Free Republic

The article is dated September 9. Sorry about that.

Something for the Crown Crew?

Are you on kjvail's list?

Something for the "Crown Crew"?

Something for the "Crown Crew"?

Yes, it was Alexander Kerenski. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote on Russia in Leftism Revisited:

The misconceptions, moreover, about the Russian class structure that prevail in the Western world are so manifold and so deeply rooted that they seem ineradicable. The three brilliant volumes by Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu on late nineteenth-century Russia, L'Empire des tsars et les Russes, give a glimpse of a totally mixed society based neither on birth nor on money. Needless to say, the same impression is conveyed by the great Russian novelists of that period. Actually, before Red October Russia was Europe's "Eastern America," a country where social mobility was greater than elsewhere, where titles had none of the nimbus they had in the West, where fortunes could be made overnight by intelligent and thrifty people regardless of their social background. Skilled European workers and specialists in many fields emigrated to Russia rather than to the United States. And, even before 1905, knowing how to speak and to write gave total liberty.

[...]

Serfdom? It did exist until 1861, but it was no more and no less characteristic of Russia than slavery was of the United States. It was, moreover, incomparably milder than slavery and did not exist at all in the majority of the empire. Some serfs were rich -- with fortunes amounting to from 30 to 60 million dollars (present purchasing power) -- and they paid only a microscopic head tax.

[...]

Imagine a very popular, intelligent, conscientious, good-looking and responsible young man, obviously destined for a highly successful life. One day, having had a few drinks too many, he runs his car into a tree and ends up a paraplegic. Accidents happen not only in the lives of persons, but also in the lives of nations.

[...]

In Russia, the fall of the monarchy in March 1917 destroyed the center and object of all loyalty.

[...]

[T]he brilliant, scintillating, amiable intelligentsiya were the guiltiest of all. For generations they had undermined the fabric of Holy Mother Russia, either by siding with the Social Revolutionaries, the Narodnaya Volya, the Social Democrats, or by being "open-minded," by deriding the national heritage, by spreading polite doubt, by stupidly imitating Western patterns, ideas, and institutions that would never do for Russia.

The late master tells of his meetings with Alexander Kerenski in the notes:

I met the man twice in the United States. He was "nice" but, listening to his views, I could only pity him. George Katkov was absolutely right when he said that the Russian "liberals" who destroyed the old regime had no idea of the crime perpetrated, nor the least capacity to steer the ship of state on an even keel.

Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu's Russia, L'Empire des tsars et les Russes has been published in English as Empire of the Tsars and the Russians.

See also Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson's The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy.

For a long time, democracy had a bad name, mostly because it was regarded as a synonym for "mob rule." Nothing struck terror into the hearts of serious political philosophers than when masses of people took to the streets with violence and looting.

Well, after having gotten the full-fledged democracy we have today there still were and are philosophers who didn't and don't let democracy cast a spell on them.

To mention a few:

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Bertrand de Jouvenel, H.L. Mencken, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Mature? I guess your diagnosis of clinical insanity goes for Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Bertrand de Jouvenel, and the likes as well - not to speak of all those prior to 1918 who believed that there was reason in monarchy beyond symbolic roles. Where one ceases to be able to refute by reason declaration of insanity is an easy way out.

Sophie Guichard, film critic for France Soir, said: "How can one not be shocked by this portrait of the typical revolutionary? How can one forget that this period also gave birth to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, from which we still benefit? The film lacks all balance."

From Operation Parracide: Sade, Robespierre & the French Revolution (E. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn):

ANYTHING POSITIVE?

Did the French Revolution leave anything positive to posterity? Only the metric system, which admittedly grew out of the democratic predilection for eternal measuring and counting. What about then the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen? It was a purely anthropocentric document, a typically declamatory product of the first Enlightenment, which was conceived in 1789 and finally engrafted into the constitution of the Sadist-Republic in 1793. In the schoolbooks one reads about the period of the terror, "Le Terreur était terrible mais grande!" Even with all that a good number of moderates came under the blade too. Historically they had it coming because they hadn't considered what happened when one destroyed the old order. Charlotte Corday d'Armont, an enthusiastic Girondist, murdered the bloodthirsty Marat and was executed; Andre de Chenier, the great liberal lyric poet, died on the scaffold; the Marquis de Condorcet, chief ideologue of the "moderates," committed suicide in order to escape the chére mère. Madame Roland de la Planière, also a Girondist, exclaimed from where she was to be executed, "Oh liberty, what crimes are committed in your name. (Metternich on the other hand comments in the face of such flourishing "fraternity" that if he had a brother he would now just as soon call him a cousin.) Especially tragic was the fate of Chrétien de Malesherbes, a highly enlightened Liberal who remained true to the king. He defended Louis XVI and had to stand by and watch as his daughter, his son-in-law, and his grandchildren were decapitated before the guillotine brought an end to his own despair.

One shouldn't forget that much of what may appear positive to us today - liberality, intellectuality, humanitarianism - had all been already brought to us by the liberal, courtly absolutism, while the French Revolution which used all these words in reality did nothing more than brutally extinguish them. One is reminded of the reaction of Caffinhals, who replied to the uproar created by the defenders of Lavoisier, who cried, "You are condemning a great learned man to death," by saying, "The Revolution has no need of learned men." The good man was right; since the French Revolution only quantities, ciphers and numbers, have any value. The speech of the elite is hardly tolerated anymore.

From an intellectual point of view, the French Revolution was a conglomeration of un-thought out but fanatically believed inconsistencies, but it showed clearly, as so many other revolutions have, the true character of the great majority of the Genus Humanum.

In the French Revolution the scum of France succumbed to blood lust and opened the door to evil. In our day of electronic stultification, it's a sure bet that now, 200 hundred years later, this monstrosity will be the focus of orgiastic celebrations. The average man always clings despairingly to cliches. If one takes them away from him, he has to do his own research, his own thinking and deciding and has to begin anew. One can't really expect this sort of elitist behavior from such poor folks. Those whom the gods would destroy, they first rob of their reason.

Was that sarcasm? If that's not leftist, what is?

No that was not sarcasm. Proposition A is to increase taxes on a rich minority in order to increase "welfare benefits" for the masses. Constitutional provision B prohibits proposition A from becoming law. Now, constitutional provision B is a protection of a minority against the majority. Constitutional provision B is hardly leftist. And that's not sarcasm!

I have noticed that when it comes to the Constitution, the right views it as a restraint on the government to protect the citizens while the left sees it as a constraint on the majority to protect the minority.

Interesting. Let's consider the concept of constitutional protection in general, i.e., not considering the U.S. Constitution in specific. Now, a constitutional protection against, e.g., taxing a rich minority so the masses can have "welfare benefits" is definitely a protection of a minority against the majority. That's hardly leftist. Of course, if constitutional protection of minority rights works is another discussion.

That all depends on the definition of "is".

Seriously, are you not now making the error of not making the distinction between the "living" Constitution the U.S. have today, what the Founders meant it to be, what is, what was meant to be, and what ought to be according to the written Constitution?!?

1. Then is it fair to say that you follow someone named "Selmer?"

Yes.

If so, could you be so kind as to tell me who the Selmer that you follow was or is, and perhaps a little on why he or she is worthy of being followed?

It is a long story. I will leave it there.

2. So then, perhaps reconstruction didn't work on you both because it couldn't, because perhaps you were unable to do other than reject it?

Or maybe vice versa.

Perhaps.

3. I don't know whether a "reconstructed Confederate" makes sense or not. I don't see why it wouldn't.

I didn't directly say it doesn't make sense.

You seem to have had a problem with this statement:

"Forms of government will not substitute for the virtue of the people."

Is that a problem?

I basically agree with royalcello on that one. See post # 186.

You provide a description of government in Britain as mob rule, but provide no justification. Further, you provide absolutely no justification of why it is not so in the United States.

Please explain.

If we are to have a change to the bases of Government in the UK then there should be a referendum.

So if the majority through a referendum approves of mob rule, it's OK?

With all due respect, democracy is mob rule. However, "democracy" is one of the most misused words in political terminology. It is, e.g., often used as a label of a "system where the majority rules, but where there is protection of minority rights".

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn noted that democracy consists of two dogma, namely political equality, i.e., the "one man one vote" principle, and the rule of the majority.

The United Kingdom has already gone too far towards democracy. Of course, moving further will not make things better.

I had every intention of returning. Please excuse me for believing that I could be several hours offline.

Thanks for the welcome.

Please feel free to debunk socialism, and expect no defense from me.

Yes, I did have a point in sharing it. So many quote Churchill to the effect that democracy is the best form of government, and in doing so promote total democracy, where unelected elements have no place. And they are wrong in doing in so.

I do not agree with the author on his stand on Churchill's opposition to Clement Attlee's Parliament Bill, or several other positions for that matter.

Thanks for the welcome.