the socialist perspective, since then  it would not be possible to achieve inequality/fairness. Neither would there be any development, laws or justice but to socialists this is not important: equality in all aspects is achieved and that is all that matters!

Argument: Why should someone become head of state merely due to accident of birth ?

This an argument used most often of advocates of democratic-republicanism in the commonwealth, so we will address it from such a perspective. It is worth pointing that even in "enlightened and progressive" democratic republics, major political decisions are decided by people who no other qualification other than " accident of birth," I am speaking of course, about the average voter. In most democratic countries, one does not have to pass any sort of exam on political science or even ever have to hold a political position, in order to vote. Can one honestly argue against the notion that in a democratic society, the only qualification one needs in order to cast a ballot is the mere virtue of existence, an " accident of birth" if you will. Some may point out that one must also be a citizen of that nation and be a certain age, but then again these too are "accidents of birth." Can the fact that one was born in a certain geographic location and born on a certain date be described as much more than an "accident?" It certainly is not enough to be considered qualified to play a role in government, yet at the very same time these are the only credentials necessary in order vote, or even run for head of state, in a democratic state. At least in monarchial states, the heir to the throne often receives a rigorous education and has spent at least some time holding a position in government or the military. These are certainly far more than impressive accreditations than the "average Joe" who casts his or her ballot on election day. So from a meritocratic aspect at least, I think it is self evident that a monarchy is superior. A monarch can bring up his/her knowledge of politics or the experience that he/she gained while holding a position of power as an argument on why they should be head of state, the average voter cannot fall back on such a defense. He can only defend his right to vote by referencing some abstract concept such as "human rights," which might I mention, they gain only through having the mere fortunate by being born to a specific species by "accident." So one cannot attack monarchy for being based on "accident of birth," and support democratic republicanism as an alternative. For they both are based on "accident of birth," one is merely slightly broader than the other.

                                                                            - Black Baron

WITH JAMAICA getting ready to celebrate 50 years of political independence from the United Kingdom next year, most Jamaicans are of the view that the country would have been better off had it remained a colony of Britain.

Pollster Bill Johnson, who, on May 28 and 29 and June 4 and 5, conducted an islandwide survey among 1,008 people, found that 60 per cent of Jamaicans held the view the country would be better off under British rule.

Conversely, 17 per cent of those surveyed said the country would be worse off had it remained a colony of Britain, while 23 per cent said they did not know. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus four per cent.

The island has been independent since August 6, 1962, after the lobbying and hard work of individuals such as National Heroes Sir Alexander Bustamante and Norman Washington Manley.

But that has failed to impress six in every 10 Jamaicans who long for "the good old days".

The culture ministry has started the process of setting up a secretariat to coordinate and drive the planning for Jamaica's 50th anniversary national celebrations next year. A total of $50 million has been set aside in the national Budget for the celebrations.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding has also proposed that Jamaica say "bye-bye" to the Queen (Elizabeth II) as head of state before Independence Day next year.

Free of monarchy

In his contribution to the 2011-2012 Budget Debate in the House of Representatives in April, Golding said he wanted Jamaica to make its 50th year of Independence free of its colonial ties to the British monarchy.

"Transforming Jamaica from a monarchical to a republican state means no disrespect, and must not be interpreted in this way," Golding said.

I have long believed that if I am to have a queen, it must be a Jamaican queen. I would not wish to see us celebrate 50 years of Independence without completing that part of our 'sovereignisation', for want of a better word," he told legislators.

The Government and Opposition have agreed to work towards putting in place certain constitutional arrangements, including replacing the Queen as head of state, before Jamaica turns 50.

Republican structure

If Jamaica replaces the Queen, the country would move to a republican government structure.

But Johnson found that most Jamaicans have rejected the suggestion that the current Westminster system of government be replaced with a republican system.

Some 44 per cent of the people surveyed said the current Westminster system should be retained, while 35 per cent said it should be replaced with a republican system. Another 21 per cent answered 'don't know' to the question.

A constitutional commission in 1995, after consultations, recommended that Jamaica should no longer have the hereditary monarch of the UK as its head of state, and that the country should become a republic with its own indigenous president as head of state.

However, there is no agreement on the role the president would play in the affairs of the State.

Here is an excerpt from a 1938 interview of Kaiser Willhelm II Ken magazine. In this interview Kaiser Willhelm II expresses a very harsh opinion of then German leader, Adolf Hitler. Kaiser WIllhelm II was known to have a strong disliking of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist movement in general. However some modern historians try to convince us that he was a staunch National Socialist sympathizer. However as you can read his own words, you can see that nothing is farther from the truth. Here is what Kaiser Willhelm II had to say about Hitler and the National Socialist movement. 

“There is a man alone, without family, without children, without God....He builds legions but he doesn’t build a nation. A nation is created by families, a religion, tradition: it is made up out of the hearts of mothers, the wisdom of fathers, the joy and the exuberance of children. [Of Germany under Hitler he says]....an all-swallowing State, disdainful of human dignities and the ancient structure of our race, sets itself up in place of everything else. And the man who, alone, incorporates in himself this whole State, has neither a God to honour nor a dynasty to conserve, nor a past to consult....

For a few months I was inclined to believe in National Socialism. I thought of it as a necessary fever. And I was gratified to see that there were, associated with it for a time, some of the wisest and most outstanding Germans. But these, one by one, he has got rid of or even killed....He has left nothing but a bunch of shirted gangsters....

This man could bring home victories to our people each year without bringing them...glory....But of our Germany, which was a nation of poets and musicians and artists and soldiers, he has made a nation of hysterics and hermits, engulfed in a mob and led by a thousand liars or fanatics....”

Quite recently I have witnessed a great deal of interest from the members of the website towards the presence of Democratic components in a Monarchy. Since I find that my answer expresses not only the opinion I hold but also what our opponents may say, I decided to post this in the blog section as a bit of analysis from my side concerning this question. My primary question is: Why would it be needed?

And thought of a few reasons that I was able to think of that people could say pro the existence of parliament and some of my contra:

1. Limitation on the Monarchs’ power by a parliament in order to prevent the negative effects of a poorly gifted Monarch on the throne.                                                                                                                                                                            

Possible argumentation I would presume the opposing side would have: There is always the possibility that the throne becomes occupied by a Monarch unsuitable for his role. The presence of a democratically elected parliament will ensure that the Monarch doesn’t harm his country with radical mistakes.

The way I would answer: What justification do we hold to prove that a bunch of randomly selected people will be more competent than the Monarch in terms of making decisions?

And after all, how are they to decide should the decision offered by the Monarch be accepted or not?By seeing how many dilettantes raise their hand for compared to the number against?

2. Linking the Monarch with the people by the parliament

Possible argumentation: The Monarch lives detached from common life and the parliament will inform the Monarch of the problems common people meet in their lives that need to be solved.

The way I would answer: Would it be easier to simply create a detached administrative unit dealing with letters and other activities connected to common lives? To add,the creation of a parliament detaches the people from their Monarch because of the creation of an additional and unneeded link.

3. The formation of a parliament would give the people  their own representatives

Possible argumentation: The people need to have representatives before the government. They need spokespeople to speak for them.

The way I would answer: O, I thought that the government already consists of the peoples’ representatives. Why would there be a need in extra ones which perform the same duties?

4. A parliament allows the people to participate in ruling the country.

Possible argumentation: The people need to be able to participate in governing the country and the presence of a parliament would present the people with such an opportunity.

The way I would answer: If someone wishes to participate in ruling the country, they should become a government employee. And there, if they show themselves competent enough,there they may participate in the endless activities of the governing body. If they are not competent enough to serve the government even at the base of the hierarchical pyramid how could they be able to criticize the professional of the highest class, resembled by the Monarch? And aren’t people(in the positions of a Monarch, his ministers, and even policemen) ruling the country unconditionally to the fact of the existence of a parliament(of course unless we trust David Icke:))

5. The Monarch has too many subjects and cannot represent all at once.

Possible Argumentation: The parliament is more numerous and therefore there are less people per parliament member than there are per Monarch.

The way I would answer: First of all: The Monarch is not alone. He has helpers which he chooses according to their abilities and their correlation to the positions they hold.

And after all, it is a bit humorous to hear this  today when one member of parliament represents more people than the ancient Pharaoh of Egypt or the modern King of Monaco, and yet he is still seen as capable of speaking for the people he represents.

I believe I have answered the possible “pro” presumptions and would now like to focus on the “contra” facts.

1.If a parliament is created, then it will require money to operate.Even if we follow the example of Imperial Germany and not pay the parliament members a single cent for what they do, they will still need a building to  operate, attributes, such as chairs, microphones, and other equipment, and money to supervise the process of the formation of the parliament, not speaking of the costly security measures. Who must pay for all of these expenses?

2.Then, as I have already mentioned, the existence of a parliament detaches the Monarch from his people and makes it seem as if the Monarch is not the true ruler of the people.

3.The existence of a parliament leaves a possibility of a revolution since it may serve as a basis for socialists, anarchists,communists and other parties to create an official centre from which anti-governmental acts can be put inaction.

4. The parliament is not formed according to competency or capability of governing the country therefore it would be a bit unreasonable to allow it to judge the professional ruler who is the Monarch.

5. If the parliament doesn’t have the right to make decisions towards governing the country then I do not see the reasoning behind the necessity of its’ existence since it doesn’t perform any duties. Such activities as dealing with the problems of the population can be performed by specially selected government employees.

Thus, ending the examination, I conclude that from my current stance I do not see a reason for the existence of a parliament simply because any of the responsibilities it can perform can be performed with a greater efficiency by the government. Therefore, if there are to be elements of democracy in a Monarchist society, they most probably would exist in very small communities(villages for example) where every single person knows each other for a few decades.

There, the problems and decisions that rise are not as complex and intricate as in the top levels of the government which allows the people to solve them on their own. But still, even at the level of small societies there is no constant and official body and usually the representative is temporary and his representative term usually ends when the problem worked on was solved.

                                                     - Caesarevich  

Crown Prince Alexander will celebrate his 66th birthday privately, with his family on Sunday.

If anyone wishes to send him their private congratulations on this occasion, they may send him a message on Facebook;

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002327719413

or they may send an email to the Royal Palace:

http://www.royalfamily.org/contact/contact_eng.htm  ; (use the public relations email, the office one will just get buried) please do not use the fax number.

English:

By now, many of you will have heard the sad news that Dr.Otto von Habsburg has passed away at the age of 98. He was a warm, witty man with a wonderful sense of humour who will be greatly missed. The Austrian people will never know how great an Emperor he would have been. May God grant him memory eternal!

Deutsch:

Jetzt werden viele von Ihnen die traurigen Nachrichten gehört haben, dass Dr Otto von Habsburg im Alter von 98 Jahren zugrunde gegangen ist. Er war ein warmer, witziger Mann mit einem wunderbaren Sinn für Humor, der außerordentlich verpasst wird. Die österreichischen Leute werden nie wissen(kennen), wie groß ein Kaiser er gewesen wäre. Kann Gott, ihm ewiges Gedächtnis bewilligen!

            

It has recently come to my attention that there is a new website for the recently founded American Monarchist party. I was impressed with how well organized the site was. It stated clear, concise and achievable goals. It looks professional. And it clearly genuinely believes in the superiority of the monarchial system, something other American monarchist organization seem to be too scared to admit. That is why I urge to take a look at their site and maybe even join if you find it to your liking. I would very much like to assist some fellow monarchists, especially those who have taken on such a colossal task, like instituting a American monarchy. Tell them the Black Baron sent you. 

                                                       -  Black Baron 

Recently a new poll from Serbia was released. According to the poll over 64 % of Serbians support a restoration of the monarchy. This excellent news for monarchists everywhere. I congratulate our Serbian counterparts on their immense success. The last king of Yugoslavia was overthrown in 1945. Let us hope that a new one can be restored as soon as possible.

                                                                      - Black Baron