Welcome to Monarchist manifestos Blog. Here our members will provide You with their thoughts on history,politics and news. If you have an account feel free to post your own entries.
|Posted by The Black Baron on March 27, 2013 at 7:10 PM||comments (1)|
What explains why the MENA monarchs have been far less likely to be riven by political instability than the republics—both during the Arab Spring and historically? This paper argues that the region’s monarchs have been particularly well-suited to deter political unrest. Through the strategic use of constitutions, formal political institutions, Islamic principles, and informal norms, MENA monarchs have “invented” a political culture that has helped create a stable distributional arrangement and self-enforcing limits on executive authority. A monarchic political culture has promoted cohesion among regime insiders, such as ruling families and other political elites, and bolstered their stake in the regime. Moreover, this unique political culture has provided the region’s monarchs with legitimacy: regime outsiders have benefited from the positive externalities associated with secure property rights for the political elite—sustained economic growth and increased economic opportunities. This has helped monarchs consolidate their authority and foster political stability. Conversely, the region’s non-monarchs have relied on a divide-and-conquer strategy and terrorized potential opponents into submission, gutting their societies of rival institutions and creating layers of militias and secret police. "
|Posted by The Black Baron on March 23, 2013 at 11:35 AM||comments (0)|
One of the false cornerstones of “democracy” is the vote, which ideally should be a collective judgment on the art of governing. Still, no one could sincerely defend the eccentric idea that a majority is intellectually qualified and has sufficient knowledge about administration and government to the point of exercising judgment on these matters.
Maintaining due proportions, such equalitarian supposition would equate claiming that everyone is qualified, for example, for deliberating on a medical matter. A real situation, such as that of a person hit by a car, could well illustrate such absurdity. A person has just been hit and is seriously injured. A dozen curious onlookers anxiously observe the event. What is the plausible criterion for determining which among them can help the injured person? Naturally, those qualified to do it, that is, doctors or nurses. A voting would be entirely preposterous, for a majority is never qualified for medical, as well as administrational, functions.
This reasoning being valid regarding the destiny of a person hit by a car, it is evident that if we take in account the destiny of millions of individuals — which is what is involved in the case of government elections — we ascertain that it is a huge irresponsibility.
There are a variety of examples of the absurdity of the “democratic cornerstone” claiming the superiority of the majority, i.e., that an opinion defended by a greater number of individuals is superior to the one defended, for example, by a minority qualified for opining.
How could it be sustained that 200 bottles of cheap wine, just because of their number, hold a superior content to that of a single glass of topnotch wine?
Or else, how could it be claimed that 1450 individuals, of the most varied professions, will be better qualified than a single specialist for solving a matter of quantum physics?
At the origin of the Democratic Illusion lies a denial of natural hierarchy, a hierarchy that establishes itself from top to bottom, i.e., from the qualitatively highest, the spiritual, to the least high, the material, and that has its clearest expression in the Hindu Caste Doctrine. But the mentors of democracy projected it “based” on what is most coarsely material and quantitative.
|Posted by The Black Baron on March 22, 2013 at 5:45 PM||comments (2)|
|Posted by The Black Baron on February 23, 2013 at 11:25 PM||comments (2)|
When confronted with the argument that monarchy is more meritocratic because a monarch is trained from birth to rule, he merely says that you can't say it is meritocratic because it is merely an accident that they were born into that position. I have previously answered this argument in a previous article. If you read it, you can observe that this objection is even more true for democracy. He then says that many British monarchs were incompetent despite of their education, although interestingly he recoils from providing any examples. Even if a monarch is naturally mediocre, at very least the monarch is well educated in numerous important areas necessary to be a successful leader. The same cannot be said about the average voter or politician.
In an attempt to debunk the argument that National Socialists and Bolsheviks could not have come to power had it not been for the Weimar republic in Germany and Kerensky in Russia, TheManWhoFellToEarth tries to compare Kaiser Willhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II to Hitler and Stalin. Not only does he not address the premise of the argument, he tries to convince his viewers that because the executive branch in the Kaiserreich and the Tsardom had a significant role to play, they were the equivalent of gulags and gas chambers of the Third Reich and the USSR. Let us play a bit of trivia, who said the following: " There is no more Vendée... According to the orders that you gave me, I crushed the children under the feet of the horses, massacred the women who, at least for these, will not give birth to any more brigands. I do not have a prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated all." Was it the villainous Kaiser twirling his moustache ? The dogmatic and bloody Tsar ? No, it was General Francois Joseph Westermann, a faithful servant of the French Republic, penning a letter to the Committee of Public Safety, assuring them that he had taught those upstart peasants not to resist the glorious forces of progress. Personally, I think the lack of concern of civilian life makes Jacobin France a better comparison to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia than either the Russian or German Empire. Oh and by the way, care to provide one instance of Kaiser Willhelm II dismissing parliament ?
In the case of the relationship between the church and state, I should have clarified that this is not the case with Catholic monarchies. However, TheManWhoFellToEarth assumes I would like to see monks determining whether or not we should have a tariff on foreign exports of corn. This is not the case, rather I was arguing that the Orthodox model of monarchy can provide stability between organized religion and the state. Naturally, Catholic monarchists would disagree, preferring to see the Pope be above the king.
I was merely pointing out overthrowing a monarch inevitably creates a power vacuum. And as in the cases of Germany, Russia, Cambodia, China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq,and countless other nations, power vacuums can provide an opportunity for a bloodthirsty but determined political factions to seize power. The purpose of this question is to make an opponent of monarchy contemplate whether or not the overthrow of a monarchy can lead to a worse group taking power. For example, a Qatari liberal would have to ask himself or herself this question:" Would the strong probability of Salafists coming to power be worth risking?"
He doesn't even say he disagrees with me on this. All he basically says is "No you." Yet as in many of his "rebuttals," he doesn't offer any reasoning or empirical evidence to support his assertions.
Again, the argument flies right over him. I was arguing that the average voter doesn't base his political positions on solid ground, and it seems that science supports this conclusion.
From here on he goes on a several minute monologue on how he doesn't like the fact that the monarchy prevents the installation of absolutist democracy in the UK. In short, despite his bombastic talk of debunking my arguments, he rarely even addressed them. Furthermore, he seems to be centred exclusively on Britain, when even a cursory look at this site would prove that is not the case.
- Black Baron
|Posted by DmitriR on December 1, 2012 at 5:55 PM||comments (4)|
AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN UPDATED: Intire system of government (both structure and ministry), education, pay and wages, defence, nationalisation, and in most cases have explained indepth to avoid previous confusion.
The Crossroad Manifest: What Has To Be Done (Volume 2)
We as a whole are currently stand at the crossroad, the crossroad in history where civilization and government disconnects from the conforming world of politics. The world is tattered mess, a tangled web of deceit and corruption and it needs to be changed, for the benefit of the people. Communism, for all its ideals, failed to provide for the people what they need, and this is why it had to be overthrown. This failure doesn’t make the ideals of communism bad, it doesn’t make the ideas of ruling for many instead of the few bad, it means that more is required, more changes have to happen, but at a slower and steadier rate.
My simple belief is that a government or any type of our modern day current system cannot function to the people’s requirements of either what they want or what they need. I believe that, however, to build a stable government, which a country can be properly run and therefore survive, you need a democratic autocratic rule. Since the beginning of time society has required strong rulers. Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan are all rulers who forged empires through the strength of their leadership. But these are all historical figures; in the modern era rulers are corrupt, greedy, selfish and ignorant of the needs of their people. Communism too easily fell into this trap, and the current situation seems to be the same. A system needs to be devised that takes in the needs of the people, while still retaining strong pragmatic leadership. This society, a democratic autocracy will refuge Russia into the powerful nation it deserves to be.
Quoting by the Dictionary of Sociology pg 299, ‘the explanations of revolutions may be political (e.g. the failure of a government to fulfill its commitments or to function adequately), economical (e.g. the combination of long term poverty and short term failures), or sociological (e.g. the curtailment of social mobility).’ Leading by the ways of Autocratic rule has always ended in demise, but why? This is a complicated subject, but the plain reason all in all is ignorance. Ignorance towards a number of issues but I believe if you deprive a country and its people long enough from the ‘sociology triangle of needs’ (political, economical and sociological needs), a country will therefore take charge for its own future, condemning its current regime. It is a continuous circle of old governments being replaced by new governments, generally because of them promising that the needs of the people will be met, when they aren’t. But I find that generally their inefficiency is due to the fact of the amount of debate between all the states of government, the amount of time it takes and the amount of money that is either spent debating or spent on the incorrect things, makes a complete democratic government insufficient to rule a country of a large body of people. Therefore if a autocratic government upholds the 3 basis needs, it will counter the fact of debating out of the equation, and will pave the path of a quick acting government who would serve its people, therefore it would be successful.
Structure of government
Russia is presently in crisis. Strong leadership and governance is required to lift the Russian people from oppression. This can be done through careful application of Autocracy, Socialism and selected other theories, all of which will work together in an interlocking fashion to unite all Russia into one glorious people. With saying that each variant of government contain their own individual and unique type of government structure, how people are voted in, and how laws are passed. For the government to operate there needs to be three areas cabinets and four main levels of power, Local, Provincial, State and Imperial government, however this only covers one area of the system, the system will cover three cabinets being The Imperial Cabinet, The House of representatives and The House of Consuls.
Organization of the Government:
Imperial Cabinet House of Representatives House of Consuls
(Heads of the Civil Service) (The meeting of all State/Prov Governors) (All State Consuls)
State Governors/State Government State Consul
(Appointed from the Tsar) (Elected by the people)
Provincial Governors/ Provincial Cabinet Provincial Consul
(Appointed by the State Governors) (Elected by the people)
Ministers of Government
Imperial Cabinet: The Cabinet will contain the head of all civil services, such as the chief of the defence force, the head of education etc. Their role will be to advise the Tsar on the pressing issues that are in their field, also there role is also in the ministry, for instance chief of defence force would be in charge of all areas of the defence force while working together with the commanders the army, navy and air force. He would be in charge of the defence force, while also maintaining it whether it would be construction of new bases of the creation of new units under the orders of the Tsar, this is the same respects for the head of education if new reforms were needed to be brought in or colleges were going to be built. The Imperial Cabinet would be the area where the internal policies are created. This creates mass standardisation throughout the country.
House of Representatives: A meeting of all the Provincial Governors and State Governors across Russia. The House of Representatives serves as the forum where new policies are introduced to all Governors relating their responsibilities to minimise confusion while bring up any issues relating to the policies on a government level.
House of Consuls: The House of Consuls serves as a forum of representation of the people to the Tsar from every province and state, while also delivering a report to the tsar on the issues relating the actions of the Governors. This is will have a big effect, for the consuls are separate from the governors while also being voted by the people, there for helps eliminate bias reports or opinions.
The Espilonic Circle of Public Services
Peoples opinion = Consuls report = Tsars policy change = new Governors Policy = Peoples opinion
The Espilonic Circle of Public Services: I have created my own theorem relating to the system of policy change. A unbiased report from the consul in each province/state relating to the public opinions on the previous policies will be given to the tsar in the House of Consuls, while the discussion will be made in the Imperial Cabinet relating the new policies and have to improve them, the new policy change which will be enforced in the House of Representatives for standardisation for all provinces.
Consuls: Consuls are elected by the people every three years to represent their province/state, the consuls responsibility is to report to the Tsar on the income and the wellbeing of the province/state.
State Governors: Positioned by the Tsar two weeks after a General Election is held. State Governors are the chief administrators in the state. The state governors hold the responsibility to elect their provincial governors. Their job responsibility is overseeing the requested projects requested by the provincial governors and approved from the imperial cabinet in relation to income, industry and the well being of the people in their state, as well as oversee state wide projects. They also act as a ‘supervisor’ of the states relations. The State Governors also request money for their provinces projects via the Imperial Cabinet. If a State Governor is perceived as corrupt by the Tsar then he may veto their appointment.
State Government: The state government will contain ministers relating to utilities, taxes and projects that were state wide. The state government will also be heavily supervising the provinces to maintain their standardisation in all areas in relation to the Tsars policies. While maintaining their positions of responsibility in the government, the ministers act as advisors only, and act under the orders given by state governor. The ministers have no voting ability to change the orders given by the governor. (I must stress the ministers are not political, but advisors to the State Governors only.)
Provisional Governors: Elected by the state governor every three years to govern their province. They are their chief administrator in their province. Their duties are to oversee their provinces projects that have been approved by the state, and to request extra projects to the state government in relation to increasing income, industry, and public wellbeing of the province. The Provincial Governor requests all money via the state. If a Provisional governor is perceived as corrupt, the case will be brought to the Tsar for a hearing and a possible veto of their position.
Provisional Cabinet: The provisional Cabinet will contain the head of provisional services and infrastructure, for instance the cabinet would include a minster for health, three ministers for the services (fire, police, ambulance), education, recreational services, industrial and building relations, garbage and sewage, two ministers for transport (one for roads, one for provisional transport), provincial beautification. While maintaining their positions of responsibility in the cabinet, the ministers act as advisors only, and act under the orders given by provincial governor. The ministers have no voting ability to change the orders given by the governor. (I must stress the ministers are not political, but advisors to the Provincial Governors only.)
City and Town Majors: The mayors would hold local responsibility of administration and would act not only as the representatives for the people to the provisional government, but would have the responsibility to uphold the standards and regulations for their cities or towns.
City and Town Cabinets: The Local Cabinets will contain the local heads of services and infrastructure, for instance they would include a minster for city beautification, three ministers for the services (fire, health, police), transport (local roads). (I must stress they are not political, but an advisor to the Majors only.)
*Utilities: The government will own all utilities permanently (Gas, water, and power). This will make it easier for the government to accommodate for all the people as well as keeping the utilities to standards.
*State Governors / Provincial Governors: State Governors job is to supervise the provinces while up keeping the standards set by the Tsar and to create/update state-wide projects and utilities. E.g train networks, power stations etc. Where Provincial Governors request and run projects strictly relating to their own province rather than state wide projects.
*Allocation of money: The allocation of money for projects state and provincial will only be allocated by the Imperial Cabinet. No money is allocated to state or provincial for general use. All money that is required for spending must be requested to the Imperial Cabinet for consideration via state government.
Reorganisation of the Ministry in Russia
Russia’s system of its current ministry would have to be dissolved into these new parts of system, the reason for this is the basis of governing the people with the people always having the ability to have their say to the governing populace, from the city mayor to the state government. Effectively this system will have the regulations and standards set from the Tsar, but will have the freedoms to carry the standards and have the ability of organisation at hand. To be selected for State cabinet positions for instance take minister of building relations, you would have had to have a prerequisite of being the minister of building relations at a provincial level. Also it helps eliminate corruption and boosts professionalism in the levels of government due to the ability’s, training and experience that is needed to be selected for the responsibilities in government at any level.
Reorganisation of States and Providences
For this to work effectively Russia would have to be divided into eighty providences, which will be further divided into ten states containing eight providences in each state. With attempts to group all providences together while also containing a populated city in each state making it the capital city and also making the parliament centre of the state. This reorganisation of the country would bring a new format to the country as a whole, which will be needed when nationalisation is brought into effect and industrialisation is brought back into effect.
Policies of Government
For a government to effectively hold power and serve the people , a number of areas need to be the key focus to effectively serve the growing issues of this era, The policies being of an ideal Autocratic government would be that, above all of the following:
In order to promote economic efficiency and sensible economic management the state will be required to temporally take control of all industry and required business’s in Russia. This will make the management more efficient and keep the money balanced in the country until the industry has returned properly into Russia, and the economy is stable enough to be privately owned. Also it would provide more funding for updating and creating certain areas of the industry that the country requires. Certain areas of business will remain government owned such as all utilities, certain weapons companies, ship yards and airports. Small businesses and other enterprises will remain free of state control, and compensation will be given to industry and businesses that have lost assets and infrastructure as part of these repossessions.
Pay wages and the Economy
In order to make sure that the Russian economy remains competitive, wages throughout the economy will be rationalized and jobs wages will be prioritized depending on the job demand. In order to make sure that all the citizens in all parts of society benefit from the expanding Russian economy. The state would enforce a business tax by sharing the profits of the company’s to the workforce by a percentage in relation to how more profit the company made extra in reference to before the taxation was put into effect, this would not only give a pay increase but it will give the workers the will to work and more motivation to get the work done to the best capability possible due to them receiving a benefit from it as well as countering the percentage of poor populace.
Extra allowances and Unwanted jobs
Jobs in the economy that are less desirable will be the subject of pay bonuses, in order to ensure that employment in these areas will remain high and competitive, this will therefore improve the attitude towards certain work force areas. As well as encourage the balance between all areas of the economy.
The goal of this new Russian economy will be self-sufficiency, and all economic policies and schemes wil be directed towards ensuring that Russia can successfully sustain itself without needing to lean onto other nations for support. The state would resurrect the industry’s again with supreme funding working alongside with the nationalisation policy, there for manufacturing and agriculture will be boosted to keep this in check, but also this will keep national pride in the workforce. That there tools, equipment and food is made in their land by their people. Once self-sufficiency has been reached the goal will become producing a surplus, and this surplus will be sold on the international market in order to generate increasing profits for Russia.
Basic Needs for the People of the Country
The government’s responsibility of protecting their people is more than just defense. It is keeping their people feed, housed and healthy. The state would make housing available while also offering healthcare as a free benefit while also keeping the government owned utilities at a acceptable price to give the people motivation to work, as well as to help fund the state. This will keep people healthy, happy, and fit for working therefore helping the country which would help the people; it’s a revolving circle which the people and country will benefit from.
The defence of people is a priority of a government; they need to take it into serious account.
Fulltime: The state would keep its full time military in a state of readiness, but due to the risk of danger the soldiers, sailors and airmen in the military are exposed to, all soldiers and family, above their normal wage for serving the country, receive complete free healthcare and benefits.
Part Time Reserves: There will be a compulsory conscription for the men and women of that country at the age of 18 for 24 months in the Nation Guard (with conscription excluding university students). This would not only keep the numbers of people in service up, but would also increase the selection ability with the amount of people that could be chosen from, but also being only part time they would not be required for deployment unless there is a direct national threat, this would reduce their attitude towards fighting overseas, also the extra pay benefits would encourage them to serve their country for their period of service.
Education is a prime necessity for the development of the country, and for that in check, it must be completely reorganized, due to the fact that a large portion of the country would have to be industrious to keep the country well supplied and run. Education will become free up till the end of middle school under this new system. Families with a lower income will receive extra funding from government in order to improve upon the reforms that have been made in the education system in the previous governments in Russia. Standard education would be compulsory till the end of middle school, at the end of middle school options of both industrious and university or other paths will be provided, the point however that must be put across is that primary and middle school is to standardize the education in the country, and high school is to start the career path for university candidates or people who wish to be further educated. And if a person wasn’t interested in progressing with high school both, they would be given the paths of trades or specialist training for their future career aspirations. High school would not be made free however still be made at a reasonable price.
6 years of Primary School = 3 years of Middle School = 2 pathways (1: university/ further education in high school) (2: Start of their career in work force doing an apprenticeship etc)
The benefits of this are clear, free education all around. The new reforms will enable Russian to reach its true potential on the global state.
Ministry All people in all fields will have the opportunity to run for election in their local area for the position of their profession in their local governing cabinet, then if wishing to proceed to advance their career the opportunity to run for election in the next advancement of cabinet will be offered. Political parties will be abolished for the fact that there is no need for them; the system will also deal with the issue of corruption. The eradication of corruption will be at the heart of reforms implemented by the new regime. More than any other problems in modern Russia corruption ensnares and destroys talent who would otherwise have lead Russia to even greater advancement and glory on the national stage. The new regime will be focused in its comprehensive annihilation of corruption at every level of government.
The main efforts of these policies I have put down are an example of what and how I believe a country should be run, and ruled, it covers the points that the government’s role to take care of their people from the homeless to the rich. With this in mind, the only way a country can properly ran and controlled is by a proper working Autocrat rule, it is decisive and it is quick thinking action that will keep its country going. The definition of a president is a person who is elected to preside over an organized body of people and to act in their best interests, in today’s age, presidents may be ‘voted’ to power however people still starve in their countries, still barely have enough money to rent accommodation for their family. In addition, the definition of Tsar is a male monarch, a father figure, with great power and responsibility that regulates and supervises a country. I believe that the difference between Tsar and a president of a country is to be a president of a country, they contain only the right of the welfare of the state, and to be elected was a life choice of theirs, where Tsar is a complete obligation of the welfare of their people, it isn’t just a job, it is lifestyle. For a person who rules a country, they need to be committed from start to death, for the position of head of state cannot be classified as a job if it is to be carried out with ultimate success. With saying that, the capitalist and democratic way of life serves no other purpose other than to save up your wealth, and to invest in international companies that serve no help to the people of that country, there for a mix between communism and capitalism is needed, to form not only new side of government, but almost a new playing field that would start putting other countries below the standard of this new way of country. It will be a new working, self-sufficient, Autocratic way of living and ruling of the people.
|Posted by Titanium on December 1, 2012 at 7:45 AM||comments (3)|
Even here, to many the following might seem as ramblings of a school-boy. But it still seems worth sharing. It is based, in part, at least, on the ideas of the late head of the House of Habsburg. It would not mean a restoration of Austro-Hungary, for which many think was something ideal, but if it were, it would not have collapsed. The Danube Federation would not be a union of about ten nations in one state, but a federation composed of six states, with the personal union as a most obviuos and direct connection.
A federation is, by its very definition, a political entity characterized by a union of sovereign states. The Danube Federation would be something above nationality, or economic benefit, a certain and plain ''Viribus Unitis''. And, lastley, it would mean the replacement of six presidents with one monarch, belonging to the House of Habsburg.
The politics of the Danube Federation would take place in a framework of a system of a federation of constitutional hereditary monarchies, connected by one monarch. This one monarch is a countries Head of State who is responsible for the executive government, and every nation elects its own Head of Government, responsible for security, immigration issues, education, public health, currency, communications services, labor relations, etc., and confirmed by the monarch. The Federal Council is composed of deputies from six countries and presided by the monarch. It would be responsible for foreign policy, ratifing treaties, etc. I, personally, would be very glad if it could achieve permanent neutrality of the six states. There would be, needless to say, no monetary union.
The anthem of the Federation would be ''God preserve, God protect'', by Joseph Haydn, and sung in an appropriate of the six languages. Also, each decree of the Federal Council would be written in the six languages.
The monarch would have to be crowned or enthroned in each state of the Federation, in order to ephasise its sovereignity. The full title and style of the monarch would be something like this: His (Imperial and) Royal (Apostolic) Majesty, by the Grace of God and the will of the Nations, Emperor (or King) of Austria, (Apostolic) King of Hungary, King of Bohemia (or Czech Kingdom), King of Croatia, Grand Duke (or King) of Slovakia, and Grand Duke (or King) of Slovenia. I belive that the austrian title should remain imperial, even though some say this way it would seem like Austria is cut above everyone else. To my knowledge, ''Emperor'' in the ''Emperor of Austria'' is a reminiscence of ''Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire'', that is why I want it preserved. Any way, in Croatia, for instance, he would be known simply as His Royal majesty, the King of Croatia, because in Croatia he is nothing else. The monarchs children would be Archdukes of Austria and Imperial and Royal Princes of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia. Minor members of the House of Habsburg would only be Archdukes of Austria. Women would be able to inherit only if there are no male heirs, in order to insure a direct male line. The monarch would pay tax. He should make several public appereances a year in every country, and host a public reception, where anyone could come and see him. His official residences would be:
• Hofburg Palace (in Vienna, Austria; with the Ball of Officers and the Opera Ball becoming State occasions)
• Sándor Palace or Buda Castle (in Budapest, Hungary)
• Prague Castle (in Prague, Bohemia)
• Dverce Palace (in Zagreb, Croatia)
• Grassalkovich Palace or Bratislava Castle (in Bratislava, Slovakia)
• Governmental and Presidential Palace (in Ljubljana, Slovenia; renamed to Royal Palace)
The monarch would be first among equals. All decisions of the government must be signed by the monarch. The monarch must see that the Constitution is observed. He will ensure the proper functioning of public authorities and the continuity of the State and the Federation. He will be the guarantor of national independence, territorial integrity and observance of treaties and laws. Among the powers of the monarch:
• has veto power
• can propose laws
• makes appointments to the civil and military posts of the State
• may dissolve parliment, when it is necessary, after consulting the Prime Minister (N. B. he needs to give a reason)
• may refer treaties or certain types of laws to popular referendum
• is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
• represents DF in international relations (but shares power with the Federal Council)
• confirms a Prime minister, and can dismiss him (together with the Cabinet) if it is necesary (e. g. requested by the people)
• authorized to rule by emergency decree in times of crisis (see above)
• accredits foreign ambassadors and recieves Heads of State
• confers honours and decorations (Order of the Golden Fleece, Military Order of Maria Theresa, Order of Saint Stephen of Hungary, Order of the Iron Crown and others would be re-established)
• may grant pardon or amnesty to convicted criminals
I know all this is somewhat unreal, but necessary to restore monarhies here, and I will support it in every way I can.
If you symbolically want to show your support, you can go to ''Die Monarchisten: Schwarz-Gelbe allianz'', click on ''Unterstützen'' and choose ''Außerordentliche Mitgliedschaft'', or simply like their Facbook page.
|Posted by The Black Baron on February 26, 2012 at 11:30 PM||comments (1)|
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."
|Posted by Caesarevich on January 28, 2012 at 11:40 PM||comments (6)|
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!
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
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!
|Posted by The Black Baron on January 20, 2012 at 5:55 PM||comments (6)|
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
|Posted by Rt. Hon. Viscount Ralph of Morris on October 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM||comments (0)|
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.
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.