Posted on 04/07/2021 8:07:02 PM PDT by Openurmind
Those were the days!
(BTW, before the pandemic Prager would appear at a Shabbat center in the South Bay once a year around the Jewish New Year. I was able to go a couple of times. It was a great time.)
Advances in border security,
pro-life issues,
radical homosexual agenda issues,
and smothering government regulation issues, just to name a handful
He had the Left spread out fighting multiple fronts.
We just need a leader that is willing and able to rally Patriots.
Interesting comment by fardels, if you would indulge me I react here to three of his points:
(First) You are completely in error in paragraph 5 "The elites were afraid.."
(Second) The notion that a Catholic monarchy would be anything other than tyrannical seems to me FWIW to be magical thinking. (Of course I am sure a Puritan Protectorate under Cromwell would be fine. Pardon my sarcasm, no disrespect intended.)
(Third)Your use of "we" in paragraph twelve struck me as absurd (no offense intended). "We could disband..." "We could have..." "We could allow..." You say this as if, in the words of Kirk, "power would fall into (your) hands."
You are going to "allow" religious dissension only in private?! I am guessing you are Roman Catholic, but whether you are or not, they will sure wear their pretty vestments to place the crown on the head of your king. I think maybe you have not read very many (or any?) of Russel Kirk's books. When I am king, perhaps I'd better not allow you to express your "oxymoronic ideology!"
Even Patrick Deneen who gives equal credit to classical liberals and progressive liberals for our current plight has not gone over to the dark side of monarchism.
I spent some time as a libertarian shortly after reading "Atlas Shrugged", but then I found Whittaker Chamber's critique and rethought Rand's utopian visions. I spent some time as a neocon hoping that we could spread democracy and free markets around the world, but was disabused of that notion as well. Social conservatism is a dead letter in a society that is nominally pluralistic but is swiftly moving to be fully under the sway of the Church of Woke.
So I've decided I'm going to spend some time as a monarchist. There are a few other monarchists on FR, so I'm not the only one. Yes monarchies can go bad, and often do. But the current oligarchy that we are under is going very bad real quick.
Yes I am a Catholic, but I would even prefer an Anglican or even Calvinist state church so long as I could fondle my worry beads in private.
When you ask?
There are three obstacles for our camp.
1) Leadership Void. Someone has to be in the position to do something and we have nobody right now. Trump could, though he never would.
2) Our women, and girlie men. There are people who are so disturbed by their fear of conflict that they punish and prohibit anyone who might accomplish anything. “Don’t stoop to their level” “It scares me when you talk like this.” “I like his policies but I wish he would shut up with those tweets.”
3) Institutional Legitimacy. Our side can only operate under a mantel of official propriety. We can fight when there is an official resolution or declaration of independence. We can obey a secession ordinance or Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to quash the rebellion. But there is no way this can happen in our world today.
There are other problems. Even if we started something we have no communication, as that will be cutoff by the enemy, already is really.
ROTFL!
In private? Well there's the rub.
May I suggest start on kirkcenter.org with the ten conservative principles. Read them carefully and pick one for further study. It will be helpful I think and you will see that there is indeed a simple philosophy, definable and defensible, but it may not take the character that you are used to, which causes you to say things like
"I spent some time as a libertarian." or
"I'm going to spend time as a monarchist."
I suspect just from reading between the lines of a few comments, forgive me, that you hold to a sort of mechanical view of prescription and perhaps even prudence, which would be expected for Catholics. Nothing in Kirk is inconsistent with the Church, it is just that you don't realize you are reading him through your old glasses.
Kind regards and the last word is yours. I am out on your final.
Almost forgot. Here's the link if anyone wants to read more on Kirk:
Thank you for sharing that. Please note my question was more towards asserting ourselves towards one “peaceful” successful common goal at a time. Being very assertive and targeting one goal at at time is why the left is winning.
When are we going to abandon this passive activism in a hundred directions based on personal fetishes. One common priority goal at a time even if it might temporarily delay our personal pet projects until later in the game.
err.. what are you talking about? The Hapsburg monarchy was anything but tyrannical. Ditto the Polish monarchy post-Jagiellonian dynasty (i.e. after 1540). Ditto the Spanish monarchy afer the Spanish war of succession etc.
And in contrast you had tyrannical Anglican monarchs, tyrannical Lutheran and Calvinist monarchs and tyrannical Calvinist-Lutheran monarch (the Hohenzollerns)
Monarchy is not necessarily “good old days” - there were republics in Italy pre-monarchy and ditto for self-governing cities in the HRE.
A far more suitable functionality would be a constitutional monarchy as a figurehead, with a Prime Minister, but where voting rights are based on service to the community - either soldiering or some other means. And the right to vote delayed to 30 or 25 and based on you getting taxed
Doesn’t it come down to leadership?
Trump as leader himself established a bare minimum with the issues of border control, support of veterans, and bringing business back to the fifty states. The agenda was frustrated by Rinos and then halted completely by the big lie.
If the election system can be fixed then all is not lost.
If not then I would say it is every man for himself.
I have written in other places why I do not think our side is willing to resort to the sort of violence that the left is committed to, so that is just idle talk. Mind you, I believe the left when they talk about killing us, certainly.
Trump had a huge army of well-wishers behind him, but he had an equally huge army of backbiters. Someone like an Eisenhower, Roosevelt, etc. could get most of their agenda through the courts and legislatures by calling on an undivided populace for support.
Unfortunately, the only leaders who seem to command general support are moderates like Eisenhower or gimmedats like Roosevelt.
The British people stood behind Churchill because of their dire situation during the war, however, they dumped him as soon as the threat was gone because he wasn't going to give them goodies fast enough.
I only propose monarchy because I truly believe that democracy is a hoax. I'd rather be ruled by someone in the open than a cabal in non-smoking-sign-filled rooms. Even if we eliminate most of the incompetency, fraud, and outright cheating in elections we would still have to contend with waves of immigrants, waves of poorly educated youths, and waves of Madison Avenue hypnotized consumers who vote against our and their best interests.
Our best hope is someone like Harry Truman, or who H. Ross Perot pretended to be: someone focused on bread and butter issues who could command support from a wide swath of Americans. The Tea Party, from what I remember, started out as a "good government" movement, but got glommed onto by social conservatives and libertarians who scared away the centrists. If we could get someone who focused on controlling immigration, encouraging re-industrialization, lowering government deficits, etc. then the American people might be in a better position to resist government and leftist overreach whether individually or as members of conservative activist groups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.