Some of these resisted and became the famed Magyar (hungarian) warriors who terrorized Europe from the 9th to the 12 century
But the stranger part is that Muscovy seems imho to be a continuation of the Mongol empire
Posted on 05/08/2011 9:36:55 AM PDT by annalex
Some of these resisted and became the famed Magyar (hungarian) warriors who terrorized Europe from the 9th to the 12 century
But the stranger part is that Muscovy seems imho to be a continuation of the Mongol empire
The author seems to agree with you:
My case holds only for countries where maintaining or restoring (or conceivably installing) monarchy is a live option.2 We Americans have sounder hope of reviving respect for the philosophy of our Founders. Our traditions could serve some of the functions of monarchy in other countries.
However, it would be smart to ask ourselves, how come "reviving respect for the philosophy of our Fathers" is not happening, but rapid movement away from it definitely is happening. I think America should lose its allergy to a monarchy; it is very likely the best option in case of a constitutional crisis.
This phrase describes monarchy much beter than what we have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4 (yes, I hate Wiki too)
Häyhä was born in the municipality of Rautjärvi near the present-day border of Finland and Russia, and started his military service in 1925. Before entering combat, Häyhä was a farmer and a hunter. At age of 17 he joined the Finnish militia suojeluskunta and succeeded with his sniping skills in shooting sports in the Viipuri province. His farmhouse was reportedly full of trophies for marksmanship.
The unofficial Finnish front line figure from the battlefield of Kollaa places the number of Häyhä's sniper kills at over 800.
—
When your enemies (Russians) call you “the white death” you have their attention.
With every social order there is a proper way of addressing people. Monarchy is no exception. You are right, indeed, that since most monarchies lasted many centuries, they have a certain crusty old fashioned ways. Similar ceremonial rules exist in most religions, the Masonic Lodge, and I assure you the protocol at the White House is not limited to "Mr. President". That is a minor detail, and not a lack of freedom.
Yes, I do.
According to your source: the only way to prevent a democracy from committing suicide is to limit the vote to faithful Catholics
That is nonsense. Faithful Protestants especially have a good way of preserving liberty, and as you often point out, outvote Catholics in terms of their conservatism. I would welcome a limited franchise based on socio-economic status, for example, to people who also pay taxes, own property, or even passed certain good-citizen certification. I would consider removing the franchise from those whose religion is a cult of destruction, such as Satanists, Wiccan or Atheists. But that is as far as I would go. If, further, it so emerges that in the coming North American monarchy political rights of Protestants are elevated at the expense of Catholic or Orthodox Christian, I would consider it natural even if unfortunate.
The right to vote is just not a fundamental right. I favor a system where less is dependent on who gets to vote, and more, on who manages the common sphere. I would generally favor a system where that common sphere manager gets to do his work thinking in long term - - down the generations to come. Such a system exists, it is monarchy. Limited franchise, and dominance of one religion over other religions are elements of it, but they don't define it. In America we'd be lucky to get Christianity broadly speaking to dominate. It is, by the way, not somethign a king can simply legislate ina vacuum, the popular culture should be mature enough for the national evangelization to be successful.
Matter of fact, we are all annointed to serve God, by God. Ever been baptized?
righteous slavery
No one is advocating that. Monarchy is what abolished slavery.
anti-American drivel
Why are you insulting me? Nothing that I said was anti-American. If you find it drivel, argue; familiarity with the subject you are arguing about should help.
...everyone has come to expect nothing but...
...No one reads...
...the truth not only for those who oppose...but for those who may agree...
...this has occurred over the years...
...all your posts...
...not read by any...
...by those who disagree and those who agree...
And that's when I stopped bothering to read your posts.
Most nations of the time had secret police, and still do. We have a Secret Service as well. Few nations were, like Russia, a union of many diverse ethnicities, with diverse religions, living compactly on their land and governed locally. That was similar to the British commonwealth of Nations and employed similar methods; in fact the Russians of the period would pride themselves fro not having constant rebellions and brutal suppressions of them, like the British.
Much of the unfreedom that existed in Russia was out of the concern for the Russian peasant, uneducated and prone to idleness and booze. The Tsar would often resist, for example, buying out the peasants' farms because if they were to get money, they would drink till the money is gone. Still, let us remember that the Russian serfs were freed before the American slaves were, and it took no civil war to free them.
You argument is like any against the feudalism: they lived in dirt, had no dentistry and wore silly hats. Yes, -- they lived a long time ago.
Your delusion is as anti-American as those who would advocate that we follow Communism or Sharia law.
“Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people.” George Washington
Monarchy and an aristocracy is, to our AMERICAN founder, synonymous with a despotic and oppressive form of government - and only suited to rule a degenerate people without virtue.
You sir, lack the virtue that would make a man free; and instead would treat Americans like the degraded degenerates only fit to be ruled by their betters. That may be an apt assessment of your own proclivities - and I know not what course others may take; but for myself...
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry
No thanks. I don't even like the Fedgov or the States owning as much of our Infrastructure as they do now. Add in all the other problems associated with centralized power structures and this is still utter lunacy.
I'll make a deal with you - you find something written by Rao where he repents of his earlier statements, and openly praises and defends the "Presbyterian Rebellion", constitutional republics in general, and the United States of America in particular - and we'll talk. I don't think we need Rao in order to debate the question of whether monarchist sedition against the Constitution of the United States is somehow "pro-American".
"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it"
Alex Murphy, do not post anything from Rao - his material is not allowed on Free Republic because of his anti-American rhetoric.
That’s your opinion, but the real history of emperors and kings shows otherwise. Once someone is bent on utilizing public office to enlarge their coffers, power, and self esteem that’s the path they stay on for life. History is replete with bad kings who didn’t give a rip about the people, and has very few examples of your opinion actually existing outside of your head.
He could be. Many kings were. But note that (1) a king is brought up as one, which mitigates the risk; (2) he can yield to a more capable and service oriented relative, or even a regency, without jeopardizing his own status; (3) the last thing an asshole king ("bastard" in reference to a king is a double-entendre) would want is to annoy his subjects. Typically, kings without civic merits simply enjoyed their private lives and did not cause much trouble.
Forgive me, but I find your statements above to be rose-colored and more than a little naive. I am no great student of the histories of kings and empires, but I think I know enough to get around.
In that general sense, my take on the subject is that good kings are rather few and far between... as precious as the gold of Ophir. Bad kings are more often found, and utter destruction is in their wake. Indifferent kings' reigns, while probably the most numerous, are a sallow lot, leaving their kingdoms languishing and gasping for air... governed by the same sort of nameless appointed bureaucrats as we see in socialism. Government grows in apathy's petri dish. The elite class want automation so that they do not need to be bothered with the stinking masses - They have glorious, privileged, ordained lives to lead. And it has always been thus. There is no magic in the stations of kings and lords.
In fact, I find the thought of a superior elite class, raised up from their youth to rule justly and with the care of their people in their hearts, to be an entirely laughable proposition. Hilarious. Knee-pounding, tears-in-the-eyes, belly-shaking guffaw worthy.
I am hard pressed to find a "golden age" anywhere, in any time, wherein the common man was left alone to prosper (and I do not mean mammon). He has always given up his sons to the king he serves, that he would scatter their blood on foreign soil. He has always given up his daughters to the rape and pillage of the king next door to his own. He has given up his property to finance the above, and what is left, he must give up to the charlatan and the crook, who exist in stark evidence against the supposed law and justice that he pays the elite to provide by way of their extortion.
In contrast, a democratic system programs the politicians to be of low character: he cannot admit when his opponent is correct because then he should lose his office; he does not have a luxury of a long term view; he is a salesman and government is his product. No wonder we have deficits as far as the eye can see.
I see no difference in character between the elite class and the trailer trash, with the exception of the haughty, pompous nature that invades men of means. There are people of bad character in every stripe of every society, and every man puts his pants on one leg at a time.
In fact, I would submit that there are more of the good-hearted among the goodman and the freeman than there ever was in the elite. It is those who work by the sweat of their own brow that are most naturally raised up to respect their neighbor and his house, because their worth is drawn and measured in the work of his own hands - He knows, by the ache in his own back what his neighbor is going through.
As to democracy, I think it suffers the same ills as monarchy, with the exception that the process is completed with more speed - We measure our "reigns" by the decade, not the generation. And in that there is sure to be more volatility, but that works both ways. A bad presidency can do horrible damage. But he will soon be gone. A good presidency can haul us out of terrible depression in a matter of seasons. A congress can be full of politicians for years, but on the turn of a single election, it can be filled with statesmen.
Both degenerate. Both decay. But only one has the hope of recourse and recovery, no matter how helpless it seems. Democracies rise and fall. But in that hopeful dash is the only time that man has been able to prosper, because he is free of those who would MAKE him do.
We must remember that YHWH had to be pressed into the position of providing Israel a king. He said He is their Father. He provides and governs. What need then of a king? In that story is great wisdom, and is the genesis of YHWH's action to provide a king once and for all. One who would rule with a rod of iron (justice), and one who would lead the world in peace. Funny how that brings us right back to His original position.
It is YHWH who is the author of liberty. Where His justice is done, there is liberty indeed. That requires only ONE king, and he ain't here yet. In the course of that absence, where His word has spread, there has been liberty, fractured thought it is... And for the most part, His Word has gone out from the democratic nations. That should tell you something.
I’m not saying that it was their fault. I’m simply saying that Nicholas would not hand more power over ot the Duma. But hwat makes it worse, is that George V destroyed his own family to preserve his precious ‘image,’ even interfering in the British government.
well, he was British royalty — they do that! He even changed his surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor
Sadly, the RM's won't allow it-We all could have gained some genuine truth and understanding of the Natural Law verses pagan enlightenment ideas
I wish you peace in your search for truth.
I don't know enough to say how the British Monarchy evolved, but as a general proposition indeed monarchies evolve. Not always for the better. Ditto republics. That is what civilizations, speaking more broadly, do: mature, get old, die, new spirit takes over. I think (Jacque Barzun agrees), the last 500 years in the West was an era that is now over, and we are going to start toward what we neglected to do in the Middle Ages: create a society more just, more free, more spiritual, less mechanical. We took a detour on our historical path and now the detour is over.
Good for them. I did not mean to denigrate making an honest living, only the typical crass way career politicians provide for themselves.
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.