PDA

View Full Version : Monarchy!



Taras Bulba
Friday, December 19th, 2003, 08:00 PM
http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/monarchy.php

A Case for Monarchy
By Archonis

Over the past 2 years or so, I have done some serious reflecting on the nature of the Republican and Democratic forms of government, and contrasted them in my mind with other forms of government; such as Communism and Socialism. I have found all these systems wanting in a greater or lesser degree, because in spite of the varied ideologies they have they all suffer from a diseased concept concerning the nature and purpose of the State, and its proper relations to the people. In regards to Republicanism and Democracy, these are based on the illusory concept of "Popular Suffrage," which in fact means nothing in that the masses have neither the capability or know-how to determine or understand the workings of the State in relation to the economy, so purely economic interests seize the opportunity of this vacuum to co-opt the State to insure their control over the economy and the socio-political system. Thus under the guise and fraud of the "will of the people," the most banal aspects of the mass culture enshrine themselves as an oligarchy and plutocracy, and through finance easily control the political class as well as the political process of so-called "elections."

It is common knowledge that all political candidates and parties are controlled by monied interests, just as the political system and its laws are in turn controlled by lobbyists who are also controlled by monied interests. Thus as Julius Evola has pointed out, in this way the purpose and nobility of the State is destroyed through its subordination to the principles of the economy. No matter what system you look at in the modern world, these same subversive processes hold sway and engage in a process of dialectical disintegration with one another. The machinations of high finance and distribution of currency in excess of the GNP of Nations, causes them to fall into patterns of debt in the public and private sectors. This is true no matter what the ideology, as the principles of economy are the same. Similarly the creation of surplus value through wage/profit coefficients, creates an inductive disparity between wages and prices which relocates all wealth to the Capitalist class through the draining of the purchasing power of the wage earners, distributing profit to themselves and scarcity to the workers respectively.

In spite of the fact that this is also true in Communist countries as the party-bosses raid the coffers of the State to obtain the profits of "State Capitalism," such processes in Capitalist countries do nothing but foment discontent and further the interests of those who would preach the gospel of totalitarianism and Marxism. The perversion of Democracy is that it gives power to the plutocrats in light of the incoherent "mass-will," by default, and through making the State a vehicle of avarice devoid of honor; thereby gives the State too much centralizing power over all aspects of human life. Thus in all collectivist systems based on identification with the masses, (which is every State-based system other than Monarchy) you paradoxically have a totalitarian system based on the tyranny of economic interests and a ruling elite that is unfit to rule, due to the fact that they are beholden only to Mammon and not to any higher principle of honor.

Now, this is the malaise of our times, no doubt. Being an American and citizen of the U.S., I was raised to believe in the myth of Democracy and to view Monarchy as some kind of system of tyranny. But is it really? I think not! Societies of egalitarianism are in fact the biggest tyrannies, for they reduce all aspects of life to that which resonates to the lowest common demominator, and the stolid aspects of mass-culture and values are made into Law and wielded over the population like a gigantic club. The lowest is made highest and thus regiments all aspects of life in machine-like and brutal manner, and loyalty to the State is compelled by force from the top-down, rather than being inspired from the bottom-up, which is the case in Monarchies. Democracy, Republicanism, Socialism, Communism, as well as the over-industrialized and technological artifacts of the world need to be done away with. All of these are but interrelated syndromes of the same disease, which does nothing but reduce Man to a level that is almost less than an animal, by dehumanizing him with the false values of objectivity and modernity at the expense of the subjective verities of truth and honor. A return to Monarchy is the sole hope of the world. Under Monarchy the State is relegated to its primary purpose, to hold the power of economic interests in check so they cannot despoil the people or the land. The mercantile classes are fit to trade but not fit to rule, and the communists I include in this group, due to their myopia about anything outside of "principles of economy." The modern world is the result of this situation, and its diseased condition is blatantly obvious. The Monarchy and Nobility should be the masters of the wealth of society and not the Capitalists, and their wealth should be bestowed by right and not by virtue of the fact that it was earned. Only in this way can the classes of the Nobility have an unbroken training and tradition in the proper uses of wealth, for their benefit and that of their domains.

Even more so, does this apply to the Monarchy. Because the wealth is already in the possession of Royalty and Nobility, the profit-motive and the motive to exploit society for mundane ends is removed . There is nothing to be gained by such economic mediocrity, and thus the Monarchy and Nobility can be concerned with matters of Politics and Sociology, as well as matters pertaining to the well-being of their domains . The moderns will cry: "What is to be gained by such a leisure-class that do not earn their wealth like we do?" A great deal. Only by having a leisure-class freed from material cares is it possible to have a truly educated class. Many captains of industry and Capitalists have conceeded that they have not had the time to become well-read and cultured people. And yet they are leading and controlling the world with only the most feeble an d superficial of educations. Even if they spent a good time in college, this cannot match a lifetime of education that can be obtained by people who are freed from the cares of earning a living. Thus the knowledge of the Royals and Nobility will be superior and more qualitative; and not based on the mundane ends of economy alone, but on higher things and values that alone can give the laws of economy a purpose. The Monarchist traditions of the State and Nobility exercises dominion but not tyranny. In this dominion the various peoples among the ruled manifest loyalty to the Crown, not because the Crown dictates their every choice through the contingencies of the laws of economy, but because the Crown gives them the right to flower as peoples that are fully human, only needing to labor solely to support their own station in life. As Evola pointed out, the feudal system is organic and allows for individual self-actualization for the peoples under it, and does not just regard them as economic units.

Monarchy allows for tremendous decentralization between the auspices of the Royal House, the Nobility, the Houses of Government, and the people. Even the life of a serf is something that a modern worker would envy. A serf labored only during planting and harvesting under the agrarian system, the rest of that time was free-time for the serf to pursue his own interests. You had festivals that went on for months among the serfs, and a noble could be imprisoned for letting his serfs starve if they were old or sick. The ruling classes were accountable not just to their superiors, but also to those lesser than them. They profited from the serfs, but the serfs also profited from the use of the land and worked far less than people do now under the plutocratic tyranny of industrialism. Who is the bigger slave, the serf or the wage-earner? I am certain the wage-earner of modern times would envy the serf. And if Monarchy would treat even the serfs in a more humane way than the poor are treated now, how much better would it be for everyone else! The serfs were valued, and not stigmatized for their spartan life, it was proper to their station and not a reason for criticism. The modern poor are psychologically stigmatized for their inability to make a fortune, as if everyone could just go and do that! The stability of social stations and the purposes innate to them makes for psychological health among human beings. A place from which you can neither rise nor fall, is a rock from which all endeavor can flower and work can exist for its own sake, not for the ulterior motive of either rising from or preventing a fall from where you are. The instability of human purpose and work and its subordination to purely economic ends is the primary cause of social and individual instability and psycho-pathology. A cause and result of modernism. Monarchism with its castes and roles frees humanity from the anxiety of striving to or falling from a particular station in life, each of which is valued in the context of community. Trade guilds, serfs, the ministers of state, Nobility and Monarchy, were an organic continuity that allowed for the flowering of human nature in its diverse forms, from the most humble to the most lofty. Is it any wonder that Monarchy is the most stable and humane from of government the world has ever known? And is it also any wonder that Democracy, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Republicanism, are decaying and crumbling away as we speak, from the entropy of their ignorant and mis-begotten valuations and constructs?


Pushkin: I'm not a Monarchist per se, but I have always admired the level that tradition, ceremonies, ritualism, and sense of nobility were upheld under the Monarchies. I adhere to the notion of a "Popular Monarchy", which was a notion upheld by many emigre White Russians. That is, the Czar and the nobility exist, but its more of a populist form of monarchy.

I noticed often how the Fascists and National Socialists often adopted many aspects of monarchism in their forms of government. I find many similarities between how high the German people felt about Hitler to the way they felt about the Kaiser.

The way Hitler's name and title of Fuhrer was always invoked to add authority is not entirely different to how it was done for a King in a Monarchy. The slogan "For Fuhrer and Fatherland" is really a NS adoptation of the Monarchist slogan "For King and Country". The level of ritualism and ceremonies under both regimes is very much in vogue with the spirit of the Monarchies. And of course the SS was very much the NS version of the Royal/Imperial Guard, as Himmler often compared his men to.

So I believe that even if a monarchy cannot be created per se, like the NS and Fascists we must adopt many aspects of the Monarchy system and apply to our modern forms of government.

Moody
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 04:59 PM
I agree with much of what you say.

You may be interested in the following;

"The state of Monarchy is the most supreme thing upon this earth, for Kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God Himself are called gods ...
In the Scriptures, Kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation is to be compared to Divine Power.
Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a King is truly 'Parens patriae', the 'politique' father of his people ...
Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner of resemblance of Divine Power on earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King".
[King James I of Great Britain]

See this link;

www.dagobertsrevenge.com/articles/monarchy.html

Cheers, Moody.

Abby Normal
Wednesday, December 24th, 2003, 08:00 AM
I am a monarchist. I have been since I first became interested in the French Revolution (practically my whole life).

Kleinwildjaeger
Wednesday, January 7th, 2004, 01:49 AM
For those who believe in a Creator, monarchy is the natural order of society. Heaven is not a democracy.

The revitalization and restoration of Europe's monarchies may pave the way for a larger renaissance of European culture. The races of Europe did not achieve dominance by peaceful means, so any resurgence is likely to be messy. I hope it happens soon, before the effects of nonwhite immigration have reached critical mass.

There is some hope; criticism of Israel and Zionist policies is now socially acceptable in Europe. As the political climate polarizes, men will become emboldened to stand up for their lands and eject the strangers among them. It has happened before. Leadership is required; thoughtful, forceful, and with no motive for personal gain. The royal houses of Europe, whose sons are born, bred, and trained to lead, could provide what is needed.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 04:20 AM
I support the idea of a Monarchist forum.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, February 10th, 2004, 09:14 AM
Here (www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5.asp)is an interesting site for the English Monarchy.

And here (kongehuset.dk/artikel.php?dogtag=kh_en_hi_hm) is one for the Danish Monarchy.

Taras Bulba
Saturday, February 14th, 2004, 09:56 PM
Here's a good Russian Monarchist website
http://vojnik.org./vvodeng.htm

THE BASIC PRINCIPLES


The Committee of the National Revival of Russia (CNRR) is the organized community of Russian people united by a common cultural (spiritual) wealth and political orientation. CNRR supports the Right conservative, monarchist option.

CNRR has no intent of usurping the rights of the State system establishment and the State functions and rights; however, it reserves the right to suggest particular social and political policies and some civilised state attributes. We are convinced that either a direct referendum or a legal and legitimate legislative institution can legitimize the form of government and the national symbols.

As its main goal the CNRR considers the revival of the legal continuity of State governing.

We realize that at the present moment society is not ready for the return of the traditional form of government, i.e. the monarchy. It is an ideal and a long-term goal. Therefore, we are not supporting a particular person or a particular royal dynasty but rather the revival of this legal form of government.

CNRR assumes the revival of the monarchy will only be within the bounds of the presently existing state order.

The Orthodox Church (no matter under what legal non-sectarian jurisdiction) is our main spiritual base.

CNRR desires that Orthodoxy regain its influence as it had before the revolution. We are supporting most of the regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Council 1917-1918, including the following:

1. "The Orthodox Church, the constituent part of the united Universe Orthodox Church, has a public, judicial precedence among all the rest of the religions in Russia due to its holy power which unifies Russia.

2. The Orthodox Church is independent from the State government in the questions of faith and morals, divine services, inner church discipline and the relationship with other churches and religions.

3. The resolutions of the Orthodox Church as well as the acts of church administration and court have the judicial power, assuming they follow State laws.

4. The State laws concerning the Orthodox Church are issued with the consultation and mutual agreement with the Orthodox Church…"

Due to the fact that Russia is a multicultural country we are ready to collaborate with the members of other traditional religions.

CNRR rejects any use of force against our ideological opponents since this can not bring success but would only discredit the Conservative - Right.

CNRR rejects internationalism, considering the uniqueness of every nation.

CNRR considers unacceptable any kind of globalization but at the same time confronts the modern "antiglobalists", who generally are Marxists and anarchists.

We think that the Russian Empire is only an idealistic State and we don't intend to restore everything that was lost. We are not willing to move history backwards, but strive for a new state, spiritually close to the former Great Russia, waking up the genetic sense of justice. This sense of justice will let us build our country in accordance with traditional and natural principles.

In order to revive the traditions of the army of the Russian Empire the members of CNRR have joined the military-historical community of "The First Hussar Seslavin Regiment" and belong to the 3rd squadron of the regiment. The regiment is based on the friendship and collaboration with the Cavalry Unit of the Russian Military Forces (military unit number 55605). Joint exercises of horse riding as well as the trench-searches for Russia's fallen in WW2 and other arrangements are held together with this military unit.

The members of CNRR research the tactics and service regulations of the Russian Army, study and improve their military skills, arrange and participate in military ceremonies, church services and religious processions.

CNRR members participate in different scientific conferences and similar functions.

The members of CNRR constantly communicate with Russian emigrants around the world. We are striving for the reunion of the Russian people and consider the emigrants and the people, who live in the independent states, which appeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, as an inalienable part of Russian society.

Although CNRR does not consider any changes of its main principles, we are ready for permanent dynamic modifications in order to fit the spirit of the time and to encourage productive work.

CNRR admits the necessary changes of the following state symbols of Russia:

Flag - the flag of Russian Empire 1858-1883, 1886-1917 (a rectangular colour cloth of even large horizontal lines: upper black, middle - yellow and lower - white)

State Emblem (coat of arms) - a small State Emblem of Russian Empire (approved in 1883): A black double-headed crowned eagle in a golden shield, which holds a sceptre and an orb. On the chest of the eagle there is the Moscow coat of arms surrounded by a chain of St. Andrew. The eight coats of arms of the most important Russian Empire territories decorate the wings of the eagle.

Anthem - "God save the tsar (king)", the national anthem of the Russian Empire since 1833. ("National anthem", words by B. A. Zhukovskij, music - A. F. Lvov)

Turificator
Monday, February 16th, 2004, 09:52 PM
I support any kind of holistic, folkish, Traditional government, monarchy included. Synthesis (http://rosenoire.org/) is a great online journal.

Disease
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 01:28 PM
That was a very interesting article. I am not a monarchist, but I am authoritarian, that is, I don't really believe in democracy or majority rule.

I think I can learn a lot from monarchy [absolute, not constitutional] in relation to my beliefs though - national pride, a strong figurehead, strong leader etc.

Vestmannr
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 06:31 AM
I'm a Monarchist. Having said that, I have very precise beliefs of what constitutes a valid Monarch. I dont think just anyone can 'make themselves King', or be elected democratically as one. I also think the idea of having a king foreign to his people (not of their blood, or language) is an unnatural idea. I have no respect for authoritarian government of military leaders, elected leaders, etc. I'm of freefolk and can rule myself quite well, thank you. Monarchy or Anarchy, I'd say (and Anarchy only until proper monarchy is restored.)

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 03:10 PM
I say that France should revive its monarchy, with areas such as Burgogne and Normandie being principalities or along those lines! Northern Ireland never had a monarch. I believe Wales should have it's principality rights returned to them under a Welshman. Scotland's Duke of Edinburgh the Prince Philip should relinquish title. I believe Celts should have their power structure back as well as the Germans.

Try my version on the British system of nobility. For instance,perhaps, a Celtic Emperor. A Goidelic King(Ireland), Brythonic King(Britain) and Gallic King(Gaul). Principalities for each of the smaller tribes, such as Picts, Ulster/Scots, Manx, etc(the size of Regions in the new system). Then Dukes can be residing over the smaller areas like the Mormor/County size divisions that the Picts had in Pictland(Keith/Caithness, or Sutherland) Then Earls/Counts for the Boroughs/Districts like York, Manchester, Aberdeen, London, for example, the cities. Barons(like mayor) could preside over simple Municipalities or towns. The Gentry Baronets, Knights, Squires etc. could be owners of villages/hamlets/neighbourhoods having a big business with size varia according the rank. Simple Yeomanry could be small business owners who own their house and land/estate for one family but lease out other land to renters. Peasantry would be those who rent property from the Yeomanry. Those who try to abandon their lives in exile there would be considered outlaws without protection. That would send them to the gallows. No more of this self-hatred bullsh*t of attacking heritage and defending immigrants.

Of course, this means there'd be a Germanic Emperor, Slavic Emperor, get my drift? King of Norway, King of Sweden, King of Denmark, King of Iceland, King of Greenland, King of Newfoundland, King of Iberia, King of Nova Scotia, King of Labrador, King of Finland, King of Kola, King of Gotland, King of Oland, King of Aland, King of Gaspe, King of Italy, King of Malta, King of Crete, King of Cyprus, King of Sicily, King of Crimea, King of Ungava, King of Jersey. I'm trying to assert kingship to large natural land features, such as peninsulas, islands, etc. Language families and language is an important key to this, including dialects and accents. I'm trying to get the Meta-Ethnicity/language family to be the level of Empire, the general Ethnicity/language to be the Kingdom.

I'm sure that I have some of the levels and ranks unequated to the ideal, but I'm trying. I am not trying to assert Pan-European ideals that reek of the EU, the Indo-European ideal, nor do I adhere to the American way. I believe a Council between different Empires, represented by the Emperors themselves. That would be like the room of elected Indo-European Emperors making a council. A Treaty should be the way of asserting nonviolent and other agreements between the Indo-European council and others, but no head figure to the Indo European council, just equals consulting and working together, and maintaining their own dignity. Any treaty formed should be accepted by the council on a whole, or not at all.

Please add your input.

Abby Normal
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 03:18 PM
I do not have time to respond at length, but I will later, as this is one of my favorite subjects. :)

France should definitely revive its monarchy. Its (as of late, discreet but still present) aristocracy should work to achieve more prominence.

I am not a fan of the British peerage system as their ancient territorial nobility or 'landed gentry' are treated as a class below the 'real' nobility, or peers (thus they have four 'estates,' if you will, rather than the customary three. ;) )

More later!

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 03:25 PM
Well, I'm not strictly adhering to the system. It would have to change somewhat, anyways. I am from the Landed Gentry as you say, but in another country and have no rights to the land as of current.

Your back to Asia movement would help pull those others back to Europe who have went to the colonies elsewhere. I support this. Most colonies are overextended and being filled up with immigrants. Europe's land has been void enough to allow the amounts of foreign immigration as well.

Abby Normal
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 10:12 PM
Well, I'm not strictly adhering to the system. It would have to change somewhat, anyways. I am from the Landed Gentry as you say, but in another country and have no rights to the land as of current.In other European nations the 'Landed Gentry' are not treated as such. In the British version (which is more familiar to most Americans), the main division is between territorial nobility (called Landed Gentry, which are a sort of halfway class, in between the nobility and the commons) and the regal nobility (called peers). In France, for example, it is not really a division between territorial and regal that matters; there are regal titles, but there is a division between the territorial nobility as well, between the sword (military) nobility and the robe (judicial) nobility. Also, the territorial nobilities tend to be larger in non-British countries, and thus their territorial titles are less esteemed. However, they are considered nobility and not gentry.


Your back to Asia movement would help pull those others back to Europe who have went to the colonies elsewhere. I support this. Most colonies are overextended and being filled up with immigrants. Europe's land has been void enough to allow the amounts of foreign immigration as well.Thanks for supporting me! I will post more extensively on the subject later, but the Back-To-Asia movement I invented is about people of Indo-European origin and who are thus not native to Europe returning to the land of their ancestors - ie, Asia. Plus, the climate and topography of the Central Asian steppes is to my liking.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 11:44 PM
Well then, you might as well colonise Southwestern North America. I don't care for it at all. Northeastern North America is where my colonial heart is.

:D

Abby Normal
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 11:44 PM
A thought for all the Monarchists (and others) out there: Should a king be considered king of his people, or the lord of his land? Do you support the popular monarchy in which the king is a leader of the people, i.e., King of the French as opposed to King of France and Navarre? Or do you support monarchy in its proper feudal sense, with the king as merely a higher link in the chain and is thus himself a vassal of the land?

Though the former system was proclaimed during the French Revolution by the moderate reformers who believed a king of the people to be less oppressive than a king of the land, it actually puts the king higher than the latter system does.

Personally, I support a feudal monarchy with significant power given to the aristocracy, which makes for decentralization and a check to the absolute rule of a monarch; however, there is a delicate balance between absolute rule and giving the nobles so much power that they will take it in their minds to revolt against the king.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 12:05 AM
It makes better sense to have the King be of the land, and Emperor of the people.

Moody
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 05:56 PM
I support the all-encompassing ideal of Divine Right, where the Monarch is Lord of his god-given land, his legions [Folk] and his laws, according to the Will of the Creator.

He embodies a mythos which devolves from Heaven.
This mythos marries the Monarch, the people and the land in one Holy Unity.

The British mythos involves Brutus that refugee from the Trojan War [see Geoffrey of Monmouth];

http://www.english.ubc.ca/~sechard/geofftom.htm

http://www.emory.edu/ENGLISH/classes/Shakespeare_Illustrated/Blake.Albion.gif
The Dance of Albion

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, May 22nd, 2004, 08:21 AM
I don't substantiate any connections between the oriental mythos and occidental cultures. The western people were bored and unmotivated by their native culture and sought "spice" by adding false links between themselves and the east. This is a well known problem throughout European history.

Moody
Saturday, May 22nd, 2004, 03:20 PM
I don't believe that their reasons for elaborating on the mythos were 'boredom' and lack of 'motivation'.

It seems rather that they knew about cultural connections [passed down via myths] that were proven MUCH LATER by linguistics and archeology.

People like Geoffrey of Monmouth and Snorri Sturluson [Poetic Edda], writing in the Medieval period, dealt with these connections via mythology.
It was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that such mythologies recieved a scientific basis.

Look at the story of Troy, for example, long thought to be the pure invention of the Homer poet until the discoveries of Schliemann!
Now the Iliad is recognised to be based on historical fact.

That our occidental languages/ mythologies are of recent Indo-European derivation is beyond dispute: we are the western BRANCH of the Aryan tree.

Myths need to drive their roots deep.

At any rate, every healthy culture needs a mythos - the British mythos I have referred to above is a wide and wonderful one, taking in the whole Arthurian epos.

http://camelot.celtic-twilight.com/pyle_ka/pyleka6.jpg

Ljót-fulfr
Sunday, May 23rd, 2004, 11:25 PM
I would also support a monarchial style of government, as I believe having a monarchy typically rallies all the subjects under one standard -- and not to mention it is much less divisive than this great conspiracy called 'democracy.'

I do not believe the American colonies had justification to leave Great Britian or revolt against the king. American colonist had become spoiled and used to not paying taxes. When King George was forced to tax his subjects after the wars with France -- the colonist were quite ungratful and traitorous to turn against the king and ally with the French. I assume they had forgotten they were British themselves. While I had ancestors on both sides of this war -- I can proudly claim that those of my name were Loyalist and paid dearly for this loyalty. I too share their sentiments deep down.

It is my hope that Britain will have renewed love for their royal family and will again see their kings and queens as essential to national pride and unity. I believe King William may prove to be a great hope to his nation and the savior of his nations monarchy. I pray he will not be afraid to assert his right and responsibilities as king.

Dusty

Taras Bulba
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 09:18 PM
I support the type of monarchical system that existed in old Kieven Rus and Muscovy: that is a mixture of autocratic monarchy with a democratic element(largely at the local level but often operated at the national level). Indeed Solzhenitsyn has written much about how this system could work in the modern age.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 11:52 PM
Moody:
I don't agree. Chinese dragons made it all the way to Cymru. That in itself is enough to substantiate my claim. Besides, all "popular" kings during the olden times ascribed to grandeur by having their genealogies substituted to accomodate oriental lineages, including the (Levantine) Bible after Christianity became the heyday.

Dusty:
I have UEL family in Canada. I am considering officially joining the UEL. But then, I'm not really much of a British monarchy type guy. My mother's side is English but my father's side is Nordish, so, I'd support Norge, but that's my deal...

Pushkin:
Are you a Normanist or Slavicist?

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 12:06 AM
It makes better sense to have the King be of the land, and Emperor of the people.
An empire should be based on population, not land size. Land is simply one division from another, hence, kingship. In order to have a successful empire, you must have separate raw materials to draw upon and combine for fruition. Kingship identifies local culture as opposed to the emperor who representitively unites them all for a common goal.

Compare USA/Canada model of "Federal" government that has imperialist orientation(Manifest Destiny). State governments could be seen as kingships. This is all very broad, but I'm trying to assert heirarchy here.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 01:26 AM
Besides, all "popular" kings during the olden times ascribed to grandeur by having their genealogies substituted to accomodate oriental lineages, including the (Levantine) Bible after Christianity became the heyday.
LOL! :eyes



Pushkin:
Are you a Normanist or Slavicist?

Im a Slavicist primarily, the Normanist theory has been discredited since at least the 1960's. If there were Scandinavian influence, it was slight and insignificant.


"There is general agreement now that the Scandinavian impact on East Slav society and culture was mininal. Appearing as small, enterprising bands of warrior-merchants, the Varangians rapidly assimilated the East Slavic language and culture and were probally too few in number to bring about important changes in native ways...There are, therefore, good reasons to view the rise of Kiev not as the exclusive achievement of one ethnic group or another, but as the result of a complex Slavic/Scandinavian interrelationship."
--Ukraine: A History by Orest Subtelny, pg.25

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 01:52 AM
I agree, however, Ukraine has the blue and gold flag like Sverige, like how their upper class was the Norman section. Obviously they'd fly such a flag.

Jack
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 09:31 AM
Moody becomes a Christian? Interesting.

Unity between the leadership and the population of a country via religion (religion is not moral-inclusive - see Greek heathenism) is one of the best ways to keep it strong. A particularist religion (e.g. Judaism for the Jews) works even better. Yes, I am in favour of Monarchy, and a form of meritocratic aristocracy (decadents who rule simply because their ancestors were excellent fighters/administrators for the King shouldn't be there). With an efficient, benevolent (i.e. not terrorise the population) traditionalist (monarchy/aristocracy) Government, there would be very few reasons why one would object to it. Lichtenstein has a Monarchy and it's economy is brilliant, there are (insofar as I know) very few civil disturbances of any sort.

symmakhos
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 10:05 AM
decadents who rule simply because their ancestors were excellent fighters/administrators for the King shouldn't be there
This is the main problem with monarchy. In theory, I'm a 100% loyal to my king (Carl XVI Gustaf) but let's face it, he as well as his principal heirs are total retards; and the Crown Princess may actually be marrying a "Svensson" (suburban average joe) soon.

However, most of the European royal families are more intelligent and better fit to rule than the democratic trash we put up with today. Certainly a hereditary principle of government is infinitely preferable to a democratic one. And pure meritocracy breeds too much instability and social unrest, I think.

The solution may be some sort of breeding control over the royal bloodline, making sure it stays strong, smart, and healthy. And the nobility should be indoctrinated with the noblesse oblige concept from a very early age.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 03:57 PM
How about the hereditary Royalty? Each Germanic king(North, Geat/Swede, Jute/Dane, Saxon etc.) can vote in election for an Emperor of the Germanic people. When I say Germanic I do not mean Prussian!

Moody
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 04:46 PM
For that Empery, perhaps our genealogists should find the closest to the line of Charlemagne?

I believe that the Blood-line itself, and the Role of kingship itself, are far more important than the particular individuals involved [providing they be of the Blood of course]. The institutions themselves are able to survive weak kings, just as they positively thrive under strong kings.

It MUST be heriditary in basis to be worthy of the name Royal.

To Earl Jack; I am not for a Christian Monarchy as such; the kingly line of Europe goes back far beyond the introduction of Christianity; indeed, I believe that the Royal culture merely assimilated the Christian and is redolent far more of paganism in its essence.

To Earl Rodskarl; To me Monarchy is about an unbroken chain of inheritance and heritage going back into the mists of time. The English Royal line may properly go back to Woden, but then Woden, as Snorri said, was one of the Aesir and so from Asia as the name suggests.
To me, ultimately the Line goes back to the original Aryas - it was their gift to us.

To Earl KoolKalm; I agree with what you say about the American renegades and their traitorship toward the Crown [and they are paying for that].
As far as Britain is concerned though, I think that we may have to go back to the Tudor line as the present 'Windsors' [actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha] have presided over race-treason in the Realm.

http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/henry-viii.jpg
Back to the Tudors

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 05:33 PM
For that Empery, perhaps our genealogists should find the closest to the line of Charlemagne?

I believe that the Blood-line itself, and the Role of kingship itself, are far more important than the particular individuals involved [providing they be of the Blood of course]. The institutions themselves are able to survive weak kings, just as they positively thrive under strong kings.

It MUST be heriditary in basis to be worthy of the name Royal.

To Earl Jack; I am not for a Christian Monarchy as such; the kingly line of Europe goes back far beyond the introduction of Christianity; indeed, I believe that the Royal culture merely assimilated the Christian and is redolent far more of paganism in its essence.

To Earl Rodskarl; To me Monarchy is about an unbroken chain of inheritance and heritage going back into the mists of time. The English Royal line may properly go back to Woden, but then Woden, as Snorri said, was one of the Aesir and so from Asia as the name suggests.
To me, ultimately the Line goes back to the original Aryas - it was their gift to us.

To Earl KoolKalm; I agree with what you say about the American renegades and their traitorship toward the Crown [and they are paying for that].
As far as Britain is concerned though, I think that we may have to go back to the Tudor line as the present 'Windsors' [actually Saxe-coburg-Gotha] have presided over race-treason in the Realm.

http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/henry-viii.jpg
Back to the TudorsWhy Charlemagne? I agree, he seems a bridge between Nordic(Vanir) and Germanic(Aesir) peoples. Freyr(Franken) and Freyja(Frankrik) were an adaptation to Ing(Angeln) and Frigg(Fryslan). Since Vanic Freyr and Freyja were part of the Aesir, the Franks seem in the middle. But then again, Vanic Njord of Norway was part of the Aesir also. Ing/Yngvi is a name never associated to the Aesir. Strange.

Ok, so you believe a Welshman belongs on the throne? Then that would mean the English get kicked out to Angeln in Schleswig, eh? Woden was king of the Jutes or Geats/Goths, not of the English, who was Ing or Yngvi of the Ynglinga Saga. I don't like Woden per se. The Aesir derive their name from the world Ash tree, not Asia, which is an entirely different name source. Ask or Yggdrasil. Then you must question yourself on who are the Vanir? I profess a chiefly Vanir background, secondarily Aesir.

I do not believe in Aryan background for myself. I am no fan of Persia, India or Aryana. To hell with those snobbish Hindus who made cattle the mainstay of agriculture. I don't like the taste of beef or it's milk. I do not buy it.

Moody
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 07:03 PM
To Rodskarl;

http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/research/rawl/IOE/genintro01.gif

Most are aware of the above close cognates - close because they are relatively recent in time in terms of their small divergence.
And more;

http://www.tutorpal.com/Our_English/indo_european/images/cogw3.gif

This parity is not a 'belief', but a FACT! And it is beyond the particular tastes of individuals whoever they may be.

As to the importance of Woden for the English;

"The East Saxon royal genealogy is unique of all Anglo-Saxon royal pedigrees because the Kings of Essex claimed descent from the god Seaxnet and not WODEN AS IS MORE USUAL".
[See this link for full article;]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A923474

There is a lineal descent from Woden to the present Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.

It is Snorri who gives us details of the Aesir and the Vanir which we do not have from any other source. He deliberately links the Aesir with Asia which is not far-fetched as we now know about the self-explanatory Eurasian connections of Indo-European culture. Also, the Aryan homeland is thought by most analysts to have been in the East.
The similarities between the Vedic gods and the Norse gods is just another example.
I take the Vanir to represent the pre-Aryan Old Europeans who merged with the invading Aryans [from the East], or Aesir.

The Tudors were of Welsh descent, but they were thoroughly British as their lineage shows. Henry was the father of our greatest Queen, of course;

http://history.smsu.edu/jchuchiak/HST%20101--Lec%2031--Eng%20Reform1_files/image004.jpg

The Tudor system is the closest to a desired British national polity from the kingly past.

Charlemagne is an example of a pan-European Emperor whose death was followed by the break-up of that entity; by repairing his line we could re-constitute that Imperium.

Abby Normal
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 12:53 AM
LOL! :eyes
Excuse Rubsharal; he's all worked up about some conspiracy theory he concocted about his (Upper Paleolithic?) people having an inferiority complex and trying to emulate "Eastern people," "Southern people" and "Levantines."

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 03:48 AM
Moody:
The Angles, Saxons and Jutes are from two different backgrounds, each having their own deity.

Ing(Angel) for the Angles. (british gentry)
Seaxnot(?Saxonette?) for the Saxons. (british nobility)
Woden(God) is for the Jute people. (british royalty)

Woden's wife was queen of the Frisians, Frigg. Freyja's(queen of Franks) husband was Odr(of the Gotar-Geats in Gotaland). See the connection?

I admit, I wonder about the connection between Vedism and Woden. As far as I know, Wotan means "wode" meaning "odd" and "good". "Water" is another name and I suspect their symbol is a water-well like the one Woden drank from. Odin's name is the source of "God" and he is the "god" of "wisdom" and "wizard"s, but also of Giants. Consider that Woden's people only had Kent, Wight and Hampshire without any specific allusion to their Jute tribe and you will see what I mean on the subtlety of Woden's influence in Britain, except perhaps religion??? However, the Jutes had been absorbed by the Saxons as their chief centre of focus in the southeast. This is reflected in the Confederacy of America. The Angles in the Union wanted to be the bosses that time.

I do not want a Jutish or Saxon king. I am somewhat ok with the idea of an English king. I suppose it's all up to our heritage. I have no direct Salic Law primogeniture peerage blood, just gentry. My forefathers never had peasantry to look after. They had yeomanry rent their land though. I can see this well enough when I look at the placename of my genes.

Flags for vague generalities of centralism and occupied states:
http://www.fotw.net/images/d/de-sh-an.gif
pre-Theodoric Ing's/Ynglings' [Wain] landschaft Angeln or Angelland in Slesvig today. Saxons had a place called Saxland. Jutes in Juteland. Before this time, heathen symbols were non-crest nor cross. Each tribe had own arms/standard/banner with different symbol. For the English, I believe it was an anchor/hook, for "angling"(fishing-navy people). For the Saxons, a sword/dagger, I believe, the "seax"(farming-army people). I suppose the Jute symbol to be water, after all, Jute and "wet" are of the same etymology. Jutes of Jutland/Jylland are the closest of the three to have kinship with Odin, as the Jotun of Jotunheim(Freyr's wife Gerd was Jotun{Ymir was ice-frozen water}). The Geatish Gotar of Gotaland in Southern Sweden to be closer, by the name of Odr(Freyja's husband). The Gutnisk Goths of Gotland to be directly descended from Odin(Frigg's husband).
http://www.fotw.net/images/s/se-3kron.gif
post-invasion Angles [Evangelic Christian] England, Strathclyde
http://www.fotw.net/images/g/gr-alt.gif
post-viking Saxons [Greek Orthodox] Wessex, Cornwall
http://www.fotw.net/images/s/smom.gif
post-norman William's/Plantagenet's/Roses's [Roman Catholic] England, Normandy-Aquitaine
http://www.fotw.net/images/g/gb-eng.gif
Tudor's [Anglican Reformation] England, Wales
http://www.fotw.net/images/g/gb-1606.gif
Stuart's [Puritan Enlightenment] England, Scotland
http://www.fotw.net/images/g/gb.gif
Hanover's [Protestant Denominations] England, Scotland, Ireland

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 04:35 AM
I don't substantiate any connections between the oriental mythos and occidental cultures. The western people were bored and unmotivated by their native culture and sought "spice" by adding false links between themselves and the east. This is a well known problem throughout European history.To clarify, I don't believe they were bored and unmotivated, but they sure as hell weren't defending themselves adequately to the invasions that reshaped their cultural landscape with newer leaders who were puppet kings for those more southeastern. Perhaps the leaders were the ones intolerant and unreceptive to local culture.

Moody
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 04:34 PM
Rodskarl Dubhgall; "The Angles, Saxons and Jutes are from two different backgrounds, each having their own deity. Ing(Angel) for the Angles. (british gentry) Seaxnot(?Saxonette?) for the Saxons. (british nobility)
Woden(God) is for the Jute people. (british royalty).
Woden's wife was queen of the Frisians, Frigg. Freyja's(queen of Franks) husband was Odr(of the Gotar-Geats in Gotaland). See the connection?"

Moody Lawless; In a polytheistic system it is not surprising that various tribes had different deities - but they were all from the same pantheon, so to speak.
The Saxons were a tribal confederation, some looked to Saxnot, but the majority looked to Woden. In England the Saxons divided themselves up into the East Saxons [present-day Essex], West Saxons [Wessex], South Saxons [Sussex] and Middle Saxons [Middlesex].
The Saxon flag as flown by the last true Saxon king, Harold, at the Battle of Hastings, was a red winged dragon with a green and yellow tail.
http://flagspot.net/flags/fr_bayxt.html

The Angles [Anglia] are thought to have come from Angeln, the name referring to a 'Hook' of land [cf., the sport using the fishing hook, angling, as you refer to in your list of flags].
'Ing' occurs in the Anglo-Saxon rune-row and is described as a hero from over the seas.
http://www.magialuna.net/ing.jpg
Ing Rune

The Jutes are really a mystery, and are usually associated with Jutland for convenience.
However, as I said, with a polytheistic system various Folk can devote themselves to a particular deity from the pantheon [as Hindus still do in India], but there tends to be a henotheistic over-lord, in this case Woden.

Properly speaking, 'British' royalty is Keltic and therefore related to the Druidic system. Waddell in his books manages to link the Keltic and Teutonic kingdoms;
http://www.phoenicia.org/celts.html
Otherwise, I like the connections that you make, and I conceive of Royalty being ultimately Pan-Aryan.

Rodskarl; I admit, I wonder about the connection between Vedism and Woden. As far as I know, Wotan means "wode" meaning "odd" and "good"... Consider that Woden's people only had Kent, Wight and Hampshire without any specific allusion to their Jute tribe and you will see what I mean on the subtlety of Woden's influence in Britain, except perhaps religion???...".

Moody; Etymologists are certain that Wotan/Woden/Odin derives from an Indo-European word, *Wut- meaning a 'frenzy'. This is shown by the now obsolete word 'wod' in English, meaning to go crazy. Shakespeare utilises it in a pun when he says to "wood in a wood" - i.e., go mad in a forest.
As I said above, many Saxon kings traced their lineage back to Woden as he was a favourite god of many of the nordic pagan tribes in this pre-Christian era. He seems to have usurped Tiw and therefore combined the notions of inspiration and war-frenzy.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Aryan%20god

I doubt that we can disentangle such ancient tribal groupings as Jutish and Angle, which are historically problematical anyway. I think we should work on the principle of precedence, and look at the qualities of past royal lineages. The Tudors give us the example of a strong racial state [Jews were still banned until the usurper Cromwell committed his crimes] which allowed the highest culture [e.g., Shakespeare] to flourish.
Therefore the Tudors get my nod.

http://freespace.virgin.net/sheldon.stevens/tudorjas.gif

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 05:53 PM
The red flag white cross is a relic of Catholic Crusader kingdoms in Europe. First, England used that colour then changed to the flip colour once the Tudors came to power. This smacks of the Normans really being the Danes, which would have them adopt the Dannebrog and have England eventually give it up when Normandy was lost to France. St. Edward The Confessor had a flag (white cross on blue field) that was just like the later France flag and the alternative Greece flag. http://www.fotw.net/flags/fr~mon.html#civens You can look this up on http://www.fotw.net/flags/crus1188.html#int and http://www.fotw.net/flags/smom.html St. Edmund had the 3 crowns on blue. http://www.fotw.net/flags/rel-stgb.html and http://www.fotw.net/flags/gb-eangl.html

I don't believe some lineages, but I don't think we can be sure. You want a beautiful flag with arms?

http://www.fotw.net/images/f/fr_roys.gif

Moody
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 06:16 PM
The Cross as an Aryan symbol pre-dates Christianity of course; the crucifix form being known as the 'staff of apollo'.
The Aryan influences on Christian symbolism are mentioned here;

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com

See for general symbolism;
http://www.symbols.com

I choose the Tudors as the most legitimate royal house for Britain - we have to work with the historical/ mythical material that has come down to us.

Let everyone choose their favourite royal house for their own nations; also let's also look at the possibility of a pan-European monarchy.

A new thread could be based on this. You could also make a new thread here on European Flags with the object of deciding on a new pan-European flag to replace that horrible EU thing.

http://www.swastika-info.com/images/flaggen/panama/pa-tule2-kl.gif

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 06:52 PM
I was stating that the Germanic tribes did not use crowns and crosses before the Mediterranean cultures introduced them.

I understand what you mean about the backgrounds, although there are several viewpoints to critique.

I will not tolerate a pan-Euro monarchy. I didn't like the Habsburgs and so I will not like this either. Elected emperors of the culture groups such as Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, etc. and not the land will work.

Ah, but the flag making is what the World Church is up to and has done. I don't like that stuff. Orthodox and Catholicism was bad enough.

Oh, and just because the swastika was a common symbol circulated on pottery and the like, doesn't make it automatically a universal symbol. That's a distorted perception built by the "Indo-German Renaissance" that displaces the earlier Indo-Aryan group...I do not take kindly to people rewriting my cultural history as a plaything for political extremities.

I understand that the sun is a universal symbol. I propose that females ascribe to a full moon for the symbol of fertility. Males obviously are tied to whatever the females go through and experience similar symptoms. Everybody goes through the seasons. I propose a calendar based upon the moon and seasons. It is the sun that makes the seasons, the moon makes the months. I do not like the solar culture's grasp on our everyday life when it is obviously inaccurate. If it were changed so that the Seasons each had a male theme and months had female theme, it would work.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 08:29 PM
Yes, I am in favour of Monarchy, and a form of meritocratic aristocracy (decadents who rule simply because their ancestors were excellent fighters/administrators for the King shouldn't be there).

In other words a service aristocracy? I fully agree. Thats very much the system Ivan the Terrible set up in Russia which helped produce great figures like Boris Gudonov. :)

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 08:34 PM
I agree, however, Ukraine has the blue and gold flag like Sverige, like how their upper class was the Norman section. Obviously they'd fly such a flag.

Excuse me? The Ukrainian "upper class" was not composed of Norman elements.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 09:07 PM
I see that I have regained your attention.

I meant Kiev as being Norman, a long time ago(pre-Mongol). I figured that they gave tribute to their heritage by the flag's colours. In fact, the same colours are found on some Danish flags as well, with little other decoration.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 09:29 PM
I see that I have regained your attention.

I meant Kiev as being Norman, a long time ago(pre-Mongol).

It never was a Norman city.



I figured that they gave tribute to their heritage by the flag's colours. In fact, the same colours are found on some Danish flags as well, with little other decoration.

That really doesnt prove anything. Scotland and the Russian navy basically use the same flag, since both have the same patron saint of Andrew the Apostle.

Scotland's Flag
http://www.lilylane.co.uk/jock/scottishflag.jpg

Russian Naval Flag
http://www.flags-by-swi.com/fotw/images/ru~and.gif

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 09:47 PM
Interesting facts. I guess I'll stay away from this one. I don't really have definitive proof and I am not Slavic, so I won't challenge you.

Moody
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 04:14 PM
Rodskarl, there is no singular introduction of such symbols as the cross and the crown [halo, aura]. If Meds introduced those things to Northern Europe [and they didn't as they were already there in particularly nordic forms], then who introduced them to the Meds before that? - the Aryas!

I speculate on a pan-European monarchy because this sub-forum is dedicated to the vision of a European Empire ['imperium europa'].

The Swastika is only found in areas of ancient Aryan expansion and settlement [it is not found in Africa for example]; therefore it was chosen as a pan-Aryan symbol, rightly so.

The sun may be universal, but it means one thing to a nord [who welcomes it], and something very different to an African who is tormented by its heat.

http://www.predecimal.com/images/saxon/cnutpennyobv.jpeg
KING CNVTE

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Meds moved the customs northwards. Simple artwork can be done anywhere around the general area of trade for bartering. Just because they made it, doesn't mean they ascribed to it. Take it from working class folks who do factory labour and other mechanical duties; they certainly provided the resources for the consumers to buy from. Artisanry isn't rigid, except in Hitlerian terms.

I tell you, I am in desert right now and it's terrible. I want to live in Greenland to get away from it(at least for a while). I like the cold.

Trade routes don't specifically denote an empire of people, except perhaps like the USA trash culture, then you might have some basis for a connection. I despise that enough, why would I want a king for this to be made permanent?

Moody
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 04:39 PM
Logically speaking, if we are talking of a European Empire [as is the thrust of this subforum], then we are implying the possibility of a European Emperor.
Of course, such issues are in the realm of the hypothetical at present.
There are many models form history, the most common being a series of kindred petty kingdoms with one of them being mutually recognised as over-lord.

We have plenty of evidence of the ancient Roman's reaction to north European culture. They found many parallels between the Celtic/Teutonic pantheons and that of the Roman/Greek, for example. They assumed that those who worshipped Wotan, say, were merely worshipping Mercury by another name.

And this has been the main thrust of my point in our discussions thus far; even before the sciences of linguistics or anthropology had shown very real connections between the Indo-Europeans, Aryans themselves were making them instinctively, poetically and mythically.

http://www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/wahlverwandtschaft/15biohyg.jpg

Fraxinus Excelsior
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Puskin and Rodskarl Dubhgall: I'm posting this as a neutral party.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ki/KievanRu.html

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 10:25 PM
Moody, they were just trying to identify some similarities to know how to judge them, like when the native europeans met the native american tribes, they and to simulate relationships with words and actions to get an understanding. Obviously, we are all human, so we have an underlying connection. I believe in a few empires, like each for the "meta-ethnicity" in our user account profiles, with the kings being for the ethnicity. I do not consider myself european or white, but Nordish(Norwegian) with quite a bit of English, with a mass exposure to Frankish and Frisian culture, but not others, except in passing. I don't consider myself ethnically Germanic much, because to me, that reminds me of the Goths, Burgundians, Allemans, Longobards, Swabens, Teutons, Jutes, Thuringers, Saxons, etc. I do feel Scandinavian, no doubt, but Germanic seems Baltic phenoma. I'm sure the Irish and British "Celts" feel the same way about the continent. I actually feel closer to Irish and British "Celts" than I do to my Germanic "cousins", because of a shared environment and lifestyles.

Thanks, MG.

Moody
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 12:21 PM
On your first point, Rodskarl; when Europeans colonised and conquered the Americas they took a very different view of the native religions. They regarded them either as perversions of Christianity or else as Devil-worship.
They then set about CONVERTING them. See also the work of Christian Missionaries.

This is very different to the way that the pagan Romans dealt with the religions of other pagan peoples. In this case they merely added them on to their own pantheon as I have described. This worked because the Indo-European religions are all closely related [and this also explains why the pagan Romans persecuted the monotheistic religion of the Jews/Christians].
The same cannot be said for the Semitic and Aryan religions; when these meet, religious conflict ensued.

To suggest that this is because "we are all human" misses the point; the real point is that those of related cultures are compatible, while those of unrelated ones are not.
So in this sense we are NOT "all human", but we ARE Aryans, [or Semites, Mongolians etc.,] and "never the twain shall meet".

There is not, as far as I know, any evidence that all the world's languages are connected, although there IS evidence that language groups are connected.

As to your own ethnicity as you mention it, isn't it true that the Scandinavian areas were the last to lose their ice-covering after the last ice age? And that the Scandinavian Nordics must have migrated north from more southerly lands?

http://www.bruce.ruiz.net/PanamaHistory/balboa5.gif

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 12:53 PM
About the religious: I don't deny the subtleties of borders and the fluency of the human spirit to interchangeably develop similar cultures.

I do not ascribe Aryan beliefs. To me, it is just another form of Judeofascism. Human behaviour is...

I know that the Scandinavians moved from the south, but that was before the invasions began. One doesn't invade a land unpopulated.

Moody
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:10 PM
About the religious: I don't deny the subtleties of borders and the fluency of the human spirit to interchangeably develop similar cultures.

I do not ascribe Aryan beliefs. To me, it is just another form of Judeofascism. Human behaviour is...

I know that the Scandinavians moved from the south, but that was before the invasions began. One doesn't invade a land unpopulated.

Moody replies; You miss the point - the Aryans moved around as you admit - from north to south and vice versa; from east to west and vice versa. The invasions that left their imprint on history are only the most recent; many invasions have suffered the fate of Atlantis and have become submerged.
I personally believe that the Aryans migrated east to the Americas long before the mongolians did, for example ['White Gods'].
Also we know that climates have changed drastically within the historical period let alone the pre-historical.

Similarity is one thing, but direct descent is another; we see lines of direct descent in the Indo-Europeans;

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer96/BRANCH.JPG

Again, this is not about 'beliefs', but facts.

I am not sure what you mean by "Judeofascism" though, although the Zionists have been described as "Jewish Fascists". But then 'fascist' is a very loose coinage - don't see how its relevant here.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:31 PM
Alright chap, I refuse to argue with you about paranormal subjects. Go back to watching the X-Files.

Deling
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 05:08 PM
Kings and birthrights in Europe thesedays? Personally I find it disgusting.

Who would decide what family would be royal? What could an anacronistic aristocratic order do, that National-Revolutionaries cannot?

Birthright always leads to corruption sooner or later, sterilizes a country, and creates a class society. Nothing benefitial for Europe, that is.

Siegfried
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 05:43 PM
Alright chap, I refuse to argue with you about paranormal subjects. Go back to watching the X-Files.

I fail to see what was so 'paranormal' about Moody Lawless' statements. Just because it doesn't fit well with the politically correct history books the System keeps printing, doesn't mean it isn't true.


Kings and birthrights in Europe thesedays? Personally I find it disgusting.

I don't. If a person manages to gain power and wealth, it's only natural that he wishes to leave it to his children once he passes on. Which doesn't mean I endorse blind obedience to every self-proclaimed leader - we want to bring down the modern elite too, don't we?

Abby Normal
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 07:22 AM
I do not ascribe Aryan beliefs. To me, it is just another form of Judeofascism.One of the more ridiculous statements I've read while at Skadi.:)


Human behaviour is...So human behavior is what?:)



This is a waste of time. Perhaps people will take you seriously when you remove that enormous picture of an equally enormous hick pro-wrestler from your avatar.:)

(I say this as a serious suggestion, as regardless of the fact that the wrestler-avatar corresponds with your nature I respect my fellow Monarchists).:)



Side note: I know you will give me more negative reputation points for this; so for future reference the word is impolite, not unpolite.:)

Abby Normal
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 07:28 AM
Kings and birthrights in Europe thesedays? Personally I find it disgusting. Personally, I find Scandinavians disgusting. (Heh. Just kidding).:)


Who would decide what family would be royal? Tradition.


What could an anacronistic aristocratic order do, that National-Revolutionaries cannot? Everything.

Don't knock anachronism.:)


Birthright always leads to corruption sooner or later, sterilizes a country, and creates a class society. Nothing benefitial for Europe, that is.Care to explain? I'd love to hear you out, as I have already formulated a virtually flawless defense of Monarchy from talking endlessly about the subject with my Marxist boyfriend and others.:)

Moody
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 11:40 AM
As to corruption in the monarchical system; I note that monarchies across Eurasia have produced vibrant leadership and high culture century upon century from time immemorial, whereas secular rule has produced corruption and degenration within just a few decades.

Why? - because secular rule has no conception of Duty, Loyalty, and yes ... no conception of Tradition.

Let there always be a caste bred to rule, a caste conditioned from birth that its sole reason in life is to rule according to divine right.
Let this caste be imbued with the accumulated wealth of the nation so as to be above corruption!

This system works because ultimately that wealth of the nation belongs to the nation and is only held in stewardship by the royal caste. It is their duty to hold onto it and not to sell-it-out as the secular politicians have done.

http://helo.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/Navigation/Unit_1_5_Language_Families_/Mat_1_5_IE_Map_/IEMap.gif

Jack
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 12:39 PM
This is the main problem with monarchy. In theory, I'm a 100% loyal to my king (Carl XVI Gustaf) but let's face it, he as well as his principal heirs are total retards; and the Crown Princess may actually be marrying a "Svensson" (suburban average joe) soon.

However, most of the European royal families are more intelligent and better fit to rule than the democratic trash we put up with today. Certainly a hereditary principle of government is infinitely preferable to a democratic one. And pure meritocracy breeds too much instability and social unrest, I think.

The solution may be some sort of breeding control over the royal bloodline, making sure it stays strong, smart, and healthy. And the nobility should be indoctrinated with the noblesse oblige concept from a very early age.

Spain has a well-functioning monarchy :) Pushkin's mentioning of a 'service aristocracy' fairly well approximates what I'm advocating.


Originally posted by Deling
What could an anacronistic aristocratic order do, that National-Revolutionaries cannot?

Who said one cannot come out of another? Aristocracy originally arose out of warrior leaders who served the King.

Moody, Divine Right has been a typically Christian outlook (yes, I'm aware of Julius Caeser being Pontifex Maximus and the Japanese Emperor being the 'Son of Heaven') and that's why I posed the question.

Deling
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 12:10 PM
"Personally, I find Scandinavians disgusting. (Heh. Just kidding)."

Well, opinion as opinion...

"Who said one cannot come out of another? Aristocracy originally arose out of warrior leaders who served the King."

If I imagined nationalist warriors fighting in Sweden for defence of 'king and country', I would find our dyslectic king laughing his ass off. Or do you suggest that National-revolutionaries should revolt, and establish another, new family as heir of Sweden? Sounds like North Korea to me. And what has it to do with tradition?

"Care to explain? I'd love to hear you out, as I have already formulated a virtually flawless defense of Monarchy from talking endlessly about the subject with my Marxist boyfriend and others."

Yes, I can. Heard about nepotism? It's when a family run nations, and without exception it ends in corruption and despotism. Because a monarchy is based on succession rights. And, the most important: how could one be sure that the next generations of kings, queens and other fools, would be proper aristocrats? What happened to the meritocratic principe? Merites, not birthrights. Sorry, but I'm no ultra-conservative, so I have problem clinging to aristocracy and whatever. Nations should have Counsulers, and empires Imperators. But when birthright step into the picture, merites steps out. A vital society become, in the long run, sterile and static.

"Everything.

Don't knock anachronism."

The problem with anachronisms is that they aren't in line with 'zeitgeist'. People nowadays, in Europe, have problem seeing the leader as a 'god chosen', 'rightful heir to the Nation'...'whose rights is based on his royal bloodline'.

But over in Yankeeland the system is a kinda populist ceasarism, where bloodline often decide who's to become President (Bush, a.e), always belonging to a sort of neo-aristocracy. And the President is respected and admired in a way Europeans would never do nowadays. The president become America's face. I think this aristocratic monarchy is more fitted in America, in a modernized way of course, than in Europe's old royal houses.

But if the bloodline monarchy is just a dollhouse here in Europe, a expensive soap opera, and the king a puppet to shake hands and say something stupid once in a while, I've no problem with monarchy, even if I find it stupid and resource-wasting.

Moody
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 04:12 PM
Jack; "Divine Right has been a typically Christian outlook".

Moody; I would be cautious of finding anything 'typically' Christian!
In actual fact, the divinity of kings as an out-look began to wane in the Christian period towards the parlous state it is in today.

In his mammoth and epochal book, 'The Golden Bough', Frazer dwells at length on the conception of kingship amongst the ancients;
"The divinity which hedges a king has its roots deep down in human history ..."
[Ib., chapter XVI]

Talking of the "kings in the classical period of Greek and Latin antiquity" he says;
"The stories of their lineage, titles, and pretensions suffice to prove that they too claimed to rule by DIVINE RIGHT and to exercise by superhuman powers".
[ib., my emphasis]

There is a wealth of material in Frazer's book covering many cultures to prove the point. Therefore we can say that the Christian period is marked by the diminishment of the divine right principle in its true sense.

Talking of the antiquity of European paganism in general, Frazer says;
"In those days the divinity that hedges a king was no empty form of speech, but the expression of a sober belief. Kings were revered, in many cases not merely as priests, that is, as intercessors between man and god, but as themselves gods ..."
[ib.,]

So we see that in the Christian period the Church and State are split and are often at war with each other, leading eventually to the reduction in power of both.

To get the pure Aryan view on this, we must go to the Laws of Manu;
"The Lord [god] emitted a king in order to guard his entire realm".
[Manu 7:3]

Of the divinity of kings;
"Because a king is made from the particles of these lords of the gods, therefore he surpasses all living beings in brilliant energy, and like the Sun, he burns eyes and hearts, and no one on earth is able even to look at him".
[ib., 7:5,6]

This reminds us of the taboo against looking the king in the eye.
That kingship actually DEVOLVES from the divine is made clear here;
"Even a boy king should not be treated with disrespect, with the thought, 'He is just a human being'; for this is a great deity standing there in the form of a man".
[ib., 7:8]

http://www.marileecody.com/eliz1-coronation.jpg

The coronation ceremony is thought to derive from the Celts.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 04:44 PM
Therefore we can say that the Christian period is marked by the diminishment of the divine right principle in its true sense.

And what is "divine right" in its true sense?



Talking of the antiquity of European paganism in general, Frazer says;
"In those days the divinity that hedges a king was no empty form of speech, but the expression of a sober belief. Kings were revered, in many cases not merely as priests, that is, as intercessors between man and god, but as themselves gods ..."



Oh I see, unless we worship our monarchs as gods themselves; thats not "divine right" in its true sense. :eyes

Well you pagans can worship your monarchs all you want; they're just one among many. And their reigns end when they die. I on the other worship not a king, but the King of Kings; and his reign lasts for eternity!
http://www.linternet.com/Netschaton/multimedia/Netsca-images/Jesus/christ.jpg



So we see that in the Christian period the Church and State are split and are often at war with each other, leading eventually to the reduction in power of both.

Ahem, that occured only with the rise of secularist ideologies during the Renaisance. Ironically with the rise of secularism came the aboslutist notions of "divine right" come about. It was from this Renasiance absolutism that the origins of totalitarianism, like that practiced by the Bolsheviks, first emerged.

And I also suggest you read about the Byzantine Empire, in which there was a strong relationship between church and state. As for Christians "dminishing divine right" or the divinity of the monarch:

"Yet in another sense the Byzantine empeors were identical with their God: they were His visible manifestation. The invisible activity of God, as everyone knew, consisted in bringing all heavenly principalities into an ordered harmony under His absolute rule. His [i]visible activity, carried out by the empeor, was to bring all mankind into an ordered harmony under the absolute rule of the monarchy. In this way human society was to imitate divine society. As God was regulator of the cosmic order, the immovable center around which all revolved, so must the emperor, His human extension, be the regulator of the social order, the immovable center around which all human affairs revolved."
--Philip Sherrad Byzantium pg.75

Yet there were still checks and limits to the Emperor's powers:
"There was however one check on the Emperor's constitutional authority far more powerful and more lasting than either the Senate or the Demes. This was the Law. The Emperor was the source of all Law, yet paradoxically, the Law remained something above him."
--Steven Runciman Byzantine Civilisation pg. 74

With our concept of original sin and understanding of human nature, we Christians know better than to give one man total unchecked power. We know the full potentials that power can corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course the traditional Christian monarch has more power than say a prime minister/president in a modern parliamentary democracy(as he should); but there has to be checks of some sorts to make sure power is not abused; for power is meant to serve the greater good.

Moody
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 05:27 PM
Pushkin; "Well you pagans can worship your monarchs all you want; they're just one among many. And their reigns end when they die. I on the other worship not a king, but the King of Kings; and his reign lasts for eternity!"

Moody; You demonstrate there how the Christian stance is actually ultimately corrosive to true Absolute Kingship; your calling of a King "one among many" would actually be treasonable in a total monarchy.
Jesus was king of nothing but his own pitiable fate.

Pushkin; "The conflict between Church and State occured only with the rise of secularist ideologies during the Renaisance. Ironically with the rise of secularism came the aboslutist notions of "divine right" come about. It was from this Renasiance absolutism that the origins of totalitarianism, like that practiced by the Bolsheviks, first emerged".

Moody; Bolshevism was atheistic and had no conception of divine right - the Bolsheviks were also king killers!
The conflict between Church and State goes back to the medieval period with the Pope(s) and Emperors vying for supremacy - a split brought about by Christian ideology;
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=2327

Pushkin; "Look at the Byzantine Empire, in which there was a strong relationship between church and state".

Moody; There should be no such division to begin with! - that's my point! With a division between Church and State neither one can be absolute. Emperor and Pope must be combined in the divine person of the King!

Pushkin; "With our concept of original sin and understanding of human nature, we Christians know better than to give one man total unchecked power".

Moody; The King is not just a "man" as the Laws of Manu make clear; again, this kind of discourse would be treasonable in an absolute monarchy.

Pushkin; "We know the full potentials that power can corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Moody; We have seen that in the Catholic Church also!
Again, the corruption in power in the Christian period is largely due to;
1) The split between Church and State - endemic conflict breeding corruption, and,
2) The diminishing of the divine status of the monarch - leading to rebellion and to a rampant egoism.

Pushkin; "Of course the traditional Christian monarch has more power than say a prime minister/president in a modern parliamentary democracy(as he should); but there has to be checks of some sorts to make sure power is not abused; for power is meant to serve the greater good".

Moody; And who 'checks' the supreme power?
The Church in all its corruption?
Or the bankers in all their deracinated greed?
And, under this theory of the necessity of such 'checks', - who checks the checkers?
No!
Bring in occam's razor; all we need is
One Folk
One Empire, and
One Leader.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/images/nazi_propaganda_ein_volk.jpg

All the rest is silence.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, 06:25 PM
Moody; You demonstrate there how the Christian stance is actually ultimately corrosive to true Absolute Kingship; your calling of a King "one among many" would actually be treasonable in a total monarchy.

:eyes Than your notion of a total monarchy is complete nonsense. I doubt during any period in European history it was treason for a person to say there were many kings in Europe. Would it be treasonous for an Englishman to say that theres another monarch in the Netherlands? I'm stating a very simple fact that for example the King of England is one of many kings around the world. England is not the only monarchy in the world you know(although the English seem to be obsessed with that notion that it is). Monarchs constantly acknowledged(and still do) their counterparts in other nations and accepted their divine right to ruler over their kingdom.

This notion you have of a total monarchy and how its treason to say there are other kings in the world is totally bunk and I have no idea where on earth you arrived that from. Care to give any examples of people charged with treason because they claimed there is more than one king on earth or acknowledged that there was a king reigning in the neighboring kingdom.



Jesus was king of nothing but his own pitiable fate.

Make all the pathetic ad hominens you want Moody. The simple fact is that Christ the King overcame your Caesar. And also you fail to grasp that Christ's kingdom is not of this world but is in heaven. Ironically King Lazar of Serbia(the greatest and most revered monarch in Serbian history) understood this well. As this epic poem about the Battle of Kosovo shows King Lazar speaking with God before the battle.


http://www.kosovo.com/history/battle_of_kosovo.html#s02

'Lazar! Lazar! Tsar of noble family,
Which kingdom is it that you long for most?
Will you choose a heavenly crown today?
Or will you choose an earthly crown?
If you choose the earth then saddle horses,
Tighten girths- have your knights put on
Their swords and make a dawn attack against
The Turks: your enemy will be destroyed.
But if you choose the skies then build a church-
O, not of stone but out of silk and velvet-
Gather up your forces take the bread and wine,
For all shall perish, perish utterly,
And you, O Tsar, shall perish with them."
And when the Tsar has heard those holy words
He meditates, thinks every kind of thought:
"O, Dearest God, what shall I do, and how?
Shall I choose the earth? Shall I choose
The skies? And if I choose the kingdom,
If I choose an earthly kingdom now,
Earthly kingdoms are such passing things-
A heavenly kingdom, raging in the dark, endures eternally."
And Lazarus chose heaven, not the earth,


By choosing the heavenly kingdom, King Lazar not only obtain for himself and his men eternal life, they purchased eternal life for the Serbian nation. The Serbian kingdom fell, but like Christ it will rise again. In his speech to his troops before the battle, King Lazar declared that on that day they would be fighting both for Christ the Lord and "the godliness of the nation".

And how ironic that yesterday I returned a good book about this to the library; I would loved to have quoted excerpts. As King Lazar himself stated; "Earthly kingdoms are but passing things."

Your pagan monarchy is/was of this earth, thus is/was a passing thing in the long run of history. Its life is temporary and its death eternal. The Christian monarchy is of heaven, thus is eternal. Its death is temporary and its life lasts forever.

This somewhat brings us back to our debate about which he place higher: God or Race. I said God, and my choice is the same as Lazar's. Now we know why and its full implications.

"Monarchies decay and fall, just like everything earthly and of nature. The Church however will exist invincible to the very end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The kingdom of Caesar appertains to time. The Kingdom of God appertains to eternity. Christianity can exist in the most diverse historical conditions"
--Nikolai Berdyaev "The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Caesar"



Moody; Bolshevism was atheistic and had no conception of divine right - the Bolsheviks were also king killers!

:eyes Im well aware of that, I have a firm grasp of Russian history. But the concepts of an all-powerful state and even one with a secularist agenda originated in the Renaisance and was further developed during the Enlightenment with its concept of "Enlightened Despots".



Moody; There should be no such division to begin with! - that's my point!

Yes and have you studied the effects of such a concept?



With a division between Church and State neither one can be absolute. Emperor and Pope must be combined in the divine person of the King!

I will quote John Lukacs, for he has a good saying about this concept. The more the state and church come to together, the more the church begins to lose its spiritual power. Once the spiritual power is gone or has severely declined, the status of the state declines along with it.

Sadly this happened in Russia, when the state took more control of the church(which ironically occured when Peter the Great secularized the Russian state, and along with it bloated the autocracy with too much power). The church lost its spiritual power and became nothing more than another division of the Imperial bureaucracy. Which is why many like Berdyaev, Bulganov, and now Solzhenitsyn insisted that church and state must remain seperate but closely related.

Berdyaev in fact wrote an entire essay talking about the relationship between the kingdom of Christ(heaven) and the kingdom of Caesar(earthly). I'll quote some excerpts from that as well. http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1925_303.html



Moody; The King is not just a "man" as the Laws of Manu make clear; again, this kind of discourse would be treasonable in an absolute monarchy.

The King is a man, unless you're suggesting that monarchs and aristocrats are of another species. I'd love to hear about this Moody! :eyes



Moody; We have seen that in the Catholic Church also!

Yes of course. I've never denied this.


"The men of to-day who are so far from Christianity are fond of saying that the Church ought to be made up of perfect people, saints, and complain of her that she includes so many faulty persons, sinners, and pseudo-Christians. It is the standing argument against Christianity, and it is one that betrays non-comprehension or forgetfulness of the nature and essence of the Church. The Church exists before all else for sinners, for imperfect and wandering beings. Her origins are in Heaven and her principle is eternal, but she operates on the earth and in time, among elements submerged in sin; her first business is to succour an erring world at grips with suffering, to save it for eternal life and raise it to the heavens. The essence of Christianity is a union of eternity and time, of Heaven and earth, of the divine and the human, and not any separation between them: the human and temporal are not to be despised and rejected but enlightened and transfigured."
--Nikolai Berydaev The Worth of Christianity and the Unworthiness of Christians
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/essays/worth.htm




Again, the corruption in power in the Christian period is largely due to;
1) The split between Church and State - endemic conflict breeding corruption, and,

Care to provide any sources to back this assertion up? As we have clearly seen throughout history, the ultimate unification of power between church and state often is a bigger contributor of corrruption.



2) The diminishing of the divine status of the monarch - leading to rebellion and to a rampant egoism.


Ironically that happens when the political ruler takes on the powers of the religious ruler.



Moody; And who 'checks' the supreme power?

I've already established this in another debate on this same topic.


”In the absolutist state, sovereignty is embodied in the person of the ruler. The ruler is not restrained by any legal authority. Absolute kings claim to rule by divine right, meaning that they were responsible to God alone. (Medieval kings had governed “by the grace of God”, but invariably had to respect and obey the law.)….Absolute rulers effectively controlled all competing jurisdictions, all institutions or interest groups within their territories. They regulated religious sects. They abolished the liberties(privledges) long held by certain areas, groups, or provinces….Medieval governments had been able to do none of these things. They had been restrained by the church, the feudal nobility, and by their own financial limitations.”
--John P. McKay, Bennet D. Hill, John Buckler A History of World Societies pg.716

And as I quoted about Byzantine monarchy, its powers are also limited within the framework of the law. The Christian monarch is not above the law, unlike the Pagan monarch could brake the very laws he created and sought to enforce(thus making the concept of laws irrelevant and bunk).

Moody
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 06:52 PM
Mon- = One, -arch = Rule.

True monarchy believes in ONE RULER - no intercessors, no division of powers, no Pope, no King of Kings, no 'checks and balances'.

One Ruler, who by his very POSITION is superhuman.

"Monarchy represents the belief in one man who is utterly Superior, a Leader, a Saviour".
[Nietzsche, Will to Power 752]

This man's Will IS Law.

All the rest is democratic and liberal tinkering.

Monarchy is coterminous with Aryan civilisation; for thousands upon thousands of years monarchical rule was the rule.
See this incredible source if you doubt;
http://www.bartleby.com/196/
[Frazer's Golden Bough]

THEN, with the introduction of the Christian religion, within a few centuries, the monarchical principle is weakened [by those who claim that they recognise only Christ as the 'king of kings'] and eventually done away with, leading to today's world hyper-power, the USA, a state created in rebellion against monarchical rule!
A Judaized, anti-monarchical masonic state!
The USA, its policy aimed at unseating monarchs of all kinds in the name of its banker's "freedom"

No, messers democrats, the king is not one man "among many"!
To say so is an insult to the king [still an offence in many Arab kingdoms today - 'sabb that al-malikiya'].
As Frazer tells us;

"In Sparta, all state sacrifices were offered by the Kings as descendants of the god".
[The Golden Bough]

You insult a god when you insult a king.

You will suffer the fate of Christian martyrs like James Intercisus who dared to insult the Persian king Bahram by refusing the Aryan fire sacrifice!
That Christian was slowly sliced to pieces for his insult to kings!

http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/bioa1/alex1/ale1e.jpg

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 09:05 PM
Mon- = One, -arch = Rule.

True monarchy believes in ONE RULER - no intercessors, no division of powers, no Pope, no King of Kings, no 'checks and balances'.

Well then your "true monarchy" is about as real as Marx's vision of Communism. Monarchies have often been marked by divisions of power, ever heard of a system called feudalism before?



One Ruler, who by his very POSITION is superhuman.

Well this monarch disagrees with you.

http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/henryV/19/

"...I think the king is but a man, as I
am: the violet smells to him as it doth to me: the
element shows to him as it doth to me; all his
senses have but human conditions: his ceremonies
laid by, in his nakedness he appears but a man; and
though his affections are higher mounted than ours,
yet, when they stoop, they stoop with the like
wing. Therefore when he sees reason of fears, as we
do, his fears, out of doubt, be of the same relish
as ours are: yet, in reason, no man should possess
him with any appearance of fear, lest he, by showing
it, should dishearten his army."
--King Heny V from William Shakespeare's Henry V Act 4 Scene I



"Monarchy represents the belief in one man who is utterly Superior, a Leader, a Saviour".
[Nietzsche, Will to Power 752]

Sorry but Nietzsche is not a recognized expert on monarchical governments.



THEN, with the introduction of the Christian religion, within a few centuries, the monarchical principle is weakened

Excuse me, but who overthrew the Etrustcan kings and set up an anti-Monarchist Republic? So much so was the title of King or Monarch despised that Brutus took it upon himself to kill a man who wished to declare himself king and god! And all this before Christ was even the tinkle in the eye of Mary.

So don't hand me this bull that anti-monarchial sentiment originated in Christianity. Indeed Christianity improved the concept and I dont find it all suprising that European monarchs throughout the ages have looked to their Medieval(ie Christian) counterparts as the glorious example to follow. Shakespeare protrayed Henry V as the ideal English monarch. Not suprisingly, another major theme in the play is to protray Henry as the ideal Christian monarch.

No, it was only untill the French Revolution and that tyrant and butcher Napoleon were the Caesars glorified and wished to be imitated. Indeed thats the difference between your monarchy and mine. My monarchy is a Christian one, built on justice and on law. Yours is built on tyranny and injustice. A Christian king cannot be a tyrant, but a pagan king is more than willing to become one. No pagan monarch could bring himself to speak these words of King Henry:

http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/henryV/4/

"We are no tyrant, but a Christian king;"
--King Henry V from Shakespeare's Henry V Act I Scene 2



[by those who claim that they recognise only Christ as the 'king of kings']

Yes Christ is the King of Kings. I know thats hard for you pagans to understand, but he is. However, that does mean Christ is the only king. I have no idea where you got that idea from Moody, but then again Im having trouble understanding where much of what you're arguing in general is coming from.



and eventually done away with, leading to today's world hyper-power, the USA, a state created in rebellion against monarchical rule!

Yes it was created by Freemasons, who are hardly Christian. Although it should be noted that the Freemasons were inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment, which heavily glorified Classical civilization and its pagan ideals.



No, messers democrats, the king is not one man "among many"!
To say so is an insult to the king [still an offence in many Arab kingdoms today - 'sabb that al-malikiya'].

Please provide me accounts of people in Arab kingdoms having legal action taken against them because they noted that other countries have monarchs. Is it illegal in Arab kingdoms to say that England has a Queen, or that Japan has an Emperor?



As Frazer tells us;
"In Sparta, all state sacrifices were offered by the Kings as descendants of the god".
[The Golden Bough]

Was the King of Sparta the only king in all of Greece? :eyes



You insult a god when you insult a king.

I have not insulted any king, nor have I insulted god. But I will say you have insulted god and you are insulting the very concept of rule by kings.



You will suffer the fate of Christian martyrs like James Intercisus

:rotfl And whose going to hand me this fate? Your "true monarchy, which as I said before is about as real as Marx's vision of communism? LOL!



who dared to insult the Persian king Bahram by refusing the Aryan fire sacrifice!

:eyes And to think pagans like to whine about how the Inquistion burned witches.


That Christian was slowly sliced to pieces for his insult to kings!

No he willingly sacrificed himself for his king, the King of Kings, whose reign lasts forever!

Jack
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 11:14 AM
[B]"Who said one cannot come out of another? Aristocracy originally arose out of warrior leaders who served the King."

If I imagined nationalist warriors fighting in Sweden for defence of 'king and country', I would find our dyslectic king laughing his ass off. Or do you suggest that National-revolutionaries should revolt, and establish another, new family as heir of Sweden? Sounds like North Korea to me. And what has it to do with tradition?

Tradition starts somewhere. Hitler could've started a new Monarchial dynasty if he A) felt up to it, B) had a son. North Korea is a country of self-deception, built on an ideology they have to lie to themselves about in order to keep their country the way it is. Two points for starters: A) Christ has not returned (that could be an option, not to insult any Christians here such as Pushkin), B) According to the viking myth, after the great destruction there's a fresh start and new order arises.

'Only a God can save us now'
- Martin Heidegger.

Deling
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 11:26 AM
"Tradition starts somewhere. Hitler could've started a new Monarchial dynasty if he A) felt up to it, B) had a son. North Korea is a country of self-deception, built on an ideology they have to lie to themselves about in order to keep their country the way it is. Two points for starters: A) Christ has not returned (that could be an option, not to insult any Christians here such as Pushkin), B) According to the viking myth, after the great destruction there's a fresh start and new order arises."

You can't just 'start' a tradition, and especially not one which will inflict the lives of millions. Monarchies are the anti-thesis of meritocracy, and if one is willing to accept monarchial system in these dark days, what principles would the monarch have? Or would he be the One Who Rules Without Rules.

North Korea obviously works better than new monarchies in Europe ever will. I've great respect for DPRK and the Juche way; the sole totalitarian state existing.

There are no such things as "viking myths". The vikings were robbers, and also among the first to be Christened. But there is a thing called 'asatro', which myths you're talking about. But you're right that the myth of Ragnarök could justify a monarchial system.

Siegfried
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:38 PM
There are no such things as "viking myths". The vikings were robbers

The Vikings were not mere robbers. This misconception of Viking Culture is mostly based on the accounts of Christian monks whose towns and monasteries got plundered by the pagan (or pseudo-Christian) Viking warriors - a rather limited and biased source, I'd say.
Besides plundering, they set up trade routes across Europe (some of which also stretched into Russia, IIRC). Viking ships sailed all around Europe and even made it to the Black Sea. Have you ever seen Viking artwork? It displays quite some skill; these fierce peoples were not the mindless barbarians they are sometimes made out to be.

Deling
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 01:21 PM
"The Vikings were not mere robbers. This misconception of Viking Culture is mostly based on the accounts of Christian monks whose towns and monasteries got plundered by the pagan (or pseudo-Christian) Viking warriors - a rather limited and biased source, I'd say.
Besides plundering, they set up trade routes across Europe (some of which also stretched into Russia, IIRC). Viking ships sailed all around Europe and even made it to the Black Sea. Have you ever seen Viking artwork? It displays quite some skill; these fierce peoples were not the mindless barbarians they are sometimes made out to be."

Yes, I know. I misused the word robbers a little, and I agree that Vikings did much especially regarding trade. Viking tribes from Roslagen also founded Russia. But there are no things as 'viking myths', when regarding heathendom/asatro. It was the use of these two words that I reacted against, and the bizarre popularisation of the viking concept.

Moody
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 05:04 PM
"Monarchy is the most natural form of government for man".
[Schopenhauer]

There seems to be only a shallow understanding of the notion of kingship here. Pushkin talks of feudalism and Shakespeare's dramas, seemingly unable to think out-side the relatively recent epoch of Christian history [which started very late for Russia and Scandinavia as we know].

He seems unaware that the Roman Republic and Greek democracy retained their kings [the latter being defeated by kingly Sparta and then in turn by Alexander the Great, while Rome saw sense and went over to Imperial rule].

He also is unaware that Europe's foul history of king-killers did not begin with the French but with the Britisher Cromwell, a most devout Christian. Indeed, Cromwell and his cut-throats [and Jewish moneyers] used the Biblical notions of Jesus being the only king ['king of kings' indeed!] as justification for their rank treason.

And Cromwell is not so far away from the Skull and Bones President of the USA who uses Christian rhetoric to up-hold his masonic design of Judaized world government, which includes the toppling of all ethnic kings and Leaders.
The USA has bred a mob of monarchy-haters!
They have no king in their Souls!
They have no Souls!

There has never been a more anti-kingly era than this one - thanks to the Jewish virus hidden in 'Christendom'!

"We may hope that one day even Europe will be purified of all Jewish mythology".
[Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena II]

There are a multitude of examples of rebels who have met their rightful deaths for insulting kings [even the merest slight could seal such a Fate] from ancient times up to the present day.

But I said at the start that there was a shallow understanding of kingship - shallow in length and breadth.
Ultimately kingship is pagan and symbolic;

KING:
The masculine principle;
Sovereignty;
Temporal power;
Supreme achievement in the temporal world;
The supreme ruler, equated with the Creator God and the Sun, whose delegate he is on earth.
In many traditions it was held that the vitality of the king reflected, or was responsible for, the vitality of his people and the fertility of the land, hence the sacrifice of the king, or, late, his scapegoat, when his vitality waned.
The king and queen together represent perfect union, the two halves of the perfect whole, completeness, the androgyne;
They are also symbolised by, and symbolise, the Sun and Moon, heaven and earth, gold and silver, day and night, and, in Alchemy, sulphur and quicksilver.
Attributes of the king are the sun, crown, sceptre, orb, sword, arrows, the throne.
[Cooper, Encyclopedia of Symbols]

The Sun is the Swastika.

Pushkin says that my concept of kingship is unreal, and yet I have given many examples of it as well as a link to Frazer's Golden Bough which is unequaled.

And I say to him; there are Kings ONLY upon Earth - there is no "kingdom of heaven"!

Christ was NEVER a king - he was mocked by the Noble Romans who derided him as "king of the Jews"!

He had no kingdom then, he has no kingdom NOW!

That is not 'ad hominem', it is FACT!

If my view of Earthly kingship is imaginary, even though I've given concrete examples, I ask what evidence HE has for a "kingdom of Heaven"?
I say that THAT is the imaginary kingdom!

Royalty Link;
http://www.royalty.nu

Taras Bulba
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 09:31 PM
There seems to be only a shallow understanding of the notion of kingship here.

I firmly agree here, its largely coming from your side of the argument.



Pushkin talks of feudalism and Shakespeare's dramas, seemingly unable to think out-side the relatively recent epoch of Christian history.

:eyes Nice try at avoiding the issue and answering my arguments. Neither my mentioning of feudalism nor of Shakespeare's play had anything to do with the notion of "the revaltively recent epoch of Christian history".

You said that monarchies only have one ruler and NO divisions of power, I provided the example of feudalism to counter that argument. You said that monarchs are superhuman simply because of their position, and I provided the words of King Henry V to refute that. None of this had anything to do with how "relatively recent epoch of Christian history", I provided real examples to counter your arguments.



[which started very late for Russia and Scandinavia as we know

Thats not what we're discussing here Moody, nor does this help your argument.


He seems unaware that the Roman Republic and Greek democracy retained their kings

Nice straw man Moody, please point to me where I said that. Besides in both the Roman Republic and Greek democracy, there were checks and balances on the power of the king.


http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=2&greekEncoding=UnicodeC

Democracy in Athens was not limited to giving citizens the right to vote. Athens was not a republic, nor were the People governed by a representative body of legislators. In a very real sense, the People governed themselves, debating and voting individually on issues great and small, from matters of war and peace to the proper qualifications for ferry-boat captains (for the latter, see Aeschin. 3.157).1 The Athenian democracy was not, of course, a free-for-all of mob rule. The Athenians understood the value of checks and balances and of enforcing time for reflection before acting.

:eyes So again Moody, you have failed to provide any example of monarchies without some form of division of power and/or checks and balances.



, while Rome saw sense and went over to Imperial rule].

Machiavelli would sincerly disagree with that.



He also is unaware that Europe's foul history of king-killers did not begin with the French but with the Britisher Cromwell, a most devout Christian.

Cromwell was a devout Puritan, which based itself on the teachings of Calvin, which is one of the biggest perversions of Christianity ever devised. Calvin's views of predestination violates the basic Christian concept of free will. So considering Cromwell a devout Christian(who butchered thousands of Irish catholics) is only something a person ignorant of Christian teachings can make. Just like how you insist that Nietzsche was such a devout Christian in his early days(which I have been meaning to get back to you on).



And Cromwell is not so far away from the Skull and Bones President of the USA who uses Christian rhetoric to up-hold his masonic design of Judaized world government, which includes the toppling of all ethnic kings and Leaders.
The USA has bred a mob of monarchy-haters!
They have no king in their Souls!
They have no Souls!

LOL! You use Bush's "Christianity" as proof that Christianity is anti-monarchist? Here's a good paper by Jesuit scholar John Stanton exposing Bush's "Christianity" for the fraud it is.

http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/387/9921_bush.html

This is the path that George Bush II and his militant-Christian Republican disciples claim to be following by daily invoking Christ's name and actions. For example, in the name of Christ and all he represents, Bush invaded Iraq. Bush sought divine guidance from the Son of Man in that action - as he does in every other - and claimed to be enlightened by him in his decision to go forth and conquer. One would think that such a devotee of Christ's teachings would have placed the highest priority on protecting the Iraqi National Museum that contained information on Christ's lineage and the history of his times. As history has recorded, though, it was the Iraqi Oil Ministry that was heavily defended by Bush's legions, not the Iraqi National Museum that also housed a unique portion of the history of Muslim and Christian alike. That action speaks volumes about Bush's opportunistic dedication to Jesus Christ. Bush gladly sacrificed a warehouse full of insights into humanity and it's relationship with divinity to an unruly mob. Yet, a worthless building containing oil and gas extraction contracts between American firms and the government of Iraq was heavily defended by US troops.





There has never been a more anti-kingly era than this one - thanks to the Jewish virus hidden in 'Christendom'!

Yes isn't it ironic that once the influence of the churches declined the influence of the Jews increased. As French Jewish scholar Jules Isaac once said: "Without centuries of Christian catechism, preaching, and vituperation, the Hitlerian teachings, propaganda and vituperation would not have been possible."

Even the Jerusalem Post once stated that "antisemitism is a direct result of the Church's teachings".




There are a multitude of examples of rebels who have met their rightful deaths for insulting kings [even the merest slight could seal such a Fate] from ancient times up to the present day.

Care to provide examples of rebels being executed because they claimed their monarch was not the only monarch on earth. Were any French serfs executed because they said England as well has a King? Were any Spartans executed because they said Athens(or some other city-state) had a king as well? If so, please provide some examples.



Pushkin says that my concept of kingship is unreal, and yet I have given many examples of it as well as a link to Frazer's Golden Bough which is unequaled.

:rotfl First off your quote from Frazer makes no mention about the division of power in Sparta. In fact Sparta not one but two Kings, and there certainly was a strong division of power in the city state so as to make sure that one the power of one man could not go unchallenged.


http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~sparta/topics/kings.htm

Sparta was unique in maintaining a dyarchy — two kings holding office simultaneously. The origins of this odd arrangement are lost in antiquity and shrouded in legend. According to the Spartans, the institution dated from the twin sons of Aristodemus, the great-great-grandson of Heracles (Hercules), the son of Zeus.


http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/SPARTA.HTM

Spartan government was an odd affair, but its overwhelming characteristic was stability . The Spartans, in fact, had the most stable government in the history of ancient Greece (some historians call this stability, "political stagnation"). At the top of government was the monarchy; the monarchy, however, was a dual monarchy. Below the monarchy was a council which was composed of the two kings plus twenty-eight nobles, all of whom were over sixty, that is, retired from the military. The council debated and set legislative and foreign policy, and was the supreme criminal court. Below the council (or above it), was an assembly of all the Spartiate males (a democracy, in other words) that selected the council and approved or vetoed council proposals. Above them all, however, was a small group of five men known as the ephorate . For all practical purposes, Spartan government was the ephorate, for these five men led the council, ran the military, ran the educational system, ran the infant selection system, and had veto power over everything coming out of the council or the assembly. They even had power to depose the king; however, they needed powerful divine proof (in the form of omens or oracles) to exercise this power. So what kind of government was Spartan government? It was a democratic timocratic monarchical oligarchy. Chew on that a few times.

Sparta hardly proves your vision of monarchy correct. In fact it proves me correct that monarchies often have divisions of power.

However you didnt even quote Frazer to prove that there can be no division of power in monarchies, but tried using the quote to prove that claiming the King of one state is not the only king in the world as an insult and illegal. I asked you whether or not the king of Sparta was the only king in Greece, you failed to answer directly. However, you mentioned the king of Athens, so yes the King of Sparta was not the only king in all Greece. How stating this simple fact would be considered an insult to any king I havent the foggiest and Moody refuses to answer this simple question.




And I say to him; there are Kings ONLY upon Earth - there is no "kingdom of heaven"!

:rotfl Moody, even the pagans would disagree with you. Zeus was the king in heaven according to the Greeks.


Christ was NEVER a king

:eyes We've already gone through this Moody.


he was mocked by the Noble Romans who derided him as "king of the Jews"!

Thats irrelevant what your "Noble Romans" thought about Christ. Although it is ironic that within time those "Noble Romans" came to recognize Christ as the King of Kings. And it was a Roman emperor himself who declared it so.


He had no kingdom then, he has no kingdom NOW!

Alright Moody if you insist. When you die and see Christ's kingdom, you'll see how much of a fool you are.



That is not 'ad hominem', it is FACT!

:eyes Nice try Moody, but a white horse is still a horse.



If my view of Earthly kingship is imaginary, even though I've given concrete examples,

No you haven't. You've just posted a bunch of worthless rantings about how its an insult to say there are many kings around the world, and even how it's illegal in some countries to say that. Yet when I asked you if it's wrong to say that England is not the only monarchy in the world, or if it's illegal in Arab kingdoms to say that Japan has a monarch(and give some examples of such); you failed to answer a single one of these points I made. And then you're hilarious rant about how Im going to suffer the same fate as James Intercisus was just icing on the cake. Funny you even failed to answer as to which regime was going to hand me this fate.

You have failed to provide one single piece of evidence to back up your claims. Every example you give for your vision of "true monarchy" without any divisions of power have in fact turned up to be perfect examples of monarchies WITH divisions of power and checks and balances. You have failed to give any examples of how its illegal in some countries to say that there is more than one monarch on earth(either legal documents or actual accounts of legal action taken for such acts).

Moody
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 04:33 PM
"Republican Rome continued to use not merely the functions and powers of the old kings, but for ceremonial purposes even used the very name".
['A History of Rome', Myres]

"Divisions of power" within a kingdom refers to non-kingly elements taking power away from the king.

Dual kingship is not therefore, a division of power, anymore than a king sharing the throne with his queen is!

When the king commands the military, his ministers, the aristocracy, and the priests etc., this is not a 'division of power'!

Likewise, 'checks and balances' refers to any non-kingly elements having power OVER the king; this is against the whole concept of monarchy. This is not the same as the king having advisors, for example, as such are BENEATH the king's power.

Nor is Shakespeare putting words of self-doubt into a Medieval king's mouth in a work of fiction, an example of any such division of power: even the gods have doubts, according to poets.

The basic ethos of Mon-Archy is that one man rules when he is in the position of being king/emperor/fuhrer etc.,
This has been mankind's main political system for the greater part of world history.
It is only in the recent centuries in the Christian West where we have had kings overthrown, beginning in Europe with the Christian Cromwell, and the imposition of an anti-monarchical polity [Republican Rome retained its kings as did Athens, see the above quote].

As you have agreed, monarchy is a pagan system and so I support a paganistic monarchy as it is essentially monarchic.

Clearly, I object to a non-kingly power such as that of the Catholic Pope during the Christian period, which challenges the kingly power.
I am against non-kingly interests such as the financiers challenging the kingly power also.
I am also against an ideology which pretends that there is a mythical "kingdom of heaven", and therefore thumbs its nose at the real earthly kingdoms.

The Greeks were aware that their pagan pantheon was largely symbolic and metaphorical - a kind of Sabianism.
Euhmerism itself was a Greek doctrine [i.e., that gods were really just exceptional heroes from history who had been deified];

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Euhemerism

The philosopher Xenophanes knew that religion was anthropomorphic and therefore man-made;

http://www.bartleby.com/65/xe/Xenophan.html

"God" is just a way of referring to those aspects of life that are beyond our comprehension. For me 'god' is the force of Nature throughout the Universe - the Will to Power etc.,
All the personifications are just that.

Likewise, as Schopenhauer says, kingship is NATURAL.

So while history shows the reality of kingship on Earth, there is NO EVIDENCE of kingship in Heaven - you have yet to prove this.

Neither have you proven how Christ was a "king" of anything.

So if there is no 'kingdom of heaven', or if Christ was king of nothing, then what do we want with a 'Christian monarchy'? - which is a contradiction in terms because to Christians, CHRIST is their king, not Caesar.

I can't put my position any clearer than that!

This chapter by EVOLA is interesting in regards to my position on Monarchy [I hadn't seen this before writing the above] See link;

http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/ramw3.htm
['Kingship', from Evola RAMW]

http://www.schepart.ch/mho/Philosophie/Philosophengallery/Xenophanes.jpg
Xenophanes

Taras Bulba
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 09:12 PM
"Republican Rome continued to use not merely the functions and powers of the old kings, but for ceremonial purposes even used the very name".
['A History of Rome', Myres]

A simplistic interpretation of the facts Moody.

"Three objectives appear to have actuated the framers of the original republican constitution:the eradication of monarchy without weakening the exectutive force of government, provision for the more active participation of the citizen body in government, and ensuring that ultimate power should be in a council of elders known as the senate. Efforts to attain the first objective resulted in assigning the chief authority in the state to two annually elected consuls, who were considered to be the embodiment of kingly power and at the same time the spokesmen of the people in the relationships of the Roman community with gods and men....The extensive, almost regal, powers and responsibilities of the consuls were circumscribed at the outset, and later on as well, and were also subjected to restraints other than those excerised by the people and by the senate. Annual elections were insisted upon to prevent the possibility of an established dynasty, and in time it was specifically provided that reelection could not occur untill after an interval of ten years...As a check upon arbitrary or autocratic power, either consul had the right to enjoin and hence neutralize the acts of his colleague, but neither could enjoin the convoking of the senate."
--John Dickinson Death of a Republic: Politics and Political Thought at Rome 59-44B.C. pg.5-6

Hardly an example of your vision of a "true monarchy". I especially love how Dickinson mentions how the Republic intended to eradicate the monarchy; and this was several centuries before the birth of Christ.




"Divisions of power" within a kingdom refers to non-kingly elements taking power away from the king.

:eyes Nice white horse Moody, but it wont fly.



Dual kingship is not therefore, a division of power, anymore than a king sharing the throne with his queen is!

Oh but it is and the quote I just provided above from Dickinson proves that it was indeed a divion of power.



Likewise, 'checks and balances' refers to any non-kingly elements having power OVER the king; this is against the whole concept of monarchy.

First off Moody, thats not what "check and balances" means so nice white horse. Also I have provided quotes from sources dealing with both Greece and Rome talking about there was indeed checks and balances on the power of the Kings. As my quote dealing with Sparta explained, a council had the power to depose the king. And my quote dealing with Athens mentions "checks and balances" directly.



Nor is Shakespeare putting words of self-doubt into a Medieval king's mouth in a work of fiction, an example of any such division of power: even the gods have doubts, according to poets.

Nice straw man Moody. I didnt quote Shakespeare to prove divisions of power, but to refute your notion that a monarch by his position alone is superhuman. :eyes




The basic ethos of Mon-Archy is that one man rules when he is in the position of being king/emperor/

Then why do you consider Sparta and Repbulican Rome examples of your vision of monarchy, when the historical record clearly shows there was not ONE but TWO kings(or consuls in Rome)?



fuhrer etc.,

:eyes I've already refuted this notion. Hitler was not a Monarchist.



This has been mankind's main political system for the greater part of world history.

Nice straw man Moody, where did I deny this?



It is only in the recent centuries in the Christian West where we have had kings overthrown,

:eyes *sigh*

"Three objectives appear to have actuated the framers of the original republican constitution:the eradication of monarchy without weakening the exectutive force of government...."
--John Dickinson Death of a Republic: Politics and Political Thought at Rome 59-44B.C. pg.5


[Republican Rome retained its kings as did Athens, see the above quote].

My quote above disproves that Moody. The powers and responsibilities of the Consuls resembled and were modelled off those of the Etruscan kings, but overall there were limits to their power and a main goal of the Republic was to eradicate the monarchy.

"The senate began as, and remained throughout the whole republican period, the most vital part of the mechanism of the traditional Roman government."
--John Dickinson Death of a Republic: Politics and Political Thought at Rome 59-44B.C. pg.10

And as for Athenian democracy, I've already established that there were checks and balances in the Athenian system. Even if Athens had a King, his power was limited and checked by the absolute power of the Assembly(made up of all citizens).



As you have agreed, monarchy is a pagan system

Nice straw man Moody. I said that monachies originated in pagan settings because paganism was around before Christianity.



and so I support a paganistic monarchy as it is essentially monarchic.

:eyes Which as I have continually proven has little in common with your vision of a "true monarchy". I have yet to see you provide just ONE example of a historical example of your "true monarchy" in action. The examples you have provided have actually turned out to be perfect examples of limited monarchy and/or monarchies with strong divisions of power and checks and balances.



Clearly, I object to a non-kingly power such as that of the Catholic Pope during the Christian period,

:eyes Frankly I find what you object to be highly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I suggest you spend more time trying to find an actual example of your vision of a "true monarchy"; but it seems my assertion is being proved right that your vision of monarchy is no more real than Marx's communist system.


which challenges the kingly power.

Care to give any examples of this?



I am against non-kingly interests such as the financiers challenging the kingly power also.

Ironically that happened with the revival of pagan ideals during the Renasiance and the limiting of power of the churches.



I am also against an ideology which pretends that there is a mythical "kingdom of heaven",

:eyes I couldnt care less Moody!



So while history shows the reality of kingship on Earth, there is NO EVIDENCE of kingship in Heaven - you have yet to prove this.

You have yet to prove your "true monarchy" has ever actually existed. So I wouldnt point the finger here.




Neither have you proven how Christ was a "king" of anything.

:eyes

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence"
--John 8:36

As I stated before, you pagans have real trouble understanding this concept!



So if there is no 'kingdom of heaven', or if Christ was king of nothing, then what do we want with a 'Christian monarchy'? - which is a contradiction

:rotfl A contradiction? The concept of a Christian monarchy is a fact and ruled over Europe for over a 1000 years before the last Christian monarch was massacred by the Bolsheviks. You have yet to provide JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF YOUR "TRUE MONARCHY"!



in terms because to Christians, CHRIST is their king, not Caesar.

:eyes

"And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."
--Luke 20:25:

Christ is the King in Heaven, Caesar is the King on Earth. Thank you moody for further demonstrating your lack of knowledge on Christian doctrine and its relations towards politics.



I can't put my position any clearer than that!

Your position is hardly clear Moody. You resort to white horsing and straw men arguments to advance your view. Not to mention you never ever answer any of my arguments or my simple questions. Then of course the James Intercisus affair, which certainly was a new low for you. This debate is fast becoming a farce!

Moody
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 05:03 PM
It should be obvious that I am not labouring under a limited conception of Monarchy [Mon- = One, -archy = Ruler, as I keep reminding everyone]. Such single Rulers include kings, queens, emperors, caesars, kaisers, tsars, dictators, fuhrers, Leaders etc., etc.,

I have just found an ally in my interpretation, none other than Julius Evola - whose views on Monarchy I had not read before writing the above posts here.

Evola says, in his 'Men Amongst Ruins', for example, that;

"The ancient Roman notion of IMPERIUM essentially belonged to the domain of the sacred".
Link to a precis of this incredible work;
http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/mar3.htm

So the religious and the political MUST be united in the Monarch by my conception - hence I reject the separation between the holy monarch [the Pope] and the king, found in Christian history.
Conflicts between Church and State have included the war between the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for example. Of course such a conflict exists within the soul of every Christian who perversely calls Jesus Christ [a carpenter's son who was crucified like a common criminal] a "king". King of what isn't certain, but it apparently also means that Jesus is the "king of kings"!
Such impudence! Christians even think of their heaven as being a "kingdom"!
Amazingly, some Christians have taken this literally and have opposed the true kingly power which is only on Earth. Cromwell was such a Christian literalist fanatic who saw fit to murder a king.
Of course, Cromwell tried to make himself into a Monarch; he failed because his heir [his son as in the kingly fashion] was not up to it. The monarchy was restored and Cromwell's body dug up, beheaded and hung on traitor's gate. Such should be the ultimate fate of all king-killers.

As for Rome, the rejection of the Etruscan kings led to the establishment of the mon-archical offices of dictator and Emperor;

DICTATOR - 'dictator rei gerendae causa' - held "absolute military and civil power in the State".
[On-line Dictionary]

Examples include;

Camillus - five terms
Cincinnatus - 5th century BC
The following are all 4th century BC;
Corvus - two terms
Rufinus
Cursor
Rullianus
3rd century BC;
Caecus - two terms
Caiatinus
Cunctator
Maximus
1st century BC;
Sulla [made himself dictator without limit]
Julius Caesar, 'dictator for life'.

The Emperor Augustus ruled as an AUTOCRAT for more than 40 years;

"An AUTOCRAT is generally speaking any ruler with absolute power, the term is now usually used in a negative sense (cf., despot and tyrant). The term is derived from the Greek word 'autocrat' (literally 'self-ruler' or 'ruler-of-one's-self')".
[ib.,]

More generally we have the concept of dictatorship;

"DICTATORSHIP; a government headed by a Dictator or more generally any authoritarian or totalitarian government".
"TOTALITARIANISM is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all respects of day-to-day life".
[ib.,]

We can think of many examples of these throughout world/history.
Often a Dictator creates a "FAMILY DICTATORSHIP which operates much like an absolute monarchy".
[ib.,]
Thinking of Cromwell, Napoleon and others we note this form of monarchy;

"A SELF-PROCLAIMED MONARCHY is a monarchy that is proclaimed into existence, often by a single individual, rather than occurring as part of a longstanding tradition. It is at least initially the opposite of most hereditary monarchies, although if a self-proclaimed monarchy is successful, it will evolve into a hereditary one".
[ib.,]

My own [and Evola's] starting point is this;

"An ABSOLUTE MONARCHY is an idealised form of government, a monarchy where the ruler has the power to rule their country and citizens freely with no laws or legally-organised direct opposition telling the monarchy what to do ....
Basically an absolute monarch has total power over its people and land - including the aristocracy ...".
[ib.,]

Examples from history are multitudinous; we can probably begin with the Pharaohs;
http://anthroclass.com/lectures/lbanth313/class19.html

Note that Savitri Devi illustrates her thesis with three mon-archical characters; the Pharaoh Akhenaton [a true mono-archist], Genghis Khan [means 'Universal Ruler'] and Adolf Hitler [single Leader of the Third German Empire].

"Thus it was rightly said: 'princeps a legibus solutus' - namely, the law does not apply to the one who acts as Leader, just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
[Evola, Men Among Ruins]

It is this concept which is central, as I said before: - the king IS the Law!

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmonarchs/ivan4/ivan4_images/ivan4_head.jpg
Ivan the Terrible;
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmonarchs/ivan4/ivan4_bio.htm

P.s., Pushkin, there's no such phrase as 'white horse' - you're flogging a dead one there!

On Hitler's view of Monarchy.

While it's true that Hitler was very critical of monarchism's degenerate aspects - the tendency for servility to become endemic, for example - it must be pointed out that he supported monarchism in principle according to his Mein Kampf.

In that book, after making criticisms of monarchism, he then asserts that monarchy has "unquestionable assets", which he goes on to describe;

"The stability of the entire state leadership, brought about by the monarchic form of state and
The removal of the highest state posts from the welter of speculation by ambitious politicians.
Furthermore, the dignity of the institution of monarchy as such and
The authority which this alone created:
Likewise the raising of the civil service and particularly the army above the level of party obligations.
One more advantage was the personal embodiment of the State's summit in the monarch as a person, and the example of responsibility which is bound to be stronger in a monarch than in the accidental rabble of a parliamentary majority ...
Finally, the cultural value of the monarchy for the German people was high and could very well compensate for other drawbacks ...
What the German princes did for art and science, particularly in the 19th century, was examplary. The present period [i.e., 1925] cannot be compared with it ..."
[Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler. Bk I:10]

So we see that Hitler was a monarchist at heart and modelled his own Fuhrerprinzip on an idealised monarchism.

http://struggle.ws/graphics/windsor_hitler.jpg
Hitler greets the Duke of Windsor, England's future king.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, June 14th, 2004, 03:10 AM
Does anybody here have royal lineage?

Taras Bulba
Saturday, June 19th, 2004, 06:30 PM
It should be obvious that I am not labouring under a limited conception of Monarchy [Mon- = One, -archy = Ruler, as I keep reminding everyone].

Yet you provide examples of regimes that had not one but two monarchs as evidence of your "true monarchy". When I called you on that, you desperately tried spinning yourself claiming that a system with two monarchs is not a "division of power".



Such single Rulers include kings, queens, emperors, caesars, kaisers, tsars, dictators, fuhrers, Leaders etc., etc.,

:eyes Aristotle clearly states in his Politics that there is a clear difference between monarchs and statesmen. You clearly lack that understanding. Just because one has political power does make them a monarch.



I have just found an ally in my interpretation, none other than Julius Evola - whose views on Monarchy I had not read before writing the above posts here.

Evola says, in his 'Men Amongst Ruins', for example, that;

"The ancient Roman notion of IMPERIUM essentially belonged to the domain of the sacred".

And that addresses what exactly? Monarchies, pagan or christian, are based on sacred ideals and notions. This hardly proves your "true monarchy".



So the religious and the political MUST be united in the Monarch by my conception - hence I reject the separation between the holy monarch [the Pope] and the king, found in Christian history.

Yet that has often lead to the corruption and decline of the church and then later the state. This clearly happened with Rome with its Emperor worship.


Of course such a conflict exists within the soul of every Christian who perversely calls Jesus Christ [a carpenter's son who was crucified like a common criminal] a "king".

:eyes Ive already refuted this notion Moody.



Such impudence! Christians even think of their heaven as being a "kingdom"!
Amazingly, some Christians have taken this literally and have opposed the true kingly power which is only on Earth.

And what Christians are those? St. Augustine and even Martin Luther stated that there are two kingdoms: the kingdom of Heaven and the kingdom on earth. We are citizens of both kingdoms. Trying to impose the Kingdom of Heaven on earth is rejected by all major Christian theologians. Christ himself rejected that notion.



Cromwell was such a Christian literalist fanatic who saw fit to murder a king.

Thats your evidence? I've already refuted Cromwell's "Christianity", yet as always you fail to read it.



As for Rome, the rejection of the Etruscan kings led to the establishment of the mon-archical offices of dictator

:eyes Dictator was not the same as monarch. You seem to think that merely being the head of state makes one a monarch.



DICTATOR - 'dictator rei gerendae causa' - held "absolute military and civil power in the State".
[On-line Dictionary]

Do I need to repeat Aristotle's argument about the differences between a monarch and a mere statesman?



We can think of many examples of these throughout world/history.
Often a Dictator creates a "FAMILY DICTATORSHIP which operates much like an absolute monarchy".
[ib.,]

If you wish Moody, I can quote Aristotle's distinctions between the two.



"An ABSOLUTE MONARCHY is an idealised form of government, a monarchy where the ruler has the power to rule their country and citizens freely with no laws or legally-organised direct opposition telling the monarchy what to do ....
Basically an absolute monarch has total power over its people and land - including the aristocracy ...".
[ib.,]

I prefer Autocracy(which Berdyaev clearly distinguished from absolute monarchy), but as I already stated absolute monarchy(especially in its post-Medieval form) lead the way to the Bolshevik state.

But then again I have to ask you, where are examples of your "true monarchy"? I have yet to see one example of it. And even the above quote is further proving my assertion it's no more real than Marx's communist utopia.



It is this concept which is central, as I said before: - the king IS the Law!

But does the King have the right to break the law? If not, he is still bound by the law.



Ivan the Terrible;
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmonarchs/ivan4/ivan4_bio.htm

:eyes I doubt you know anything about Ivan the Terrible, except the typical Western lies about him. As Berdyaev said, Ivan was the closest to the ideal of autocracy



P.s., Pushkin, there's no such phrase as 'white horse' - you're flogging a dead one there!

:eyes Obviously you never heard of the White Horse dialouge where Kung-sun Lung-tzu tried to argue that a white horse is not a horse.
http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/Reader/whitehorse.html

You're trying to tell me that "divisions of power" are not really "divisions of power".

Moody
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004, 05:23 PM
A Monarchy is a kind of state, but the monarch should not be called a statesman - he is more exalted than that.

He is above the state - but he IS the state1

Obviously, democracies and republics etc., are not true monarchies; they give some power to the 'demos' or to the 'public'.

In a true monarchy power rests solely with the monarch.

All other political aspects of the state have to go to the monarch before they can act; they need the monarch's 'seal of approval'.

Calling something a 'division of power' [or a white horse] does not make it so [ie., a monarch may give his subjects to believe that they enjoy a 'division of power' when they in fact don't].

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004, 09:38 PM
Once again Moody, you failed to address any of my arguments. :eyes


A Monarchy is a kind of state, but the monarch should not be called a statesman - he is more exalted than that.

You're the one arguing that certain statesmen are monarchs, not me. :eyes



He is above the state - but he IS the state

Really? King Frederick the Great said that the monarch was "the first servent of the state".



Obviously, democracies and republics etc., are not true monarchies; they give some power to the 'demos' or to the 'public'.

:eyes Yet you insist and provided Athens and Rome as examples for your vision of monarchy. How nice of you to contradict yourself.



In a true monarchy power rests solely with the monarch.

And where has that occured? I have yet to see you provide one example. Sparta had two kings for the sole purpose of preventing one man of having too much power. Medieval monarchs were limited by the aristocracy and the church.



Calling something a 'division of power' [or a white horse] does not make it so [ie., a monarch may give his subjects to believe that they enjoy a 'division of power' when they in fact don't].

You're the one here trying to say that one thing is another. That having two kings is not a division of power. :eyes

Nice try Moody, but once again your case falls flat.

Moody
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 03:54 PM
Clearly, what we call 'democracy' or 'republicanism' bears little relation to the what was called Democracy in Greece or Republicanism in Rome.

When we talk of 'democracy' and 'republicanism' generally we are referring to the forms of government we know of today which utilise a universal suffrage quite unknown to the ancient world.

So when we mean the latter [Greece and Rome] we qualify them by saying 'Athenian Greece' or 'Republican Rome'. Both [as I have said] retained monarchical functions of the kind found in what I call 'true monarchies'.

My conception of monarchy rests on the notion of true kingship; Evola illustrates this power of true true kingship when he says;" ... just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".
Just as National Socialism says that the Will of the Leader IS Law, or Louis XIV says that "the state is I" [L'Etat, c'est moi!]

However, since Pushkin is intent on finding 'white horses' in whatever I say in his negative campaign (why?), I shall quote another authority on the subject to back up my stance;

"The Republican and Democratic forms of government ... are based on the illusory concept of "Popular Suffrage," which in fact means nothing in that the masses have neither the capability or know-how to determine or understand the workings of the State ...
Thus under the guise and fraud of the 'will of the people,' the most banal aspects of the mass culture enshrine themselves ..."

"A return to Monarchy is the sole hope of the world... Monarchism with its castes and roles frees humanity from the anxiety of striving to or falling from a particular station in life, each of which is valued in the context of community".

"Is it any wonder that Monarchy is the most stable and humane from of government the world has ever known? And is it also any wonder that Democracy, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Republicanism, are decaying and crumbling away as we speak, from the entropy of their ignorant and mis-begotten valuations and constructs?"

"I noticed often how the Fascists and National Socialists often adopted many aspects of monarchism in their forms of government ..."

"The slogan "For Fuhrer and Fatherland" is really a NS adoptation of the Monarchist slogan "For King and Country". The level of ritualism and ceremonies under both regimes is very much in vogue with the spirit of the Monarchies. And of course the SS was very much the NS version of the Royal/Imperial Guard, as Himmler often compared his men to".

All these quotes were made under the name of 'Pushkin' in the first post of this thread! - non-white donkeys anyone?

Taras Bulba
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 04:07 PM
Clearly, what we call 'democracy' or 'republicanism' bears little relation to the what was called Democracy in Greece or Republicanism in Rome.

A White horse is still a horse Moody!



When we talk of 'democracy' and 'republicanism' generally we are referring to the forms of government we know of today which utilise a universal suffrage quite unknown to the ancient world.

All citizens were able to vote in Rome and Athens Moody.



So when we mean the latter [Greece and Rome] we qualify them by saying 'Athenian Greece' or 'Republican Rome'. Both [as I have said] retained monarchical functions of the kind found in what I call 'true monarchies'.

[quote]
My conception of monarchy rests on the notion of true kingship; Evola illustrates this power of true true kingship when he says;" ... just as Aristotle stated concerning those who, being themselves the law, have no law".

Yes and I have yet to see you provide one example of that!




Just as National Socialism says that the Will of the Leader IS Law, or Louis XIV says that "the state is I" [L'Etat, c'est moi!]

National Socialism is not monarchy Moody.



However, since Pushkin is intent on finding 'white horses' in whatever I say in his negative campaign (why?), I shall quote another authority on the subject to back up my stance;

Yes what you posted where straw men, Moody.



"I noticed often how the Fascists and National Socialists often adopted many aspects of monarchism in their forms of government ..."

Yes they did, but that doesnt make them monarchies in of themselves.



"The slogan "For Fuhrer and Fatherland" is really a NS adoptation of the Monarchist slogan "For King and Country". The level of ritualism and ceremonies under both regimes is very much in vogue with the spirit of the Monarchies. And of course the SS was very much the NS version of the Royal/Imperial Guard, as Himmler often compared his men to".

Yes and..........................?



All these quotes were made under the name of 'Pushkin' in the first post of this thread! - non-white donkeys anyone?

You're still white horsing and all you did was post quotes of mine that have little to do with this debate or your argument. I said that the NS adopted many aspects of the monarchial system, but you're the one trying to argue they actually were monarchies. Sorry non sequiter.

Moody
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 05:03 PM
Athens was first ruled by kings;

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Kings%20%20Athens

As was Rome, which passed through a republican phase - [which retained kingly functions - even then it had the office of Dictator] - before being ruled by Emperors.

I had already listed the Dictators such as Sulla and Caesar; we can add well known figures such as Alexander the Great as well, and also the monarchs of ancient Egypt, Persia etc., etc.,

You have already said at the start of this thread [although now you seem to disagree with yourself, and say that your first comments in this thread "had little to do with the debate"], that Facism and N-S functioned in a monarchical fashion.

Indeed they did - check out the 'Fuhrer Principle' of the N-S.

I have repeated many times that 'mon-archy' MEANS "one ruler", and so is applicable to kings, emperors, Fuhrers, kaisers, tsars etc., etc., which are all variations on the central concept, which can be summed up in the famous phrase from Louis XIV which I have already quoted, which means in effect that "I (the king) AM the State".

That is my true monarchy in a nut-shell.

I think your zoo of horses is running way from you.

Taras Bulba
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 05:22 PM
:eyes I love how Moody continues to evade my arguments and still uses straw men and white horses.


Athens was first ruled by kings;

Where did I deny that?



As was Rome, which passed through a republican phase - [which retained kingly functions - even then it had the office of Dictator] - before being ruled by Emperors.

First off, Consuls were the major power holders in Republican Rome and I also like to know where I denied Rome was first a Republic and then an Empire. Please point to where I denied any of this.



I had already listed the Dictators such as Sulla and Caesar;

A dictator is not a monarch Moody.



You have already said at the start of this thread [although now you seem to disagree with yourself, and say that your first comments in this thread "had little to do with the debate"], that Facism and N-S functioned in a monarchical fashion.

Nice try Moody. I said the Fascists and NS adopted many aspects of monarchy, but that does not mean their monarchists or that their systems were monarchies. Pathetic attempt on your part Moody.



I have repeated many times that 'mon-archy' MEANS "one ruler", and so is applicable to kings, emperors, Fuhrers, kaisers, tsars etc., etc.,

sigh Yes, it looks like Im going to have to quote Aristotle on this topic: for he clearly makes the distinction between monarchs and statesmen, monarchy and tyranny(which is rule by one man).



That is my true monarchy in a nut-shell.

And you have yet to provide one example of it. The only examples you provide are either proof of my assertion or the simple fact they werent monarchies.



I think your zoo of horses is running way from you.

You're the one letting the white horses out, not me. :eyes

Moody
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 05:53 PM
I have to emphasise the mon-archical aspects of Greece and Rome because you keep emphaising the brief non-mon-archical interludes.

A Dictator is a mon-arch in all but name [just as, in a reversed instance, the current Queen of England is a mon-arch in name only].

Therefore, I demonstrate how Alexander, Sulla, Hitler etc., were DE FACTO mon-archs [while Louis XIV is an example of a monarch who calls himself one and IS one]; while Queen Elizabeth the Second is merely a figurehead who is called a 'mon-arch', but isn't one, going by the definition of a mon-arch as a single ruler.

Monarchs can be tyrannical, and therefore can be called tyrants [just as some monarchs can be called 'enlightened despots' etc.,].

So I am separating out the horses which you have allowed to run un-ruly in the fields of mon-archy.

Vestmannr
Tuesday, August 10th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Does anybody here have royal lineage?

Yes. Which shouldnt come as a surprise.

An estimated 6-7 million Western Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. Descendants of John of Gaunt are estimated somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a million across the Anglophone world (meaning, descended from the Plantagenet kings.) Scots how have descent from the Siol Alpin, Canmores, Royal Stewarts is very high. My guess is even proud 'working class' folk on Skadi might have some royal blood connections that some of them have no clue about, and even might not care to know about.

The catch is: by laws of succession one cannot come to the throne in the Norman system unless one's father or mother is an enthroned/crowned ruler. The more primitive laws of succession (Celtic and Germanic) allowed for tanistry meaning that any male of the royal descent can be elected to kingship. However, what makes the royal descent means often that one must have all 16 Great-Great-Grandparents as armigerous. The great bulk of those descended from Royalty might have most of those lines from the Nobility or Gentry, but having even one line from the Free classes (Bauern, Yeoman, etc.) is 'disqualifying' according to most of the laws of succession I've read. Having descent from a slave/serf/thrall class is most certainly disqualifying by the old laws. My position is similar: I'm 15/16ths Gentry/Nobility with some Royal connections ... and 1/16th Palatine German Bauern.

Typically in such a system the eldest son inherits everything anyways. So, younger sons of Royals and Nobles arent *required* to marry within the upper classes, free to marry 'downward'. They also tended to become the officers and soldiers in the militaries of those countries, and often the explorers and colonists. That 'downward mobility' pretty much explains the Southern USA, particularly Virginia and the Carolinas.

Imperator X
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 05:36 AM
Moody,

You mention that capitalism, communism and socialism are falling apart. How? I myself am a pagan monarchist, but I don't see the destruction of this plastic, bland, anti-spiritual culture anytime soon. If anything we are going to see even more of this ridiculous system. The United States has developed the most powerful, truly unstoppable military the world has ever known and has forged ties with countries (administrations) that will reinforce each others' capitalist/modern bureaucratic aims.

Do you really think that if all of a sudden some ideology were to creep up and sack Washington it would be Monarchist? I think the glorious days of monarchy with its beautiful ritualism, and traditions are over. Gone are the days of Elizabeth I, of great kingdoms. It's all gone. The restoration of monarcy I believe is almost impossible as we are not making any gains quickly and within the time it takes us to get there, the world's resources will be exhausted.

How do you dissolve the UN? the EU? The communist media? Degenerate art that mocks our culture and ideals? We would have to overthrow something that is truly worldwide. It seems like an unstoppable plastic bureaucratic machine that is swallowing the world, and we have no effective recourse against its brutal steamrolling.

This is a dismal world, and a dismal future ahead of us.

King Yngvar
Sunday, October 17th, 2004, 04:16 AM
I dont think just anyone can 'make themselves King', or be elected democratically as one. I also think the idea of having a king foreign to his people (not of their blood, or language) is an unnatural idea.
The Norwegian royal house is foreign by blood (Oldenburg - German). They should not sit where they are. We need a new royal house, that are self-made...

Also I think the Nordic countries should unite into one kingdom, to stand stronger.

Siegfried
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 12:43 AM
Monarchy and Tradition

Archonis


I recently finished reading "Riding The Tiger" by Julius Evola. It raised some interesting questions in respect to certain matters that I have been thinking about quite a bit, that relates to Evola's corpus of work, and not just this particular book. Evola has been labled a Fascist, Nazi, etc., but these definitions are wrong. If anything, Evola was a Monarchist, and I must confess I also have always had leanings in this direction too, even when I was a Left Wing Anarchist.

There is something about the institutions of Monarchy as they existed in ancient times, when you actually had warrior-kings, and priest-kings, that seem to me to resonate to a much higher level than anything that exists now. And it also can be argued that the peasants and serfs loved their King or their Queen, and would lay down their lives for them, even if they hated their feudal lords. It seems that Monarchy resonates strongly in the psyche of humanity, and this is even true in America, as we Americans cannot get enough of the Royal Family in the news, and many are fascinated with Monarchy and its institutions. In my view, in the early history of Europe there were great Sovereigns. I saw the movie "Elizabeth," not too long ago, and there can be no doubt that Queen Elizabeth transcended the normal human follies of a woman and reached a level of sacrifice and nobility in respect to England, that could only be compared to that of the greatest hero, or mystic. I would have been honored to have lived under Alexander The Great, who was a ruthless conquerer, but a benign ruler. If Alexander could see the suffering that exists now in our drab industrial world, he would surely be horrified. For the evil of these days since the death of the Monarchies and the advent of economic-based Nation States, is that the present epoch and its mediocre and brutal institutions just do not wear down the body with toil and the mind with vexation, but they kill the soul as well. Not just in people, but in everything. That is why the last 300 years have been the most evil in human history. Because even during the reign of the Clerical Holy Roman Empire, people in general still had a sense of basic humanity.

Now you have to discard it, in order to get anywhere in a world that is predicated on force, fraud, brutality, and exploitation of the worst kind, wrapped up in a panopoly of lies. It is true that by the 15th century and beyond, the Monarchies of Europe become degraded. You went from Kings that would get off their thrones to go into battle, to worthless dandyism and the parasitism of the leisure classes. But even these fops had a higher sense of culture, aesthetics, and interest in things that bore upon issues of nobility and honor, than the vile plutocrats that exist now; that are nothing more than slavish-minded savages and greedy swine only concerned with the crude material excesses that a slave would fantasize about, and the plutocrats being devoid of all honor, have the mindset of a slave, and were seen as part of the slave-class, in the ancient world. There is no principle that they would not betray for profit. No degradation that they would not commit to get ahead.

The monarchs lost because their principles of honor dictated that they accept defeat at the hands of the merchant classes, rather than sully themselves by fighting enemies that were beneath them. Marie Antoinette apologized to the executioner for stepping on his foot, just before she got her head cut off. The point I am making is the degradation of the monarchies in later European history was in no wise the fault of the monarchies. It was the fault of the "culture aliens," that introduced by stealth the principles of the merchant-state and the bourgoise mentality in the 15th and 16th centuries, and thereby weakened the Monarchies and the principles of Empire; degrading and destroying them by forcing them to fight against nascent Capitalism, in the name of progress. Every effort was made to trick the monarchs into forgetting ancient principles and degrading themselves, and the "culture aliens" used every means at their disposal to turn the Royal Courts into dens of mediocrity and nests of vipers. Monarchs being human after all, succumbed. But the dishonor is not theirs, but rather they are the victims of those who were more inhuman, callous, and shrewd, and these conspirators managed to divorce the monarchies from the higher principles which gave them legitimacy.

The founding fathers of America took money from the same shylocks that were responsible throughout history for destroying the whole of European culture and traditions, including monarchy, and yet blamed the monarchs for this state of things; rather than those who were responsible and who were using the founding fathers to continue their subversive influence to further destroy the West, by fragmenting England from Her colonies, and thereby dividing the West (devoid of its Traditions) into fractious states of savagery and base materialism. The Founding Fathers were obtuse in this respect, not seeing those influences that were hellbent on perverting and subverting everything noble in the world, and turning it to evil channels.

It is clear, and not obscured, that the corporate state in all of its forms with its wage/profit shellgames, issuance of excess currency in excess of the GNP to create inflationary debt and bank profits, and intentional indebting of governments by similar means, is not something that would ever have arisen out of the traditions of Western Civilization, but were imposed through mass movements and conspirators manipulating them who's values were totally alien to anything Western. They stopped at nothing to make this happen, subverting within and attacking without until they won. But the dishonor is not with the dethroned monarchs, but with the victors, the corporate socialist, bolshevik capitalists who created a system of socialism for the rich, and corporate serfdom for everyone else. What irks me is how people on the far Right see Capitalism as Western, and think that this system was created by Europeans, rather than seeing that they are accepting the system that was created by the enemies of everything western, to destroy the West, which they did.

And the serfs of olden times would weep to see the industrial slaves of today, being worked and exploited to death, rather than just having to labor enough to sustain what was their proper station in life, and have the rest of the time to themselves. The monarchs had all of the wealth, and did not have to grind the serfs into dust to get more of it. The plutocrats have all the wealth now too, but it is never enough. They have to squeeze the blood and sweat out of everyone to get more and more. Technology and the technocratic state are a burdensome artifact that turns people into economic units, who's value as human beings is measured in dollars. I would take the WORST monarchy over leaders like this, who are totalitarians who want to micromanage your every breath, whose sole desire is to grind you under heel in a brutal Communist state, or do the same by crushing you with their golden Capitalist cudgel. A choice that is no choice.

There is nothing that remains now of the West as it is, and I look forward to its much deserved destruction. Most likely the technological and ecological substatum will bottom out before the "New World Order" of totalitarian statist communo-corporate fascism gets off the ground. It is too bad that what remains of the "Black Nobility" of Europe lacks the will or power to dethrone the "Third Estate" and bring back a European Empire based on the traditions of Monarchy and feudal nobility, like in ancient times. You could have a constitutional monarchy even, where the King and nobility must prove that they are indeed like the monarchs of yore: resplendent in higher principles and embodying in themselves the spiritual life of the Western world. Then the whole of Europe could be reunited, and all European peoples joined as one in a global "Imperium Europa," spanning Eurasia, Europe, and the Americas.

The flame of Avalon burns as a torch in the sons and daughters of Europe throughout the world. Let it become a conflagration! Death to all imperialist states. Long Live Europe!

George
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 03:31 AM
Yes. Our society is so different from that for which we evolved/were designed that racial quality and social rank are significantly different. We need to solve this serious problem. The monarchies are pop-junk now and should be put out of their misery. :behead I do not take female monarchs seriously. The British aristocracy is probably the best-preserved one, certainly the best-preserved major one, and I estimate it to be two-thirds rotten. Many aristocrats were ruined and titles were given or sold to Jews and businessmen.

The land-based aristocracy was corrupted and attacked, but I think that the main reason that it was replaced by a capital-based aristocracy is that the increasing sophistication of technology shifted the balance of wealth to the towns and cities and factories. It also shifted the balance of potential away from willpower, strength of personality etc. to intelligence.

I hope that we can get back to an open, healthy, spiritual (rather than economic) aristocratic system. Aristocrats should be drawn from infantry and cavalry officers who fight a lot of hard battles. We need to change our society from a fat, decaying economic one to a lean, vivacious spiritual one. We need a frontier to push against.

Problems:

(1) Jews
(2) technology is our Frankenstein's monster

Phaos
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 10:41 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with what you posted.
Even degenerate Monarchs were far superior to our modern rulers.
But degenerate Monarchs are unable to justify their position.
Like a flower that is beautiful but frail.

But, Monarchy is not only about beauty.
It is the cornerstone of a community.
The Irminsul, the Axis which sustains everything and around which everything revolves.
The Monarch connects the community with the Higher Planes.
The Monarch commands high and low, the gods and the people.
The Monarch is the Centre of the Swastika.

It is this divine element that makes Monarchy so naturally appealing.
But, with time, the presence of this divine element is more and more buried under human weakness.
Dynasties become degenerated, not because the institution of Monarchy is wrong, but, because, sitting on a Throne is VERY demanding.
If a Monarch loses perseverence and allows his human elements to take the upper hand ( and this happens, when the Monarch faces no challenges ), then this Monarch casts the first stone against his dynasty and even the institution of Monarchy itself.

It is my belief that modern chaos has one positive element.
What future European Aristocracy may come out of it, will not be based on past institutions, but on true, almost ontological superiority.
Aristocrats of the body, the mind, the spirit.
Aristocrats of life.
And, perhaps, this new Aristocracy will one day create the institutions that will ensure its continuation.

Until... in a distant future, this new Aristocracy ( then no longer new ) will lose perseverence and start to degenerate like all the Aristocracies before it.
And another Circle will be complete.

symmakhos
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 05:23 PM
The Norwegian royal house is foreign by blood (Oldenburg - German). They should not sit where they are. We need a new Apparently the current blood-line is not German...

Aftenposten 14 oct
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article890633.ece

Doubts raised over King Olav's lineage

A new book by Tor Bomann-Larsen makes a sensational historical investigation that raises new questions about who King Olav's biological father really was. Bomann-Larsen makes an interesting case for King Haakon's royal physician Sir Francis Laking as Olav's real father, newspaper Dagbladet reports.
The revelations are published in the second volume of Bomann-Larsen's history of King Haakon and Queen Maud, which is due to be launched today. The book, entitled "Folket" (The People), is published by Cappelen.

Bomann-Larsen argues that Queen Maud's personal physician Sir Francis Laking was Olav's biological father, and investigates a secret hospital stay in London by the queen in October 1902.

The book contains a photograph of Laking's son Guy Francis Laking, born in 1875, who bears a striking resemblance to the adult King Olav. Bomann-Larsen also raises the possibility that Laking's son was a possible sperm donor for Queen Maud, and that Olav was the result of artificial insemination (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article890661.ece).

The author does not draw any final conclusions, but bases his arguments on a range of sources from state archives and European royal records.

"This is a sensation that must shake us all," said professor and historian Hans Fredrik Dahl, who now believes the relationship between King Haakon and son Olav must now be re-examined.

Reigning King Harald - son of Olav - said that he had no information to indicate that King Olav was not King Haakon's son, according to a palace press release.

"Each author is fully entitled to present his interpretation of history. This also applies, of course, to Tor Bomann-Larsen's biography of King Haakon and Queen Maud," King Harald said in the release.


Haakon, Maud and Olav V*King Haakon, originally Danish Prince Carl, married his cousin Princess Maud in 1896.

*Maud was the daughter of Britain's King Edward VII and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. If Bomann's theory proves correct, the present royal house of Norway is British on both sides.

*Olav, originally Prince Alexander, was born in England in 1903, roughly nine months after his mother had a secret hospital stay in the care of doctor Sir Francis Laking. Controversy has dogged the birth of Olav since King Haakon was alone on a two-month tour of Denmark around the time of conception.

*In 1905 Norway formally declared independence from Sweden and elected Prince Carl as first modern king. Carl insisted that his monarchy receive public approval in a referendum and only then ascended the throne as King Haakon.

*Olav was legally designated Norway's crown prince when Haakon and Maud took the throne, making the current monarchy legitimate, even if it is later established that the bloodline from Haakon has been broken.