A resurgent right (Germany's Extreme Right Gathers Strength)

expatica ^ | 10 Feb 2005 | expatica

[Killing Time]

Call me flippent if you like, but if the Hapsburgs and Bourbons were illegally usurped then, gulp, are not the United States of America still the rightful property of the British Crown?

[acw011]

Here's an interesting look at the political spectrum.

http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/upvsdown.htm

Here's an interesting test to find out where you fall on a quadrant sprectrum.. Alot of the questions are dumb - but it's still interesting if your bored.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[monday]

I was looking at your chart and wondering where in the world you could come up with the concept of a "Libertarian Dictatorship", but then I read your home page.

to quote; "Sympathetic to Libertarians, but feel they need direction."

lol.... I suppose you don't even see the irony of this do you?

I guess no one will ever mistake you for a libertarian.

[kjvail]

The original 13 colonies yes, if royalcello joins us you can ask him the details. He is good on the unreformed Tory/Royalist position.

However, even assuming the war of 1776 was a war of independence not a "revolution" (the the colonists never sought to overthrown the government of Great Britian, only to free themselves from it's influence). The Louisana purchase is in my mind invalid having been negotiated with an illegal, revolutionary government of France, the Western US is the legal property of HM Juan Carlos of Spain and Hawaii is an occupied foreign nation.

This is all rather irrelevant tho, revolutionary government do not respect the laws of property.

[Killing Time]

But where do you stop? Speaking as a Yorkshireman wasn't Richard III illegally usurped and everything that happened since invalid?

[monday]

"I have no doubt we are headed for a world state. It is the only direction it can go unless the entire democratic structure disintigrates prior to it's attainment."

The democratic structure isn't going to disintegrate.

There are many possibilities. We could have a world state, we could also have mass breakup of states into loose confederations. It's really too early to predict what will happen in the next 100 years or so.

My guess is that some states will move in one direction while others move in another. Those most successful at attracting and maintaining trade and business will be the richest and most successful at attracting people, who will ultimately decide on the success or failure of any given government.

Incidentally, Democratic governments are far less efficient at amassing power than Monarchies. You have heard of checks and balances? Indeed, this relative inability on their part, partially explains why they are more successful than Monarchies. People are allowed the freedom to innovate in pursuit of their own interests instead of being restricted by the state.

[Antoninus]

Der Spiegel argues that the far-right has profited from a new willingness among Germans in books and films to examine their own suffering during the war including the firebombing of cities, mass rape by Soviet soldiers and the expulsion of 15 million ethnic Germans from eastern Europe in 1945.

Actually, the problem stems from the cover-up of these atrocities. The Germans suffered worse than anyone in the aftermath of WWII. A strong case could be made that they deserved it. Well, that's fine. But there's absolutely no reason these atrocities, mainly committed by the Soviets, shouldn't be brought to light and to people's attention. While everyone knows about the Holocaust, practically no one knows about the millions of German women who were raped, the 5-7 million Germans killed and the millions more who were forcibly displaced in eastern Europe--all after hostilities had supposedly come to an end.

[Drammach]

I think we're on the same line of thought..

All I'm saying is, There's Freedom, and there's Tyranny..
I want all the Freedom I can get..
If I'm being tyrannized, it matters little to me if it's a commie or a nazi..
They are both doing the same thing to me..
Taking away my Freedom..

[Cornpone]

I wouldn't assume people are not aware of these atrocities. However, I think the general feeling is the German people brought terror on themselves.

[kjvail]

I'm better at the political theory of monarchism than genealogies and such. Royalcello is the expert there.

The point is such questions have to be settled according to the law.

This is where democracies and monarchies divurge. Contrary to popular belief a monarch was not free to change the law in any way he saw fit, he was as bound to it as the most modest farmer. Democracies on the other hand rewrite laws to suit the opinion of the majority - vox publica, vox Dei.

Laws of succession and property are complex, there is a sampling of some still in force here at Heraldica

[Antoninus]

While both include state monopoly/control of all facets of life and an Authoritarian rule, Facism includes the ideology of rule through racial superiority..

I have always broken down the difference between Nazis and communists thusly: Nazis are atheistic national socialists who think that their one national empire should rule the world. As long as you are a member of the "race," you are fit to rule.

Communists are atheistic international socialists who think that their one political ideology should rule the world. As long as you are a member of the class and embrace the ideology, national boundaries don't matter (at least in theory).

Both are vehicles for totalitarian world rule and should be utterly despised by free people.

[kjvail]

Incidentally, Democratic governments are far less efficient at amassing power than Monarchies. You have heard of checks and balances? Indeed, this relative inability on their part, partially explains why they are more successful than Monarchies. People are allowed the freedom to innovate in pursuit of their own interests instead of being restricted by the state.

That would be an incorrect analysis. In a democractic government ala the US model one branch of government is opposed by another branch of government but both have a vested interest in the expansion of government power. Democracies labor under the illusion of "self-rule", even tho each citizen in a modern mass democracy represents a miniscule fraction of actual power. Somehow "We" are the government so whatever happens must be what "we" want. This has allowed democratic government to gain unprecedented power over the lives of its subjects.

The fact is in a monarchy everyone knows exactly who the government is and who is to be held accountable. Democracy is diffusion of responsibility. This understanding resulted in the following effects:

Tax rates in monarchial Europe never rose above 10%. Since WW I and the collapse of the ancien regime tax rates in all European countries and American have skyrocketed to 40% and higher.

The creation of fiat money - no monarch in history ever would have tried this. Well actually some tried, it never worked.

War between states has become total since the French revolution - since all citizens "enjoy" the protection of the State, they are responsible for its defense. This has resulted in the mass politicalization of society, nationalism, conscription and a host of horrors. ( Monarchy and War )

The monarchy is bound by the law, which is unchangable. There is no legislative power in monarchism. The monarch is rather the supreme judge, like a supreme court of sorts. This is his primary function.

The monarchy is balanced by the aristocracy who have a vested interest in limiting the power of the monarch. Finally, in Catholic monarchies, the best form the monarch is bound by the Church under pain of sin. Coronation is a sacrament of the Church and comes with duties to act as temporal father of a nation.

Perhaps if you understood monarchy better we could discuss it, but you have a maze of misconceptions.

[Drammach]

I probably need to update my profile page a bit..

I like the whole concept of "less government"..
I think the "Democratic" form of government ( in it's literal form ) leads to socialism.. True "democracy" is Liberalism and leads to a Nanny state, much like what we have now..
The next step in that direction is Socialism.. and I don't want to go there..

I prefer the "republic" form of government, which is what was intended by the founders..
That means things like the "people" getting really offensive about messin' with the constitution and what it means.. especially the Bill of Rights..
We have the right and the power to tell government and the courts when they are stepping over the line..

I want to revoke the 17th amendment, and return to Senators being appointed/elected by the legislatures of the individual states..

I think I said in there somewhere that I was more of a Constitutionalist..
But I do have a sort of "sympathy" for the Libertarians.
They are a definite underdog.. but they have made it onto the ballots.. they are a recognized political party..
They can be a "spoiler" if you will...
I would rather have a Libertarian in congress than a socialist.. ( and we have a socialist in congress.. damn Vermont..)

Anyway, I'll update one of these days..

[Drammach]

Both are vehicles for totalitarian world rule and should be utterly despised by free people.

I would agree with the above sentiment, as well as the rest of your post..
Thanks..

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

" . . . are not the United States of America still the rightful property of the British Crown?"

While I would have supported the Loyalist cause (as all good New Jerseyans did, including our governor William Franklin), the Treaty of Paris did legally grant independence to the colonies. It's ironic, but accurate, to claim that the legitimacy of the United States was guaranteed by the King of England.

If there is any usurping that was done, it was in the triumph of Lincoln's central government over the Confederates States. Thereafter, the federal government has been like a black hole, absorbing our rights one after another.

[kjvail]

Welcome! Now this is funny

democracy, egalitarianism, vulgarity (although the last three are inseparable from each other),

I like the about page.

[TheForceOfOne]

Your putting words in my mouth, I equate them with National Socialism more in the form of Karl Marx. Think of "Hillary Care" and the ramifications it would have had towards National Socialism. Democrats believe your money is better served by being re-disbursed at their discretion for the benefit of those they seduce in to voting for them, creating a willing form of social slavery.

[mississippi red-neck]

The monarchy is bound by the law, which is unchangeable.

I don't understand.

. What law, where did it come from, and what makes it unchangeable?

You say that in a monarchy that everyone knows who is responsible and that the monarch is bound by the law.

What and who holds this monarch accountable if they violate this law?

The only one that I'm familiar with in a small way that operated in such a manner is the Medo-Persian Empire.

In it was no fixed law but law by decree issued on a daily basis from the king, [who had his advisor's], to fit the situation, which then became unchangeable even by the king who issued it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but as a history buff where governments are concerned I am truly interested.

Do you have any historical examples that made you prefer this type of system?

I find that throughout history all systems fail because they are administered by men and are easily corrupted.

[americanbychoice2]

Thanks for your link to Davids Medienkritik.
I have saved it and will visit it often.
Great stuff.

[longjack]

Thanks for your link to Davids Medienkritik.

You're welcome. I'm glad you like it.

Davids Medienkritik is definitely the place to go for English readers who wish to know what the German press is doing.

longjack