The monarchy poll

[Viking]

Poll is under way.

If you would like to abolish/maintain status quo in your own country, but have "no" opinion on monarchism in general, go for one of the two latter options.

"would like it different" --> yes, that would mean "I want my country to become a monarchy."

Edit: Second option should read:

"I live in a monarchy and want to abolish status quo. I am also against monarchism in general."

Need some mod assistance here. :oops:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I beat the poll.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Seeing how authoritarianism is not much different from monarchy, I will go ahead and support it, although I realise authoritarianism suits best only certain types of countries, usually the struggling ones.

[gaelic cowboy]

Down with that sort of thing off with there heads i say and all that sort of thingy

[Aemilius Paulus]

Down with that sort of thing off with there heads i say and all that sort of thingy
So you support the death penalty without the due process of law? :juggle2::laugh4:

[gaelic cowboy]

So you support the death penalty without the due process of law? :juggle2::laugh4:

You betcha seeing as they did it first our mob rule will carry on the tradition

[Aemilius Paulus]

You betcha seeing as they did it first our mob rule will carry on the tradition
Hmmm, I suppose you do have a point... But what if they are just?

[Meneldil]

I don't support monarchism in general, as the very basis of this political system seem totally undemocratic to me.
I absolutely loath it in my own country, as it is strongely tied to nationalism, antisemitism, racism, fascism and generally all kind of right-wing nutjobness.

But if people who live under monarchies are okay with it, then I guess that's their own problem. I'm not for the abolishment of monarchy on a world-wide scale.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmmm, I suppose you do have a point... But what if they are just?

Indeed and what if the mob has grounds too we could throw remarks all night I follow the Father Ted maxim Down with that sort of thing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM)

[Aemilius Paulus]

antisemitism,
Funny you say so, because the tyrant Napoleon "emancipated" the Jews, and not the other perpetrators of the French Revolution who believed in democracy...

[Sarmatian]

I absolutely loath it in my own country, as it is strongely tied to nationalism, antisemitism, racism, fascism and generally all kind of right-wing nutjobness.


I may as well just quote this as it's the same in my country.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Seeing how authoritarianism is not much different from monarchy, I will go ahead and support it, although I realise authoritarianism suits best only certain types of countries, usually the struggling ones.

There is a whole spectrum of monarchies, they don't necessarily have to be any more authoritarian than any other system.

But I am in general opposed to the idea. There are plenty of ways to ensure stability without a hereditary succession, and inbreeding is always an issue (and that's a serious point as well).

[gaelic cowboy]

Does Norway not count as a constitiounal monarchy

Now that I think some democracy's have president's very close to monarchs. Ireland's President can be appointed by the Dail if all sides of the House agree this has happened three times so far in the last thirty years. Also the Job of our president is broadly simmilar to a monarch no power but still head of state. Hmm time to sharpen up the pikes maybe

[Aemilius Paulus]

But I am in general opposed to the idea. There are plenty of ways to ensure stability without a hereditary succession, and inbreeding is always an issue (and that's a serious point as well).
Then why is there so much instability in this world? Perhaps you can enlighten us :P. And I do not believe inbreeding is still an issue :inquisitive:...

[gaelic cowboy]

Then why is there so much instability in this world? Perhaps you can enlighten us :P. And I do not believe inbreeding is still an issue :inquisitive:...

Why was the world unstable before largescale democracy too could be thrown back at you.

[Meneldil]

Funny you say so, because the tyrant Napoleon "emancipated" the Jews, and not the other perpetrators of the French Revolution who believed in democracy...

No. Jews received complete citizenship right after the Revolution, in july 1791 (the discussion on this topic started in july, the law was signed by the king in october). Many well known revolutionaries supported it since the very first days of the Revolution: Mirabeau, Malesherbes, Grégoire, Robespierre...

Napoléon only confirmed the decrees taken by the National Assembly. Napoléon was openly antisemit, never trusted the jews and only let them have their full citizenship to avoid disorder. When he signed the Concordat, he made it clear that catholicism was more trustworthy than judaism.

[Viking]

Does Norway not count as a constitiounal monarchy

You need to travel no further than to the UK.

[gaelic cowboy]

You need to travel no further than to the UK.

Nah everyone knows the Lizard Aliens are the actually monarchs of England:yes:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Napoléon only confirmed the decrees taken by the National Assembly. Napoléon was openly antisemit, never trusted the jews and only let them have their full citizenship to avoid disorder. When he signed the Concordat.
Yes, you certainly have a good point there.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There's this bar in Paris, what's it called,it has an original guillotine. Still in mint condition, fully functioning. Way cool.


I shall never understand why adults don't want to have the right to elect their own government. Might as well re-install lesser nobility, so you don't need to have any aspirations of getting to govern at the local level either.
Speaking of which, just re-instate feudalism outright. More bosses to kneel down to, for those with a mind for petty grovelling.

[gaelic cowboy]

Agreed

[Beskar]

Anyone who supports monarchism who are not a monarch, is pretty much foolish.

Monarchy - Great for the Monarch, Very Bad for the Rest.

(And just for Louis:
Revolution - Very Bad for the Monarch, Very Good for the Rest. )

[miotas]

[...]Now that I think some democracy's have president's very close to monarchs. Ireland's President can be appointed by the Dail if all sides of the House agree this has happened three times so far in the last thirty years. Also the Job of our president is broadly simmilar to a monarch no power but still head of state. Hmm time to sharpen up the pikes maybe

I think it's interesting how the president of the US holds more political power within their system, than any one person holds within the political system of our constitutional monarchy. (AP, You may want to reassess which systems you consider more authoritarian :juggle2:)


[...], and inbreeding is always an issue (and that's a serious point as well).

Probably why the danish prince married a tassie :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

[Edit: Second option should read:

"I live in a monarchy and want to abolish status quo. I am also against monarchism in general."

Need some mod assistance here. :oops:

Fixed as requested. :bow:

[Fisherking]

I live under a government and don’t particularly support governments in general...but what ya gona do?
:laugh4:

[Beskar]

Yeah, if you didn't fix it, I would have been really upset, as I only selected that option as it was meant to be the fixed one. :beam:

I don't want to be accused of supporting a Monarchy.

[Viking]

I shall never understand why adults don't want to have the right to elect their own government. Might as well re-install lesser nobility, so you don't need to have any aspirations of getting to govern at the local level either.
Speaking of which, just re-instate feudalism outright. More bosses to kneel down to, for those with a mind for petty grovelling.


Anyone who supports monarchism who are not a monarch, is pretty much foolish.

Monarchy - Great for the Monarch, Very Bad for the Rest.

(And just for Louis:
Revolution - Very Bad for the Monarch, Very Good for the Rest. )

This is only tangential though; most western monarchs have no real power. Else I think this could have been renamed to the "Do you want to live in a dictatorship?" poll. ~;)

The modern monarchies might seem kind of pointless from some viewing angles, including mine, and I'd like to abolish them because I feel that placing some people above the rest in such a peculiar constitution granted way isn't quite right; even if just symbolic. And for me, this has nothing to do with democracy at all.


Fixed as requested. :bow:

Merci.

[Centurion1]

Then why is there so much instability in this world? Perhaps you can enlighten us :P. And I do not believe inbreeding is still an issue ...


bah authoritarianism is great in the first one or two generations. And then the leaders get weaker and weaker and weaker. And don't you dare say England prospered. They had god knows how many dynasties.

Personally i think a benevolent dictatorship is a great form of governemnt but a hereditary succession is foolish, government should always be first and foremost a meritocracy of sorts as should the military.

[Aemilius Paulus]

bah authoritarianism is great in the first one or two generations. And then the leaders get weaker and weaker and weaker.
We are working on that :evil::evil2::evil3:

[Kralizec]

I live in a constitutional monarchy and I'd like to see it abolished in my lifetime. There ought to be a referendum about it.

[edyzmedieval]

I live in a semi-presidential republic but I want the monarchy to come back to power. I always supported the royal family. For Romania, the time of the kings was the Golden Age.

[Sarmatian]

bah authoritarianism is great in the first one or two generations. And then the leaders get weaker and weaker and weaker. And don't you dare say England prospered. They had god knows how many dynasties.


I believe UK is ruled by the same dynasty for the last several hundred years


I live in a semi-presidential republic but I want the monarchy to come back to power. I always supported the royal family. For Romania, the time of the kings was the Golden Age.

Idealistic nonsense. I hear the same things right here. We're backward now, but before ww2, the Balkans were like Africa compared to western Europe.

[Lemur]

Monarchs are kinda cute. You know, it's like having your very own Stonehenge, or a eunuch. Some things are so anachronistic they're kind of adorable.

[miotas]

Monarchs are kinda cute. You know, it's like having your very own Stonehenge, or a eunuch. Some things are so anachronistic they're kind of adorable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYqZOMCkk2w#t=5m01s ~D

[Fisherking]

I believe UK is ruled by the same dynasty for the last several hundred years.


Yes! Germans!:laugh4:

[CountArach]

Australian Republican here. Completely opposed to Monarchy on the grounds that no one human being is better than any other at birth.

[Fragony]

They day they get a french shave I will be in cheering on the square, I hate the royal family with a passion. Used to dislike them, but their behaviour has become borderline criminal. That fat :daisy: head on a stake.

[pevergreen]

Australian Republican here. Completely opposed to Monarchy on the grounds that no one human being is better than any other at birth.



Thats a good enough reason, lets go with that!

[Fisherking]

No! I am done with voting... It isn’t that you ever get anyone better than the last one.:embarassed:

I’ll take a chance, lets go with government by lottery... do you think it can be much worse?


:laugh4:

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I do not live in a monarchy and would like it different. I do also support monarchism in general.

That's my opinion.
Actually, there are many people I know who would support monarchy in Estonia.
However, most of them are happy with the current system too so .. :shrug:
Perhaps some prince/princess from Scandinavia is available?

[Fragony]

Perhaps some prince/princess from Scandinavia is available?

How about ours! Please take them. I really couldn't say it better

[tibilicus]

Australian Republican here. Completely opposed to Monarchy on the grounds that no one human being is better than any other at birth.

Currently dispatching a letter to warn HMQ about your act of treason. Expect to see the royal fleet and the redcoats landing on the NSW coast within two weeks.

[CountArach]

Currently dispatching a letter to warn HMQ about your act of treason. Expect to see the royal fleet and the redcoats landing on the NSW coast within two weeks.
They couldn't be more obnoxious than the Barmy Army really.

[HoreTore]

That's my opinion.
Actually, there are many people I know who would support monarchy in Estonia.
However, most of them are happy with the current system too so .. :shrug:
Perhaps some prince/princess from Scandinavia is available?

If you take our angel-talking princess and Ari Behn away from us, we'll make your birthday a national holiday.


Cut their heads off, I say.

[Cronos Impera]

In Romania we have the next problem.

a) No Romanian will ever look to another Romanian as his superior
b) A fetish obsession with foreign powers

a + b = An English-Germanic dynasty to rule over Romania

The Parliment picked a German prince to rule Romania because they had to save themselves from themselves. The greatest advantage was that he could actually bring the liberals and conservatives to work on the same project without the usual endless discussions and negotiations.

That German prince assasinated the national poet, exiled the elected ruler "domn in Romanian" to die in poverty as a refugee. He also built a strong military, restored Dobrudja to Romania and expanded the industry. His succesor married an English princess who adopted Romanian national clothes, learned to speak Romanian and helped unite the country.
Even though she was an Anglican and her housband a Lutheran, she baptised her children in the Orthodox rite.She is still reveared in Romania and worshipped more than any other political figure.
When asked why he waged war against his inbred Hohelzollern family Ferdiand said: I am a Romanian!

Unfortunately his son Charles II was more famous for his romantic affairs than for his poltical ones and was so incompetent that his own father had him erased from the fammily tree, and instated a regency. Charles II ousted the regents and instated himself as absolute monarch, brought his bankers and friends to form a "Council" and resigned when WW2 came knocking at the door.Even his son rebukes him.

Michael I was king only on paper, as he was pawn to Vasile Lukas and Anna Pauker when the soviets came.His son-in-law now runs for the presidential elections as an independent, a sort of Romanian Ronald Reagan (dumb and handsome).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I dislike the current German system, and would like to change rather a lot of it. This includes the installation of a monarch to replace our President. If our choice comes down to a useless unelected President and a next-to-useless unelected monarch, I'll take the monarch. If His Imperial and Royal Highness Georg Friedrich, The Prince of Prussia was willing to take the throne as a consitutional monarch overseeing a democratic system, I would support him.

[lars573]

Australian Republican here. Completely opposed to Monarchy on the grounds that no one human being is better than any other at birth.
This statement is such farcical republicanist fantasy it gives me great lulz. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


I support a monarchy in any nation. Doesn't even have to be hereditary. Malaysia gets by just fine electing a king every 5 years or so from among the members states Sultans and Rajas.

[Beskar]

This statement is such farcical republicanist fantasy it gives me great lulz. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The irony in that statement.

[lars573]

I suck at the written word. I know. Still if you don't know about the birth lottery your living in a dream world.

[Beskar]

Maybe people want to change the world?

No one is born superior to others, we were all babies. Anyone who actually advocates a monarch is foolish.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Anyone who actually advocates a monarch is foolish.

I can just as easily say, and indeed I do, that anyone who actually advocates any kind of socialism is foolish. The glory of politics.

[Beskar]

I can just as easily say, and indeed I do, that anyone who actually advocates any kind of socialism is foolish. The glory of politics.

:laugh4: the irony is, I am not advocating something detrimental to myself. "Foolish" actually has a context and meaning.

Only people who benefit from Monarchs are Monarch themselves, anyone who suggests otherwise is foolish. Anyone who benefits from no-regulation and exploitation of economics are the exploiters themselves, anyone who suggests otherwise is foolish.

Also, to further clarify the point, you also think of more than yourself (a concept you are not familiar with) which thereby shows that the vast majority are not monarchs, which thereby shows the vast majority are the exploited, therefore, we must remove the exploiters of both political power and economic power for the benefit for all.

Pretty easy, huh?

[lars573]

Maybe people want to change the world?
Most nations of the world are republics. The world has changed. Changing it again would be installing monarchies.


No one is born superior to others, we were all babies. Anyone who actually advocates a monarch is foolish.
Some people are infact born superior to others. And I don't mean birth defects or low intelligence. You and I were born into western nations. We were superior at birth. Not from anything innate. But because of our opportunities as we grew up. And speaking for myself I didn't even hit the birth lottery jackpot. I wasn't born rich into a western society.

I think republics, and their supporters, are foolish. And I consider US and French style republics to the height of political folly.

[Beskar]

I think republics, and their supporters, are foolish. And I consider US and French style republics to the high of political folly.

You are comparing what I believe in with those systems, the next stage would be a Switzerland style system.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

:laugh4: the irony is, I am not advocating something detrimental to myself.

I do not believe I am. I believe that you are.


Only people who benefit from Monarchs are Monarch themselves, anyone who suggests otherwise is foolish.

This is like saying that the only people who benefit from politics are politicians. It isn't true, especially when the monarch is limited by a constitution and a Parliament. How do we benefit more from our President than we would from a return of the Emperor?


(a concept you are not familiar with)

:juggle2::laugh4:

[Viking]

Some people are infact born superior to others. And I don't mean birth defects or low intelligence. You and I were born into western nations. We were superior at birth. Not from anything innate. But because of our opportunities as we grew up. And speaking for myself I didn't even hit the birth lottery jackpot. I wasn't born rich into a western society.


Then they are not born superior, but into superior enviroments.

[lars573]

Your arguing semantics.


You are comparing what I believe in with those systems, the next stage would be a Switzerland style system.
*shivers* Even worse than a presidential system is the Swiss system.

[Beskar]

Your arguing semantics.

Nope, there is just a clear difference.


*shivers* Even worse than a presidential system is the Swiss system.

:juggle2:

[Viking]

Your arguing semantics.

Not at all, not at all. Being born superior implies that they are born with superior traits; whereas being born into a superior enviroment implies nothing about the persons themselves. I believe this is what CA was getting at. Obviously, royals are not born with superman powers. At the same time, they never, or to a little extent, have to prove themselves as the most worthy for the position. That's the argument.

[Cronos Impera]

The advantage of a monarchy is that you can monitor easily the Government.And if your monarch is a rusty moron, a simple bullet can end his suffering and yours.
Not like a Democracy, where the laws of Psychohistorical Neccesity mean you have to pull a mountain behind you to actualy prevail.
Stopping a monarch is far easier than stopping a mob.You also have to spill less blood in the process.

[Kralizec]

Hey Lars, wich qualities does Charles Windsor possess that are lacking in Sarkozy or Obama?

I won't go as far as saying that supporting monarchy is foolish, but inductive reasoning has led me to believe there are no rational reasons to do so because I've certainly never heard one. It all boils down to emotional attachment. I hope our crown prince turns out to be a walking embarassment once he's king.

[Fragony]

Hey Lars, wich qualities does Charles Windsor possess that are lacking in Sarkozy or Obama?

I won't go as far as saying that supporting monarchy is foolish, but inductive reasoning has led me to believe there are no rational reasons to do so because I've certainly never heard one. It all boils down to emotional attachment. I hope our crown prince turns out to be a walking embarassment once he's king.


As if the waterprince with his :daisy: and his fat children isn't emberassing enough as it is. That guy has an IQ of 90 at best. That breadhead Beatrix at least is one shrewd and ruthless piece of work. Gah to that family.

To combine my opinion with the finer arts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEZX3hzIXiQ

[Sarmatian]

The advantage of a monarchy is that you can monitor easily the Government.And if your monarch is a rusty moron, a simple bullet can end his suffering and yours.
Not like a Democracy, where the laws of Psychohistorical Neccesity mean you have to pull a mountain behind you to actualy prevail.
Stopping a monarch is far easier than stopping a mob.You also have to spill less blood in the process.

Why is it easier to monitor the government in a monarchy than in a republic?

[CountArach]

Your arguing semantics.
A person is completely divisible without from their environment, hence there is no semantic claim to be made.

[Cronos Impera]

Because you know all relations and liasons that form the council and its easier to keep an eye on those men than in a republic, where every president has his own retinue, where you find yourself in an endless loop.

In a democracy there is no need of change. All you need is a couple of strong parties with charismatic leaders, in a constant rotation to desecrate the land and blood. You elected a MP, who said he would change things and make the world go round. He was only bringing his henchmen to gather their government contracts, his advisers to collect their wages and his sponsors government loans.He was just as worthless as the guy behind him. Than you vote the guy before him back.Than you become indifferent to the administration, you don't even go to vote.You simply stop caring.

In Romania the MP's have grown accustomed to the following ritual. 4 years in office, 4 years at home. And they get pensions greater than anyone and still move their contracts better than anyone.They spit in each others faces in prime time, while kissing in private.

When republicanism decays, its better to incinerate it than to keep a sickly carrion inside your home.Imprison the MP's, proclaim a Kingdom, rule for a couple of years and than face a bloody revolution.Than pe ousted from power by the exiled MP's who are now ringleaders of the revolution, supported by XXXXXXX. That is healthy politics.

[Kralizec]

Cronos, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be a fan of your hypothetical monarch if he were to follow the exact same policy wich your incumbent politicians are now following.

How exactly is a bloody revolution, followed by stagnation and political apathy for a couple of decades, followed by another bloody revolution "healthier" than getting to bloodlessly elect your oligarchs every four years or so?

[lars573]

Hey Lars, wich qualities does Charles Windsor possess that are lacking in Sarkozy or Obama?

I won't go as far as saying that supporting monarchy is foolish, but inductive reasoning has led me to believe there are no rational reasons to do so because I've certainly never heard one. It all boils down to emotional attachment. I hope our crown prince turns out to be a walking embarassment once he's king.
Considering all three come from an aristocratic background. All are about even.



A person is completely divisible without from their environment, hence there is no semantic claim to be made.
But how likely is it? Under normal cercumstances not very.

[naut]

In a completely figurehead, tradition-based, not for use for show, kinda way I support monarchy. Provides a link to history, etc.

[Cronos Impera]

Cronos, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be a fan of your hypothetical monarch if he were to follow the exact same policy wich your incumbent politicians are now following.

How exactly is a bloody revolution, followed by stagnation and political apathy for a couple of decades, followed by another bloody revolution "healthier" than getting to bloodlessly elect your oligarchs every four years or so?

Its healthier because the oligarchs lose nothing if they are ousted from power. The monarch risks losing his head (trust me; we Romanians have an expert regicide mob).We had the last autocrat executed along with his wife, Vlad Tepes (Dracula) assassinated along with his heir, and many others).

As long as the oligarchs and monarchists ware busy slaughtering each other, the administration went well, taxes ware low, economy was booming....all the nice things happened.

Its easier to fear the mob when you're a single monarch than when you are an oligarch among many other such oligarchs, so the monarch is busy appeasing the mob, unlike the oligarchs who fear nothing because they are many and widely dispersed.
Eventually one monarch gets the message and starts working "for" the mob and not against it.
The Oligarchy can only feint competition among themselves to keep the mob busy and impoverished.

Oligarchy vs. Monarchy is like Trust vs Monopoly. Monopolies are easier to control than trusts.

[Furunculus]

Britain's constitutional monarchy has proven VERY successful in the past.
There is nothing wrong with Britain's constitutional monarchy now.
I see no reason to change Britain's constitutional monarchy in future.

nuff said.

[Kralizec]

Considering all three come from an aristocratic background. All are about even.

I'll assume that by "aristocratic" you mean well-off, rather than noble born (Sarkozy has noble heritage, Obama does not as far as I know)

Based on that, I guess that you'd rate George Bush jr. above Bill Clinton, since the former is born from Old Money and the latter came from a poor family in Arkansas?

[Meneldil]

As long as the oligarchs and monarchists ware busy slaughtering each other, the administration went well, taxes ware low, economy was booming....all the nice things happened.


Taxes and growth are not tied to any political system. Under Louis XVI, some corporations were taxed up to 85%. Most peasants had to send 3/4 of their production to some other people. And that was after many reforms. Things were way worse under Louis XIV. So yeah, but no.

Monarchism has no support other than an irrational emotional attachement. You don't need it "to have a link to history", to feel proud of your country, to feel like being a member of a nation. They don't rule better than other people and are just as corrupt.
The only difference is that I can kick my governement or president out of office. You cannot kick a king except through a revolution, a murder or a civil war.

I have yet to read a single reason why monarchies are more effective or better than any other system. There's a lot of ideological and emotional gibberish, but valid arguments? No m'am, we don't have those so far.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have yet to read a single reason why monarchies are more effective or better than any other system. There's a lot of ideological and emotional gibberish, but valid arguments? No m'am, we don't have those so far.

Perhaps you should dig up one of my old threads were I posted logical reasons as to why having a monarch would work, at least in Germany.

[Cronos Impera]

Taxes and growth are not tied to any political system. Under Louis XVI, some corporations were taxed up to 85%. Most peasants had to send 3/4 of their production to some other people. And that was after many reforms. Things were way worse under Louis XIV. So yeah, but no.

Monarchism has no support other than an irrational emotional attachement. You don't need it "to have a link to history", to feel proud of your country, to feel like being a member of a nation. They don't rule better than other people and are just as corrupt.
The only difference is that I can kick my governement or president out of office. You cannot kick a king except through a revolution, a murder or a civil war.

I have yet to read a single reason why monarchies are more effective or better than any other system. There's a lot of ideological and emotional gibberish, but valid arguments? No m'am, we don't have those so far.

First of all, I politely tried to avoid countering you in your first fallacy.....errr post.
If a Jewish First Council, a promise for Palestine, the eradication of the Inquisition and such cannot convince your nothingain joycamptoured French Jacobite education that Napoleon was filo-semitic than you are a Gunbortionist and thread-killer. I still feel the numbing sickness that your first post gave me.

Try using normal logic and normal OrgSoc speakwrite, you Monarchy-unbellyfeeler.

Than I'll consider your posts worthy of a reply.

Bonne Soir, ami.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If a Jewish First Council, a promise for Palestine, the eradication of the Inquisition and such cannot convince your nothingain joycamptoured French Jacobite education that Napoleon was filo-semitic than you are a Gunbortionist and thread-killer.

What was that?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm going to quote that here just to outwit the delete once the mushrooms wear off. :beam:



First of all, I politely tried to avoid countering you in your first fallacy.....errr post.
If a Jewish First Council, a promise for Palestine, the eradication of the Inquisition and such cannot convince your nothingain joycamptoured French Jacobite education that Napoleon was filo-semitic than you are a Gunbortionist and thread-killer. I still feel the numbing sickness that your first post gave me.

Try using normal logic and normal OrgSoc speakwrite, you Monarchy-unbellyfeeler.

Than I'll consider your posts worthy of a reply.

Bonne Soir, ami.

[Fragony]

I have yet to read a single reason why monarchies are more effective or better than any other system. There's a lot of ideological and emotional gibberish, but valid arguments? No m'am, we don't have those so far.

It can function as a political stabiliser when there is something above national politics. But yeah let's get rif of it, the queen has WAY too much power, behind the scenes she's pulling all the strings. She is very able, clever and ruthless, but our crownprince is, to put it mildly, ahum, not the brightest. He has annoyed a lot of people with his arrogant behaviour.

[HoreTore]

It can function as a political stabiliser when there is something above national politics. But yeah let's get rif of it, the queen has WAY too much power, behind the scenes she's pulling all the strings. She is very able, clever and ruthless, but our crownprince is, to put it mildly, ahum, not the brightest. He has annoyed a lot of people with his arrogant behaviour.

Political stabilizer?

Since when did a fully functioning western democracy need one of those?

[Furunculus]

we can rule out greece as a fully functioning western democracy then...........?

[Fragony]

Political stabilizer?

Since when did a fully functioning western democracy need one of those?

Don't say they do, I am against monarchy for the same reason you are, people should be judged on merit not on birth, but monarchies are more stable because many key-positions are appointed by the crown, be that good or bad.

[rvg]

Don't care about monarchy as long as nobody tries to establish it on US soil.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Monarchies work relatively well if the monarch has little (executive) power and is mostly a ceremonial figure of considerable esteem.

As Fragony said a ceremonial position above national (or rather: regional) politics can help to prevent ‘infighting’ and also provide a face to the world that is consistent for longer than, say, a presidential term. The latter is particularly useful when dealing with factions/parties/countries/w/ever who do not lay their trust in the hands of someone they may never see again; political entities that do not think in terms of office and do not have much appreciation for party policy which may see a successor impose radical new [typically, less favourable] policies towards them.

Also, it's worth remembering that monarchies come in zillions of different flavours; and quite a few are little but a primus inter pares position and others a glorified puppet.

[Fragony]

Monarchies work relatively well if the monarch has little (executive) power and is mostly a ceremonial figure of considerable esteem.


But there is where it goes wrong, make no mistake about the dutch royal family they are extremely powerfull, and not just in the Netherlands.

[HoreTore]

we can rule out greece as a fully functioning western democracy then...........?

Since when have I ever counted any Balkan state as "fully functional".....?


Don't say they do, I am against monarchy for the same reason you are, people should be judged on merit not on birth, but monarchies are more stable because many key-positions are appointed by the crown, be that good or bad.

For third-world countries, perhaps.... But then again, they're in all kinds of trouble anyway. Western democracies are as stable as they get, there is no need for a stabilizer.

[Furunculus]

Since when have I ever counted any Balkan state as "fully functional".....?

lol, quite so. :laugh4:

Britain's constitutional monarchy has proven VERY successful in the past.
There is nothing wrong with Britain's constitutional monarchy now.
I see no reason to change Britain's constitutional monarchy in future.

let it be noted that my views above are limited to the British monarchy and Britain, they should not be extrapolated further.

[Fragony]

For third-world countries, perhaps.... But then again, they're in all kinds of trouble anyway. Western democracies are as stable as they get, there is no need for a stabilizer.

The Netherlands and the Scandinavian country's are the richest nations of the world by a landslide, a queen visiting has more oomph than a mere minister of foreign affairs. Just because the idea is old-fashioned, and again, I am with you and CountArach and I want it gone out of principle, but the monarchy has brought us a lot of good. But then we have the problem of our current queen being an ace, and our crownprince would shame droopy.

[edyzmedieval]

Idealistic nonsense. I hear the same things right here. We're backward now, but before ww2, the Balkans were like Africa compared to western Europe.

In Serbia maybe, but in Romania 1920's and 1930s there will never be again such a period. I have first hand account - my grandfather, who was in his 20s in 1930s.

[HoreTore]

In Serbia maybe, but in Romania 1920's and 1930s there will never be again such a period. I have first hand account - my grandfather, who was in his 20s in 1930s.

Yes, I hear they even had access to toilets! One for each village of course, but still...

[Meneldil]

First of all, I politely tried to avoid countering you in your first fallacy.....errr post.
If a Jewish First Council, a promise for Palestine, the eradication of the Inquisition and such cannot convince your nothingain joycamptoured French Jacobite education that Napoleon was filo-semitic than you are a Gunbortionist and thread-killer. I still feel the numbing sickness that your first post gave me.

Try using normal logic and normal OrgSoc speakwrite, you Monarchy-unbellyfeeler.

Than I'll consider your posts worthy of a reply.

Bonne Soir, ami.

Hello.
I don't know where you got the idea that Napoléon was a philo-semit. Because he wasn't. As you don't consider my posts worthy of a reply, I'm not going to consider yours worthy of much my time. Though I find it funny, in a somewhat disturbing way.
However, as I'm not *that* bad., here's a book (http://www.amazon.com/Shaping-Jewish-Identity-Nineteenth-Century-France/dp/0814320120) that might be worthy of your consideration. It perfectly explains how Napoléon's policy toward the jewish community was only instrumental, and how he actually made it perfectly clear that neither Jews nor their religion were his cup of tea. He stated it during official meetings, it has been recorded on papers by his assistants and people working at the Conseil d'Etat. You're free to claim he was actually only pretending to not like them though. I'd disagree with it, but heh.

I plead guilty to the gunbortionist claim. And I think you meant French Jacobine education, as I don't really have any attachement to the Stuart dynasty.


Edit: Wow, just saw your post in the watchtower. Well, despite what you may think about what I think, this is not based on my personal opinions. I actually like (or respect) Napoléon quite a lot, thank you. Fact is, emancipation of the Jews started way before he came into power. Fact is, Napoléon didn't like Jews and Judaism, never harmed them much - though he did at time, most notably in Alsace - and actually further enforced their emancipation. If you can't wrap that around your head, well I don't know what else to say.


In Serbia maybe, but in Romania 1920's and 1930s there will never be again such a period. I have first hand account - my grandfather, who was in his 20s in 1930s.
My great grandfather used to think life was better in the 20's, even though he had to find a job at 15 and his only way to leave his hometown was to join the army. My grandfather thought life was better in the 50's. And my father thinks life was better in the 80's.
Nothing extraordinary here.

I'm not saying the Romanian monarchy was bad or anything, as I clearly have no clue about that. It just that the whole "life was so much better when I was young" argument is used by all old people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And I think you meant French Jacobine education, as I don't really have any attachement to the Stuart dynasty.

lol, I was curious about that.

[Cronos Impera]

Hello.
I don't know where you got the idea that Napoléon was a philo-semit. Because he wasn't. As you don't consider my posts worthy of a reply, I'm not going to consider yours worthy of much my time. Though I find it funny, in a somewhat disturbing way.
However, as I'm not *that* bad., here's a book (http://www.amazon.com/Shaping-Jewish-Identity-Nineteenth-Century-France/dp/0814320120) that might be worthy of your consideration. It perfectly explains how Napoléon's policy toward the jewish community was only instrumental, and how he actually made it perfectly clear that neither Jews nor their religion were his cup of tea. He stated it during official meetings, it has been recorded on papers by his assistants and people working at the Conseil d'Etat. You're free to claim he was actually only pretending to not like them though. I'd disagree with it, but heh.

I plead guilty to the gunbortionist claim. And I think you meant French Jacobine education, as I don't really have any attachement to the Stuart dynasty.


Edit: Wow, just saw your post in the watchtower. Well, despite what you may think about what I think, this is not based on my personal opinions. I actually like (or respect) Napoléon quite a lot, thank you. Fact is, emancipation of the Jews started way before he came into power. Fact is, Napoléon didn't like Jews and Judaism, never harmed them much - though he did at time, most notably in Alsace - and actually further enforced their emancipation. If you can't wrap that around your head, well I don't know what else to say.


My great grandfather used to think life was better in the 20's, even though he had to find a job at 15 and his only way to leave his hometown was to join the army. My grandfather thought life was better in the 50's. And my father thinks life was better in the 80's.
Nothing extraordinary here.

I'm not saying the Romanian monarchy was bad or anything, as I clearly have no clue about that. It just that the whole "life was so much better when I was young" argument is used by all old people.



Surely Napoleons' plan for the Jews was based upon political considerations rather than emotional ones, like all political decisions. But the Mesia for Jewry was Napoleon, not Marat. Why would a they make a prayer for the Emperour to be recited in the Synagogue if the Emperour wasn't their No.1 ally. That prayer praises not the glorious Revolution or the Fall of Bastille, but Emperour Napoleon.

What historical document proves your claims that monarchies tend to support national movements?
I think its the other way around:Monarchies abhor national movements because they are left out of the picture and their dynasty is obselete. Just look at Jugoslavia and the Ustasha.Or the Austro-Hungarian Empire.


Sure people get suspicious at Napoleon's policy towards religious groups but please don't extrapolate the condition of Catholics to the other religious groups and say "If he was anti-Catholic and made an excursion to Rome than he was definately an anti-semite because he made a simmilar excursion in the Holy Land where he waged war against the Ottoman Empire and murdered the Garrison at Jaffa.
Maybe you can call him an anti-semite because maybe, at Jaffa there ware also Jews. Surely Napoleon was dishonest in his plans but deeds worth more than words.

[HoreTore]

Surely Napoleons' plan for the Jews was based upon political considerations rather than emotional ones, like all political decisions. But the Mesia for Jewry was Napoleon, not Marat. Why would a they make a prayer for the Emperour to be recited in the Synagogue if the Emperour wasn't their No.1 ally. That prayer praises not the glorious Revolution or the Fall of Bastille, but Emperour Napoleon.

What historical document proves your claims that monarchies tend to support national movements?
I think its the other way around:Monarchies abhor national movements because they are left out of the picture and their dynasty is obselete. Just look at Jugoslavia and the Ustasha.Or the Austro-Hungarian Empire.


Sure people get suspicious at Napoleon's policy towards religious groups but please don't extrapolate the condition of Catholics to the other religious groups and say "If he was anti-Catholic and made an excursion to Rome than he was definately an anti-semite because he made a simmilar excursion in the Holy Land where he waged war against the Ottoman Empire and murdered the Garrison at Jaffa.
Maybe you can call him an anti-semite because maybe, at Jaffa there ware also Jews. Surely Napoleon was dishonest in his plans but deeds worth more than words.

Wow. I see no real rebuttal of Menendil's points, nor do I see any facts or sources at all, just your own opinion which you don't explain very much.

Given your post in the watchtower, I am now well and truly confused.

[Cronos Impera]

That is the document. Or was, because you hotlinked it.

[HoreTore]

That is the document.

Thanks a lot, I'm fluent in Hebrew, so that's no problem.

Anyway, I don't see how that document, whatever it may say, has got anything to do with Meneldil's points.

[Cronos Impera]

Here is the point.
Mendill makes ambiguous claims to undermine Napoleon's actions by claming "He never had a choice. The Jacobines did all. Napoelon was always dishonest in his actions." Just to undermine Monarchist eforts.
He first starts with a post associating Monarchy with Nationalism which is totally wrong. If he's interested I will start a discussion in the Monastery teaching the merits of different monarchy types.

Than he introduces certain words just to kill the opposing side or make them feel the wrath of writepol. He simply brings words which induce a Pavlovian reaction into the equation like "anti-semitism, right-wing nutjobs" which then applied to the opposing side make them feel uncomfortable and angry. Than I lose my temper, NoTruth myself to a nice joycamptour or a joycampsitting and he wins. Nasty tactics.

In the EB thread we usually feed such posts to the writepol or make it an item for the memory hole. We get such posts on a whole range of subjects from Gallic underwear to Roman toothpaste and we remove those thread-killer replies that kill the whole topic or create an unfriendly academia.

I'm not discrediting the merits of the French Revolution or its accomplishments. But I just can't stand dishonest representations induced in a thread for the submerssion of the greater picture. It kills usefull opinions, discourages debates and induces guilt into anyone.

[HoreTore]

Here is the point.
Mendill makes ambiguous claims to undermine Napoleon's actions by claming "He never had a choice. The Jacobines did all. Napoelon was always dishonest in his actions." Just to undermine Monarchist eforts.
He first starts with a post associating Monarchy with Nationalism which is totally wrong. If he's interested I will start a discussion in the Monastery teaching the merits of different monarchy types.

Than he introduces certain words just to kill the opposing side or make them feel the wrath of writepol. He simply brings words which induce a Pavlovian reaction into the equation like "anti-semitism, right-wing nutjobs" which then applied to the opposing side make them feel uncomfortable and angry. Than I lose my temper, NoTruth myself to a nice joycamptour or a joycampsitting and he wins. Nasty tactics.

In the EB thread we usually feed such posts to the writepol or make it an item for the memory hole. We get such posts on a whole range of subjects from Gallic underwear to Roman toothpaste and we remove those thread-killer replies that kill the whole topic or create an unfriendly academia.

I'm not discrediting the merits of the French Revolution or its accomplishments. But I just can't stand dishonest representations induced in a thread for the submerssion of the greater picture. It kills usefull opinions, discourages debates and induces guilt into anyone.

I have to say; I think all of this is entirely inside your own head.

Sorry.

And I have to say, your replies in this thread have been the thread-killing ones, Meneldil's posts fit nicely in with every other good post on this forum. And we do manage to get some good debates here....

So, stop worrying about Meneldil and start thinking about your own behaviour, and we'll all have a jolly good time ~;)

oh, and 1984-references are so 2004.

[Cronos Impera]

His first 2 posts disturbed me a little (I'm 1/4 Polish and 2/4 Romanian so I get a little emotional about the Napoleonic Age). I failed to see that most Napoleono-philles didn't respond to his first 2 posts in any way and just posted their replies.It must be the Dayve crisis we experienced at the EB fora.

I just tried to prevent a joycamptouring crisis by pointing at a poststyle that I dislike in half-history posts. The determination to get an ideea through no matter what leads to writecrime, writecrime leads to joycampsitting, repeated joycampsitting leads to No-Forumer and emptiness. And all begins with a negatively charged post related to "discrimination against <<insert favorite ethnicity here>>" ; "TediUs nothingain <<insert theme>>".

I got a nice initial response from Comrade Mendill, all I tried was point at the nature of his first response. I respect the Comrade Mendill but I found a negative lash in his first two posts which I tried to nullify.

Just look at the forum statistics for those threads and count the joycamptours and joycampsittings for each one. You'll be surprised.

The Backroom is a nice forum and keeping civil rights issues and blackwhite out of it helps create a nice working atmosphere.

That's not 1894-speak. That's OrgSpeak.

[HoreTore]

That's not 1894-speak. That's OrgSpeak.

In the words of Fergie; You're so 2000 and late.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well I don't need to speak for Meneldil, but I don't get quite qhat got your back up so much. Meneldil gave a pretty good summation of just what, and who, monarchism is associated with in France. He evens grants that other countries may have different traditions, and that he doesn't care much whether or not they have their monarchies. Whatever makes 'em happy and all that.
I don't support monarchism in general, as the very basis of this political system seem totally undemocratic to me.
I absolutely loath it in my own country, as it is strongely tied to nationalism, antisemitism, racism, fascism and generally all kind of right-wing nutjobness.

But if people who live under monarchies are okay with it, then I guess that's their own problem. I'm not for the abolishment of monarchy on a world-wide scale.

As to Napoleon - it is a matter of much debate just what opinion he personally held of Jews. And what effect his policies had on Jewry.

His personal thoughts: neither pro-Semitism not anti-Semitism seems to fit the bill. There was a whole mixture of opportunism, mixed feelings, and traces of both revolutionary equality and old-fashioned 'let's suck dry the Jews' involved. Napoleon is such a splendidly ambiguous figure.

The effects of his policies are a matter of debate too. Napoleon's enemies wanted to keep the Jews in their ghetto's forever, stripped of civil rights. Napoleon offered them full rights, but assimilation. The latter can be explained positively, or negatively.
This is in general a matter of much Jewish debate over the past two centuries - to assimilate, and thus to lose identity, or not. A matter of personal political and cultural preference.


(Me, I'm with Napoleon. And I'm also of the firm conviction that had Napoleon won, all the Jews of Europe would've fled to France, and none of the pogroms and Holocaust would've happened. Alas! The forces that were outraged at the mere thought of Jewish Civil Rights won - that is, the whole of Europe minus France and her allies/territories under her control.)

[Cronos Impera]

Finally a thread rejuvenator.
Thank you Louis for this healing post. Now the river bed is once again open for navigation.

+ rep

Oops, forgot I was at the Org.

[Meneldil]

Thanks Louis for clearing that up.

And as I said earlier, I'm quite found of Napoléon myself. He was a genius, militarily and politicaly, despite the many mistakes he made.
One of such mistakes was precisely his constant hesitancy regarding the jews. He started by discriminating them (he cancelled all debts owed to Jews in Alsace), then openly ghetto-ized them by forbidding them to leave their towns and cities (thus cancelling all earlier laws).

Then, he made a complete U turn, and gave them full citizenship (again), and tried to enforce assimilation on them (as some jews refused the idea of assimilation at first). While doing so, he openly stated several times that he despised judaism, and thought this religion was opposed to modernity and civilization. He stated it during official councils, wrote it on letters and what not. He also openly stated that he wanted to liberate jews from judaism, because he disliked this religion, and also wanted to bring more wealth to France, as he thought that "the j00s r wealthy".

In any case, Jews were granted full citizenship in France in 1791. They kept this full citizenship despite Marat (dunno why you're mentionning him, he never cared much about jews and never had any legal power, and he's not remembered as a great revolutionnary), despite the Terror, despite the civil war. Of course, their right to practice their religion was severly limited at the height of the Terror, but the same was true for any religion (catholics probably had the hardest time). The first man who trully infringed on their citizenship was...guess who, Napoléon himself.

So, you can keep worshipping Napoléon because he saved the j00s, but he didn't. The Revolutionnary Army already emancipated them in Belgium and in Italy before he had any political power. When Napoléon supposedly liberated the Jews of Malta, he was actually only doing what he was told to do: give equal rights to anyone.
The Assemblée Nationale gave them full citizenship and equal rights while Napoléon was still a no-name. The situation of the Jews was one of the first issue raised by Robespierre, in late 1789.
That does not mean I hate Napoléon and consider him a monarch (he certainly wasn't liked by traditional monarchs) or a tyran. I just think calling him a philo-semit is quite erroneous. Most of the work was done between 1791 and 1793, not after 1799. I think Louis pretty much summed up what Napoléons thought about jews (ie. he didn't even know it himself).
You seem to think that my only aim was to bash monarchists through bashing Napoléon, while it wasn't really my attention.


As for monarchy as a whole, once again, Louis nicely explained my feelings. Royalists are usually right-wing antisemit nutjobs in my country nowadays. If it's different in yours, then well, I'm honestly glad for you *shrugs*

[Cronos Impera]

Paix to you, Mendill. If you posted that post instead of the first 2 replies, I would have never called you a Gunbortionist.