The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Thursday, June 30, 2005
The Triangulation of Power
The national disposition of today’s Canada is essentially a convergence of three prevailing cultural phenomena: the British character, the French character and the modern Liberal character. Though the latter one is only a federal political party per se, and not a distinctive monocultural force in the traditional sense, its brute (predominantly urban and regionally central) electoral success – particularly over the last forty years – has been such as to allow it to gradually cultivate a new national identity and remake the country in its own image. Be it the 1965 adopted maple leaf flag; Pearsonian peacekeeping and universal public healthcare; 1970s bilingualism and multiculturalism of the Trudeau era; the 1982 Constitution and Charter; the 1990s killing of the nation’s once proud military and slathering affection for the UN; the final unhinging of Canada from its historical role as a reliable transatlantic ally post 9-11; federally imposed gun control and now federally imposed same-sex marriage: have all been controversially accumulated under successive Liberal governments to transformative effect to the country at large. Apart from our remaining independent monarch, “Liberal” and “Canada” are now virtually synonymous to the point where attacking the values of the former is frequently rebuffed as an affront to the values and patriotism of the latter. Canada has for all intents and purposes degenerated from a bi-cultural nation-state into a nationally emblematic political party.
Thankfully, it can't last. As with any top-down elitist approach, citizens eventually become disconnected from the country they love if they don’t personally identify themselves with the agenda and providence of the powerful. The fact that Liberals have been able to single-handedly transform the country with only 38% popular support means it lacks the accepted legitimacy and authenticity required for permanence. The game is up once the permanently disenfranchised majorities in the regions outside Ontario wake from their sleeper and start asserting their regional authority. The seeming invincibility of the Liberal Party has always been based on their ruthless perfection of a game called political triangulation – not just right, centre and left triangulation; but regional and cultural triangulation. On advancing social policy for example, they have used socially liberal Quebecers in alliance with an English Canadian minority to foist a “progressive” agenda on an otherwise more conservative population outside of Quebec. Whether it is homosexual marriage, gun control, welfare statism, national bilingualism, foreign pacificism…the “unholy alliance” between Liberal federalists and Quebec separatists has perpetually disenfranchised the majority of English Canadians who hold fundamentally different cultural attitudes and values. Paradoxically, this appeasement of Quebec and French speaking Canadians more generally was intended to make them more comfortable and keep them in the country. Hugely unfortunate for Liberals, the strategy is not working.
For Quebecers are a profoundly nationalistic and patriotic people. Prior to their quest for independence, they dreamed of a reformed united Canada based on the concept of equality between two-founding peoples, rather than a confederation of ten equal provinces. Unlike the timidity of English-speaking Canadians, they have always resisted the triangulation juggernaut when used against them. Multiculturalism after all, was an English Canadian-Liberal invention that immediately failed everywhere in Quebec except in the Anglophone and immigrant ridings of Montreal. During the 1980 and 1995 referendums, Liberal Canada prevailed only with the total support and resources of a united effort outside of French-speaking Quebec. Hugely unfortunate for Liberals, they will not be able to count on the same support next time around.
The awful neglected truth of the matter for Liberals is that triangulation in theory can work just as well against you as it can for you. The disenfranchised Conservative West has never been comfortable forming an alliance with French Quebec against Liberal Canada because they know that it is politically suicide to their chances of forming a federal government. But what happens to that equation when hundreds of thousands of Westerners reach their tipping point? What happens when a whole region finally realizes that it will never equitably share power in a national government? What happens when they throw in the towel? Hugely unfortunate for Liberals, the triangulation of political power comes crashing to an end.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:51 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The national disposition of today’s Canada is essentially a convergence of three prevailing cultural phenomena: the British character, the French character and the modern Liberal character. Though the latter one is only a federal political party per se, and not a distinctive monocultural force in the traditional sense, its brute (predominantly urban and regionally central) electoral success – particularly over the last forty years – has been such as to allow it to gradually cultivate a new national identity and remake the country in its own image. Be it the 1965 adopted maple leaf flag; Pearsonian peacekeeping and universal public healthcare; 1970s bilingualism and multiculturalism of the Trudeau era; the 1982 Constitution and Charter; the 1990s killing of the nation’s once proud military and slathering affection for the UN; the final unhinging of Canada from its historical role as a reliable transatlantic ally post 9-11; federally imposed gun control and now federally imposed same-sex marriage: have all been controversially accumulated under successive Liberal governments to transformative effect to the country at large. Apart from our remaining independent monarch, “Liberal” and “Canada” are now virtually synonymous to the point where attacking the values of the former is frequently rebuffed as an affront to the values and patriotism of the latter. Canada has for all intents and purposes degenerated from a bi-cultural nation-state into a nationally emblematic political party.
Thankfully, it can't last. As with any top-down elitist approach, citizens eventually become disconnected from the country they love if they don’t personally identify themselves with the agenda and providence of the powerful. The fact that Liberals have been able to single-handedly transform the country with only 38% popular support means it lacks the accepted legitimacy and authenticity required for permanence. The game is up once the permanently disenfranchised majorities in the regions outside Ontario wake from their sleeper and start asserting their regional authority. The seeming invincibility of the Liberal Party has always been based on their ruthless perfection of a game called political triangulation – not just right, centre and left triangulation; but regional and cultural triangulation. On advancing social policy for example, they have used socially liberal Quebecers in alliance with an English Canadian minority to foist a “progressive” agenda on an otherwise more conservative population outside of Quebec. Whether it is homosexual marriage, gun control, welfare statism, national bilingualism, foreign pacificism…the “unholy alliance” between Liberal federalists and Quebec separatists has perpetually disenfranchised the majority of English Canadians who hold fundamentally different cultural attitudes and values. Paradoxically, this appeasement of Quebec and French speaking Canadians more generally was intended to make them more comfortable and keep them in the country. Hugely unfortunate for Liberals, the strategy is not working.
For Quebecers are a profoundly nationalistic and patriotic people. Prior to their quest for independence, they dreamed of a reformed united Canada based on the concept of equality between two-founding peoples, rather than a confederation of ten equal provinces. Unlike the timidity of English-speaking Canadians, they have always resisted the triangulation juggernaut when used against them. Multiculturalism after all, was an English Canadian-Liberal invention that immediately failed everywhere in Quebec except in the Anglophone and immigrant ridings of Montreal. During the 1980 and 1995 referendums, Liberal Canada prevailed only with the total support and resources of a united effort outside of French-speaking Quebec. Hugely unfortunate for Liberals, they will not be able to count on the same support next time around.
The awful neglected truth of the matter for Liberals is that triangulation in theory can work just as well against you as it can for you. The disenfranchised Conservative West has never been comfortable forming an alliance with French Quebec against Liberal Canada because they know that it is politically suicide to their chances of forming a federal government. But what happens to that equation when hundreds of thousands of Westerners reach their tipping point? What happens when a whole region finally realizes that it will never equitably share power in a national government? What happens when they throw in the towel? Hugely unfortunate for Liberals, the triangulation of political power comes crashing to an end.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:51 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Dominion Day
Tomorrow is Dominion Day and The Monarchist has received a "My Canada" challenge from Celestial Junk to focus on the country's positives. My answers to his questions are listed below:
What is your favorite Canadian natural geographic location?
The Rocky Mountains between British Columbia and Alberta. The Alberta side is the most spectacular including Banff, Lake Louise and Jasper. Preferrably without the tourists.
What do you think is Canada’s most admirable cultural trait?
Her British character and familial connectivity to Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. You asked for cultural trait so there you have it. I realize that Canada has essentially three faces: the British character, the French character and the modern Liberal character (make that two faces and one farce). The first I love, the second I respect, the third I despise. Modern Liberalism started off nobly enough with an attempt to bridge the two, but went radically and corruptly astray when it decided to replace them with itself. A political party is not a culture and multiculturalism has promoted a fragmented, international free-zone state instead of a more cohesive nation. There is a reason why they call the diseased dominion a one-party state and not a one nation-state.
What is your most memorable Canadian travel experience?
Hiking the West Coast Trail along Pacific Rim National Park.
What is your favorite Canadian hideaway?
Beaver Creek, British Columbia on Vancouver Island. It is where my great grandparents settled in the 1890s after the Pacific National railway was opened in 1886. It was the end of the line. It is where the inland Pacific waters of the Alberni Valley meet the central Vancouver Island mountains of the Beaufort Range. It is God's country. It is where I want to die.
What do you think is Canada’s more admirable political trait?
Her shared parliamentary heritage and political system with that of the other Crown Commonwealth Realms. It is a proud historical fact of Canada that we drafted the British North America Act of 1867 and inherited a political system that derives directly from the Model Parliament of 1295.
What do you think is Canada’s most exciting event?
I don't know if there are any that would classify as exciting. The most memorable event for me in recent years was the patriation of the Unknown Solider from Vimy Ridge in 2000. For me that was moving.
What is the most thrilling experience you have had with Canadian nature?
White-water rafting on the Yukon River.
What, if anything, does Canada hold that you’d lay your life down for?
Her Majesty The Queen of Canada. As the Sovereign and personal representative of the people, she is the central embodiment of all my patriotic love and loyalty to this country. An attack on Her Majesty is an attack on Canada, which is why I see no conflict in advocating the destruction of the current Liberal order and their creeping republicanism by any and all lawful means. Separation if necessary, but not necessarily separation. They must be removed before they replace the Queen with themselves.
What is for you, the single most positive defining characteristic of Canada?
The monarchy. As if you had to ask.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:08 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tomorrow is Dominion Day and The Monarchist has received a "My Canada" challenge from Celestial Junk to focus on the country's positives. My answers to his questions are listed below:
What is your favorite Canadian natural geographic location?
The Rocky Mountains between British Columbia and Alberta. The Alberta side is the most spectacular including Banff, Lake Louise and Jasper. Preferrably without the tourists.
What do you think is Canada’s most admirable cultural trait?
Her British character and familial connectivity to Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. You asked for cultural trait so there you have it. I realize that Canada has essentially three faces: the British character, the French character and the modern Liberal character (make that two faces and one farce). The first I love, the second I respect, the third I despise. Modern Liberalism started off nobly enough with an attempt to bridge the two, but went radically and corruptly astray when it decided to replace them with itself. A political party is not a culture and multiculturalism has promoted a fragmented, international free-zone state instead of a more cohesive nation. There is a reason why they call the diseased dominion a one-party state and not a one nation-state.
What is your most memorable Canadian travel experience?
Hiking the West Coast Trail along Pacific Rim National Park.
What is your favorite Canadian hideaway?
Beaver Creek, British Columbia on Vancouver Island. It is where my great grandparents settled in the 1890s after the Pacific National railway was opened in 1886. It was the end of the line. It is where the inland Pacific waters of the Alberni Valley meet the central Vancouver Island mountains of the Beaufort Range. It is God's country. It is where I want to die.
What do you think is Canada’s more admirable political trait?
Her shared parliamentary heritage and political system with that of the other Crown Commonwealth Realms. It is a proud historical fact of Canada that we drafted the British North America Act of 1867 and inherited a political system that derives directly from the Model Parliament of 1295.
What do you think is Canada’s most exciting event?
I don't know if there are any that would classify as exciting. The most memorable event for me in recent years was the patriation of the Unknown Solider from Vimy Ridge in 2000. For me that was moving.
What is the most thrilling experience you have had with Canadian nature?
White-water rafting on the Yukon River.
What, if anything, does Canada hold that you’d lay your life down for?
Her Majesty The Queen of Canada. As the Sovereign and personal representative of the people, she is the central embodiment of all my patriotic love and loyalty to this country. An attack on Her Majesty is an attack on Canada, which is why I see no conflict in advocating the destruction of the current Liberal order and their creeping republicanism by any and all lawful means. Separation if necessary, but not necessarily separation. They must be removed before they replace the Queen with themselves.
What is for you, the single most positive defining characteristic of Canada?
The monarchy. As if you had to ask.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:08 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The Monarchist goes Mainstream
An email from Ottawa Citizen columnist, Margret Kopala, alerting us that she was going to use excerpts from Walsingham's "Tipping Point" in her weekly column to exhort Stephen Harper away from the summer barbecue circuit to focus on policy instead, sure would have been nice. Otherwise, we may never even have noticed (hat tip to Catesby for giving us the heads up and clipping this one for us) that this blog was noticed in the mainstream media last weekend. Cuz, good Lordy: Here be serious boasting rights.
If only she actually mentioned this blog, though. I mean, how are readers supposed to get the full article and context of Walsingham's message if not so much as a website address back to the original source is included? In any event, we are very pleased that the man's intellect and "seminal essay" is garnering the attention it deserves; and now on the newspaper pages of the nation's capital no less. I suppose if there is one city in this country that would be directly affected by his message, it would be Ottawa. The ergo simplicity of no Canada, no Ottawa, focusses the mind more acutely over there, compared to say Calgary or Vancouver.
And let that be this blog's goal: to get noticed. Across the Crown Commonwealth. To be written up in places like the New Zealand Herald, The Australian and The Daily Telegraph. Why the hell not? We have some really smart people onboard already: time to branch out. Getting Pitt the Younger onboard from Kiwi Down Under (check out his very Godly writings on culture at Home, Throne and Altar...that is one smart cookie down there) made me realize that we need to broaden our perspective. We also have Cato the Younger (heard of him?) who will be joining us from London and the Tory countryside of Shropshire when over there. We need more of them from England, Scotland and Wales. We need Aussies. We need united empire loyalists who love freedom and tradition; who despise modernism and wish to preserve good stuff like monarchy. Let's cut away the borders and embrace our common culture.
BTW, if you want to see Madam Kopala's article, you're going to have to wait until she publishes it on her personal website alongside her other newspaper columns. It appears that she doesn't post it online until a couple of weeks have elapsed after it was published in the paper.
Update: The Ottawa Citizen article (June 18, 2005) can now be found here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:10 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
An email from Ottawa Citizen columnist, Margret Kopala, alerting us that she was going to use excerpts from Walsingham's "Tipping Point" in her weekly column to exhort Stephen Harper away from the summer barbecue circuit to focus on policy instead, sure would have been nice. Otherwise, we may never even have noticed (hat tip to Catesby for giving us the heads up and clipping this one for us) that this blog was noticed in the mainstream media last weekend. Cuz, good Lordy: Here be serious boasting rights.
If only she actually mentioned this blog, though. I mean, how are readers supposed to get the full article and context of Walsingham's message if not so much as a website address back to the original source is included? In any event, we are very pleased that the man's intellect and "seminal essay" is garnering the attention it deserves; and now on the newspaper pages of the nation's capital no less. I suppose if there is one city in this country that would be directly affected by his message, it would be Ottawa. The ergo simplicity of no Canada, no Ottawa, focusses the mind more acutely over there, compared to say Calgary or Vancouver.
And let that be this blog's goal: to get noticed. Across the Crown Commonwealth. To be written up in places like the New Zealand Herald, The Australian and The Daily Telegraph. Why the hell not? We have some really smart people onboard already: time to branch out. Getting Pitt the Younger onboard from Kiwi Down Under (check out his very Godly writings on culture at Home, Throne and Altar...that is one smart cookie down there) made me realize that we need to broaden our perspective. We also have Cato the Younger (heard of him?) who will be joining us from London and the Tory countryside of Shropshire when over there. We need more of them from England, Scotland and Wales. We need Aussies. We need united empire loyalists who love freedom and tradition; who despise modernism and wish to preserve good stuff like monarchy. Let's cut away the borders and embrace our common culture.
BTW, if you want to see Madam Kopala's article, you're going to have to wait until she publishes it on her personal website alongside her other newspaper columns. It appears that she doesn't post it online until a couple of weeks have elapsed after it was published in the paper.
Update: The Ottawa Citizen article (June 18, 2005) can now be found here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:10 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, June 17, 2005
MSD Wisdom II
Walsingham started a tradition on this blog to re-post from time to time comments made by MSD, intelligent political observations that we call "MSD Wisdom". That first summary of wisdom described "the Liberal method", the incredibly successful political method the Liberal Party of Canada uses to perpetually hold onto power; the way they deliberately nurture a culture of dependency amongst the citizenry and then devilishly cast the contenders as a threat to Liberal government spoils. The most recent array of comments by MSD over the past two weeks follow along the lines of a separate though related theme on how the Liberals keep doing it: by casting their opponents as unCanadian and shamelessly wrapping their political values in the Canadian flag.
"CANADIAN VALUES"
One of the most salient features of modern-day liberalism is its intellectual laziness. Once characterized by original and avant-garde ideas, liberalism has unwittingly turned its back on its animating principles and morphed into its own antithesis.
The Liberal Party of Canada and a good chunk of the Canadian electorate reflects this laziness. In a world where the virtues of "change" are paid a lot of lip service, Canadian politics are all about avoiding change, seemingly at any cost to our liberty. The status quo has become sacrosanct.
That is what I believe is behind the aversion to Harper. He represents the possibility of change which the Liberal faithful are so evidently afraid of. Seemingly the only way to assuage the suspicion of Harper and the CPC in the east is to make the party as close a copy of the Liberals as possible. Which of course amounts to eliminating the need to make a real choice and thus defeats the whole point of democracy.
The obvious, and most shocking, conclusion is that Canadians (or at least enough of them to keep the Liberals in power) are no longer interested in democracy, which is all about making choices as free citizens. So lazy have we become that we've simply wrapped ourselves in the comfortable old cloak of "Canadian values" and turned our backs on the world.
Canadians have become what we've always smugly accused the Americans of being: selfish and insular. We have accepted the Trudeaupian fantasy as the best that we can be and simply can't be bothered to entertain the notion that maybe we could have even a teensy-weensy bit wrong.
In representing an alternative view, even the pale and watered down one it is, Harper is a reminder that there are other paths that Canada might take in the future, some of which might run counter to our received Trudeaupian wisdom.
Frankly, I don't think a lot of Canadians are up to the challenge of facing the twenty-first century. They would rather sleep and let the Liberals continue to look after us forever, to protect us from "scary people" with dangerous new ideas, and above all never ever ask us to think or make any hard decisions.
-----
It's a curious aspect of human nature that those who most vehemently champion a virtue are the least likely to exhibit that virtue themselves. Likewise, those who most strongly deplore a weakness are themselves the most likely to be susceptible to it themselves.
Hence, the objection of the Canadian government, Papa Jean Chretien in particular, to Conrad Black's peerage. Our rulers would have us believe, once again, that such a distinction is incompatible with "Canadian values" and therefore must be denied.
Yet the Liberal Party, especially Chretien and Martin, is all about power and prestige, influence and advantage. They certainly aren't driven by conviction or principle. It's all about naked ambition, about getting power and keeping it, no matter what the cost.
It is the ultimate outrage that such hollow men should see it as their place to block the awarding of a peerage, or any other title of distinction, to a (supposedly) free citizen of a (supposedly) free country.
-----
I am also convinced that the Liberals and their cheerleaders in the media have done a masterful job at equating the Liberal party with "Canadian values" in the minds of many Canadians. The media directs the propaganda by incessantly repeating the "values" mantra and by deviously discrediting the opposition. The Liberal Party itself channels public funds in support of those "values", thus creating and nurturing dependency on many levels.
Finally, Canada's dysfunctional system of federal government allows the whole Liberal juggernaut to maintain its choke hold on power with the support of a mere thirty-eight per cent, effectively disenfranchizing the majority 62%, as the Monarchist correctly points out.
This is what makes the status quo so unjust and ultimately unsustainable. It is what will, if uncorrected, drive Alberta and possibly Quebec from the Canadian fold. It may also cause the contorted and overstressed Canadian pipe to break in other ways, as yet unforeseen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:43 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Walsingham started a tradition on this blog to re-post from time to time comments made by MSD, intelligent political observations that we call "MSD Wisdom". That first summary of wisdom described "the Liberal method", the incredibly successful political method the Liberal Party of Canada uses to perpetually hold onto power; the way they deliberately nurture a culture of dependency amongst the citizenry and then devilishly cast the contenders as a threat to Liberal government spoils. The most recent array of comments by MSD over the past two weeks follow along the lines of a separate though related theme on how the Liberals keep doing it: by casting their opponents as unCanadian and shamelessly wrapping their political values in the Canadian flag.
"CANADIAN VALUES"
One of the most salient features of modern-day liberalism is its intellectual laziness. Once characterized by original and avant-garde ideas, liberalism has unwittingly turned its back on its animating principles and morphed into its own antithesis.
The Liberal Party of Canada and a good chunk of the Canadian electorate reflects this laziness. In a world where the virtues of "change" are paid a lot of lip service, Canadian politics are all about avoiding change, seemingly at any cost to our liberty. The status quo has become sacrosanct.
That is what I believe is behind the aversion to Harper. He represents the possibility of change which the Liberal faithful are so evidently afraid of. Seemingly the only way to assuage the suspicion of Harper and the CPC in the east is to make the party as close a copy of the Liberals as possible. Which of course amounts to eliminating the need to make a real choice and thus defeats the whole point of democracy.
The obvious, and most shocking, conclusion is that Canadians (or at least enough of them to keep the Liberals in power) are no longer interested in democracy, which is all about making choices as free citizens. So lazy have we become that we've simply wrapped ourselves in the comfortable old cloak of "Canadian values" and turned our backs on the world.
Canadians have become what we've always smugly accused the Americans of being: selfish and insular. We have accepted the Trudeaupian fantasy as the best that we can be and simply can't be bothered to entertain the notion that maybe we could have even a teensy-weensy bit wrong.
In representing an alternative view, even the pale and watered down one it is, Harper is a reminder that there are other paths that Canada might take in the future, some of which might run counter to our received Trudeaupian wisdom.
Frankly, I don't think a lot of Canadians are up to the challenge of facing the twenty-first century. They would rather sleep and let the Liberals continue to look after us forever, to protect us from "scary people" with dangerous new ideas, and above all never ever ask us to think or make any hard decisions.
-----
It's a curious aspect of human nature that those who most vehemently champion a virtue are the least likely to exhibit that virtue themselves. Likewise, those who most strongly deplore a weakness are themselves the most likely to be susceptible to it themselves.
Hence, the objection of the Canadian government, Papa Jean Chretien in particular, to Conrad Black's peerage. Our rulers would have us believe, once again, that such a distinction is incompatible with "Canadian values" and therefore must be denied.
Yet the Liberal Party, especially Chretien and Martin, is all about power and prestige, influence and advantage. They certainly aren't driven by conviction or principle. It's all about naked ambition, about getting power and keeping it, no matter what the cost.
It is the ultimate outrage that such hollow men should see it as their place to block the awarding of a peerage, or any other title of distinction, to a (supposedly) free citizen of a (supposedly) free country.
-----
I am also convinced that the Liberals and their cheerleaders in the media have done a masterful job at equating the Liberal party with "Canadian values" in the minds of many Canadians. The media directs the propaganda by incessantly repeating the "values" mantra and by deviously discrediting the opposition. The Liberal Party itself channels public funds in support of those "values", thus creating and nurturing dependency on many levels.
Finally, Canada's dysfunctional system of federal government allows the whole Liberal juggernaut to maintain its choke hold on power with the support of a mere thirty-eight per cent, effectively disenfranchizing the majority 62%, as the Monarchist correctly points out.
This is what makes the status quo so unjust and ultimately unsustainable. It is what will, if uncorrected, drive Alberta and possibly Quebec from the Canadian fold. It may also cause the contorted and overstressed Canadian pipe to break in other ways, as yet unforeseen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:43 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
America should join the Commonwealth
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:55 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Just a thought. With the independence of India in 1947 and the growing ranks of republican members in the British Commonwealth since then, what exactly is stopping the United States from joining? So what if it declared independence from Britain in 1776 and went to war against us in 1812; that's all history now and recognizing the British monarchy as Head of State has long since passed as a basic requirement for inclusion into the English-speaking body. In any case, most Americans admire our Queen and therefore would probably not view it as an impediment that Her Majesty remain as the symbolic Head of the Commonwealth. Personally, I can only think of positive reasons for the U.S. to gain membership in the Anglosphere body:
- We speak English (except for official Quebec);
- We all share common values and a common British heritage;
- Most likely ready "coalition of the willing" (compared to the dithering UN);
- Would focus the minds of Britons away from Europe and toward America;
- With the rise of China, having the U.S. in the same tent as India would be a good thing; and
- The Commonwealth would become relevant again (the primary upside for us).
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:55 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, June 13, 2005
Out of the Darkness, a Flicker
The diseased dominion got a little better on Thursday with this Supreme Court of Canada ruling against our fear mongering, Stalinist political elites. Up to last Thursday, I was pretty convinced that we were doomed as a society, proudly sharing the spotlight with totalitarianist Cuba as one of only two demented nations in the world that outlaw privately insured healthcare. That's right: in this country, you're not allowed to take care of yourself; the state dictates that it does that for you, lest anyone pay to jump the cue and get preferential medical treatment, thereby encouraging a private, parallel program - God forbid, a two-tier system. Private healthcare: bad; public healthcare: good. Privately delivered, bad; privately insured, bad; privately built, owned and operated, bad. Thou shall not profit from medicine. Thou shall not countenance two-tier healthcare.
Meanwhile, patients are left to languish and die on the single-tier waiting lists due to the rationing of limited public resources. Not astonishingly one such man from Quebec, suffering from a basic instinct of self-preservation, believed this was tantamount to political manslaughter, and so took the government to court for not allowing him to pay/insure to save his own life (apparently in Quebec you are allowed to purchase healthcare, but not allowed to self-insure; a prohibition that favours the rich over the middle class. So much for the political lie that we don't have two-tier medicine). Think about that for a second. Your country does not permit people in the main to purchase necessary medical treatment. What does that say about your country? Is this what the left means by generosity and compassion? That even after paying into the public system through your own hardwork and taxes, you are not permitted to relieve said system even more by taking care of your immediate medical needs youself? Not even to the point of saving your own life? A government that believes that and believes that dogmatically, is a government that should be euthanized at the earliest opportunity. Thankfully, we may yet be spared from this dictatorial Liberal madness, given the badly needed dose of common sense just handed down to us from our Supremes.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:01 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The diseased dominion got a little better on Thursday with this Supreme Court of Canada ruling against our fear mongering, Stalinist political elites. Up to last Thursday, I was pretty convinced that we were doomed as a society, proudly sharing the spotlight with totalitarianist Cuba as one of only two demented nations in the world that outlaw privately insured healthcare. That's right: in this country, you're not allowed to take care of yourself; the state dictates that it does that for you, lest anyone pay to jump the cue and get preferential medical treatment, thereby encouraging a private, parallel program - God forbid, a two-tier system. Private healthcare: bad; public healthcare: good. Privately delivered, bad; privately insured, bad; privately built, owned and operated, bad. Thou shall not profit from medicine. Thou shall not countenance two-tier healthcare.
Meanwhile, patients are left to languish and die on the single-tier waiting lists due to the rationing of limited public resources. Not astonishingly one such man from Quebec, suffering from a basic instinct of self-preservation, believed this was tantamount to political manslaughter, and so took the government to court for not allowing him to pay/insure to save his own life (apparently in Quebec you are allowed to purchase healthcare, but not allowed to self-insure; a prohibition that favours the rich over the middle class. So much for the political lie that we don't have two-tier medicine). Think about that for a second. Your country does not permit people in the main to purchase necessary medical treatment. What does that say about your country? Is this what the left means by generosity and compassion? That even after paying into the public system through your own hardwork and taxes, you are not permitted to relieve said system even more by taking care of your immediate medical needs youself? Not even to the point of saving your own life? A government that believes that and believes that dogmatically, is a government that should be euthanized at the earliest opportunity. Thankfully, we may yet be spared from this dictatorial Liberal madness, given the badly needed dose of common sense just handed down to us from our Supremes.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:01 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, June 10, 2005
My Lord Black
The Australians and New Zealanders invented a phrase for it: the “tall-poppy syndrome”, they call it; a leveling social attitude that scorns visibily outward and hierarchical displays of personal success and status. I’m not sure about the validity of this as an inherently Antipodean trait, but from my own Great War readings I do know one thing: of all the thankless tasks to have been dished out in that war, one of them surely would have been to find yourself as an upper class British subaltern in charge of Australian troops!
Conrad Black would most certainly see tall-poppy syndrome as a deeply embedded national characteristic of English-speaking Canadians. To apply his own autobiographical words, we have “a sadistic desire, corroded by soul-destroying envy, to intimidate all those who might aspire to anything in the slightest exceptional.” In another one of his supercilious biting attacks he labelled the Canadian welfare state as an “overgenerous reinsurance policy for an underachieving people.” And so when his life peerage was blocked by Prime Minister Jean Chretien on the basis that the Queen should desist from granting aristocratic titles in Canada (see: Nickle Resolution), Black was predictably derided in the mainstream media by those "salacious twits" on the "odious soft left" as “Lord Almost”, “Lord Nearly-Nearly”, “His Lardship” or “Lord Tubby of Fleet (pending)”. He was “hardly an unassuming Canadian” who “shamelessly sought noble titles”, “aspired to join the British House of Lords”, and “assiduously courted the royal family, often to laughable effect”:
When Chretien refused to reverse his decision, Black sued the government for having caused him “considerable public embarrassment”, a turn of events that inspired the leftist Toronto Star to offer this piece of bogus sympathy to writers at Black’s National Post: “it must be hard to convince readers that you work for a serious publication when your boss is making a laughingstock of himself on both sides of the Atlantic.” Of course, given Black’s recent proclivity towards civil and criminal lawsuits, such mocking envy has since been replaced by downright glee at his self-inflicted predicament; but the truth of the matter still stands: we deeply resent the man’s achievements and social ambitions, even more so than any crimes he may have committed in his business adventures.
Against this tall-poppy tripe, the Monarchist stands firmly opposed. Apart from the obvious alleged transgressions and his over-the-top Napoleonic arrogance (he actually owns one of Bonaparte’s chairs and compares himself to Julius Caesar but “without the final act”), The Lord The Honourable Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour, comes about as close to a present day living hero of mine as one can get. As a biographer, financier, and newspaper magnate, not only is he the latest in a series of Canadian-born British press lords -- his predecessors being Max Aitken, 1st Baron Beaverbrook, and Roy Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson of Fleet -- he pulled it off against the 21st century adolescence of his country*, albeit only by renouncing his Canadian citizenship**.
But it goes beyond titles, rank and honour; as a staunch admirer of the United States and Great Britain, it is the concept of greater Anglosphere unity that Black advocates that inspires the Monarchist. It is very much in the same tradition of Beaverbrook between the two world wars, who used his great wealth and newspaper business to advocate greater imperial unity and free trade against the parochial desires of the dominion nationalists, the same nationalists by the way, who today fondly refer to their provincial counterparts as those self-interested, parochial premiers. But it is they -- the anti-American and anti-British elite -- more than anyone else, who have been the ones who have mercilessly undermined our influence as a country for their own narrow-minded and selfish interests. Whatever his failings as a person, Black has given Beaverbrook's ideas new currency in recent years, campaigning for the inclusion of the United Kingdom into NAFTA and pushing Britain's destiny to be primarily an Atlantic power, not a European one. This is why the Monarchist chooses the title Beaverbrook henceforth; it is representative of the idea that the Commonwealth should come together as a way of safeguarding our shared monarchy and heritage; as a way of leveraging our influence to advance our common values and goals; as a way of working confidently alongside the United States, not as an insecure counterweight to it. I thought about adopting that other great multi-kingdom unifier of his day, the chivalrous King Henry V, but that would have been too medievalist and arrogant of me, that would have been too assuming and unCanadian; that would have been too Conrad Black.
* For some childish reason, the governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand no longer permit their own Queen to grant such honours to their own citizens anymore, even while countless Americans and other foreigners line up each and every year to receive honourary knighthoods from Her Majesty. It is one thing to deny a citizen's use of an official title within the boundaries of one's country (a fate which is bad enough), but to outright deny -- as if it is any of the government's bloody business in the first place -- "free citizens" from ever receiving a British or Commonwealth honour because it doesn't conform to "national values" is demented poppycock in the extreme.
** Interestingly, despite divesting himself of his citizenship, Black is still a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and enjoys the privilege of a special Canadian passport as a result.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:01 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Australians and New Zealanders invented a phrase for it: the “tall-poppy syndrome”, they call it; a leveling social attitude that scorns visibily outward and hierarchical displays of personal success and status. I’m not sure about the validity of this as an inherently Antipodean trait, but from my own Great War readings I do know one thing: of all the thankless tasks to have been dished out in that war, one of them surely would have been to find yourself as an upper class British subaltern in charge of Australian troops!
Conrad Black would most certainly see tall-poppy syndrome as a deeply embedded national characteristic of English-speaking Canadians. To apply his own autobiographical words, we have “a sadistic desire, corroded by soul-destroying envy, to intimidate all those who might aspire to anything in the slightest exceptional.” In another one of his supercilious biting attacks he labelled the Canadian welfare state as an “overgenerous reinsurance policy for an underachieving people.” And so when his life peerage was blocked by Prime Minister Jean Chretien on the basis that the Queen should desist from granting aristocratic titles in Canada (see: Nickle Resolution), Black was predictably derided in the mainstream media by those "salacious twits" on the "odious soft left" as “Lord Almost”, “Lord Nearly-Nearly”, “His Lardship” or “Lord Tubby of Fleet (pending)”. He was “hardly an unassuming Canadian” who “shamelessly sought noble titles”, “aspired to join the British House of Lords”, and “assiduously courted the royal family, often to laughable effect”:
As the honorary colonel of the Governor General's Foot Guards during a royal visit to Canada in 1997, Black hovered just behind Queen Elizabeth in a uniform that, in the view of those editors who seemed to take great delight in running the picture at any opportunity, made him look like an overattentive chauffeur.
---
In stories about Black's 'peerage interruptus,' the picture of him in his Foot Guard's getup was often included - supplanted now and then by a shot of him walking into a costume ball dressed as Cardinal Richelieu...
When Chretien refused to reverse his decision, Black sued the government for having caused him “considerable public embarrassment”, a turn of events that inspired the leftist Toronto Star to offer this piece of bogus sympathy to writers at Black’s National Post: “it must be hard to convince readers that you work for a serious publication when your boss is making a laughingstock of himself on both sides of the Atlantic.” Of course, given Black’s recent proclivity towards civil and criminal lawsuits, such mocking envy has since been replaced by downright glee at his self-inflicted predicament; but the truth of the matter still stands: we deeply resent the man’s achievements and social ambitions, even more so than any crimes he may have committed in his business adventures.
Against this tall-poppy tripe, the Monarchist stands firmly opposed. Apart from the obvious alleged transgressions and his over-the-top Napoleonic arrogance (he actually owns one of Bonaparte’s chairs and compares himself to Julius Caesar but “without the final act”), The Lord The Honourable Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour, comes about as close to a present day living hero of mine as one can get. As a biographer, financier, and newspaper magnate, not only is he the latest in a series of Canadian-born British press lords -- his predecessors being Max Aitken, 1st Baron Beaverbrook, and Roy Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson of Fleet -- he pulled it off against the 21st century adolescence of his country*, albeit only by renouncing his Canadian citizenship**.
But it goes beyond titles, rank and honour; as a staunch admirer of the United States and Great Britain, it is the concept of greater Anglosphere unity that Black advocates that inspires the Monarchist. It is very much in the same tradition of Beaverbrook between the two world wars, who used his great wealth and newspaper business to advocate greater imperial unity and free trade against the parochial desires of the dominion nationalists, the same nationalists by the way, who today fondly refer to their provincial counterparts as those self-interested, parochial premiers. But it is they -- the anti-American and anti-British elite -- more than anyone else, who have been the ones who have mercilessly undermined our influence as a country for their own narrow-minded and selfish interests. Whatever his failings as a person, Black has given Beaverbrook's ideas new currency in recent years, campaigning for the inclusion of the United Kingdom into NAFTA and pushing Britain's destiny to be primarily an Atlantic power, not a European one. This is why the Monarchist chooses the title Beaverbrook henceforth; it is representative of the idea that the Commonwealth should come together as a way of safeguarding our shared monarchy and heritage; as a way of leveraging our influence to advance our common values and goals; as a way of working confidently alongside the United States, not as an insecure counterweight to it. I thought about adopting that other great multi-kingdom unifier of his day, the chivalrous King Henry V, but that would have been too medievalist and arrogant of me, that would have been too assuming and unCanadian; that would have been too Conrad Black.
* For some childish reason, the governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand no longer permit their own Queen to grant such honours to their own citizens anymore, even while countless Americans and other foreigners line up each and every year to receive honourary knighthoods from Her Majesty. It is one thing to deny a citizen's use of an official title within the boundaries of one's country (a fate which is bad enough), but to outright deny -- as if it is any of the government's bloody business in the first place -- "free citizens" from ever receiving a British or Commonwealth honour because it doesn't conform to "national values" is demented poppycock in the extreme.
** Interestingly, despite divesting himself of his citizenship, Black is still a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and enjoys the privilege of a special Canadian passport as a result.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:01 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
An Atheistic Individualist Defense of Monarchism
Since I am an uppity commoner I will forgo flattery of the company to which I have been kindly elevated and dive right in. The belief posited by Pitt that a defense of Monarchism rests necessarily on a belief in god, a hierarchy ordained by god, and a moral order ordained by god is to my mind false.
As a republican, a defender of mixed and balanced government, I believe that there are several rational arguments to be made in favor of a constitutionally limited monarchy. I believe that when (to steal a line) in the course of human events a group of people must frame a government, there are reasons to consider a limited monarch.
First a hereditary head of state keeps the top job out of the hands of politicians. No matter the nobility of their intentions, all politicians want power. It is questionable weather it is a good idea to give the largest amount of state power and the prestige of Head of State to the same person and one who has fought hard to get it.
Second as you have noted, there is a definite (presumably natural) inequality among people. As many political observers have noticed, an aristocracy, hereditary or natural, is the repository of a great deal of talent and wisdom the taping of which is in the interests of the republic, but an aristocracy is also the reservoir of a great deal of ambition which can provoke serious and destructive rivalry. [An example of the later is the last presidential election where two members of the American aristocracy (such as it is) squared off against each other. Both men are descended from the early British settlers and are something like 14th cousins twice removed.] A monarch lessens this rivalry because the top spot is filled.
Third the Monarch can serve as check on the elected legislature and executive. Just because the majority wants something it does not always follow that they should get it. Further elected legislators and executive officers do not always act in their constituent’s interests. Powers such as: a limited veto, the chairmanship of a committee to nominate judges, and the presidency of the upper house of the legislature can be safely vested in a hereditary head of state.
Fourth, a hereditary head of State is trained from birth to fulfill this roll. This obviously has many advantages over having a Head of State who is trained to win elections.
Fifth, a hereditary head of state has the advantage of a life term of office to gather a huge amount of experience. The difference in experience between say President Ronald Reagan President 1980-1988 and H.M. Elizabeth II (1952-to the present) is simply incalculable. Her reign has already spanned 10 presidencies and if her mom is any indication it will span at least four more. She knows everyone of importance. A monarch is able to use this experience to advise the elected head of government.
Sixth, a Hereditary Head of State has a longer term view of the interests of the nation than an elected politician. Though an elected head of state may have the best of intentions for the long run health of the nation, he has no interest beyond his term of office. A Hereditary Head of State has an interest not only in the nation prospering during his or her reign, but for the reigns of his or her children and grand children.
Seventh, in countries where monarchism is already established, it’s a tradition. The idea that a Hereditary Head of State is old fashioned is just a way of saying it is traditional. The only justification for changing a tradition is that it is a positive evil or that it obstructs a positive good. Changing the form of government because it is unstylish is silly. Habits are a powerful force in everything and politics is no exception. Why does the loser of an election accept the results? Because that is what we (democratic peoples) do.
Eighth, is a closely allied reason to the forgoing, sentiment. People feel a sentimental attraction to the Royal Family, because they are a family. They are people and the public knows about them, their triumphs and their foibles. The late Queen Mum is an example of the power of sentiment. Her death was front page news even here in the states. I am one of many Americans who were saddened by her death. Who can forget how she and her husband helped inspire the British People in freedom’s darkest hour. Some might argue that sentiment is no basis for a political system, but sentiment is a powerful political force. The U.S. veneration of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is a similar phenomena.
Some may think it strange for a republican (and a libertarian one at that) to write a defense of the idea of a Hereditary Head of State, which leads me to the last point I want make, the United Kingdom is a republic. It has been a republic for several hundred years. A republic, res publica, the public thing, is a government not controlled solely by the one, the few, or the many. It is not a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy, but a blend of all three. This has described Britain since magna carta.
If it were true that monarchism could only be defended by reference to some realm of experience beyond rational human understanding than I would be an anti monarchist. Because this is far from the case, I hold that properly constrained (as all government must be constrained) a monarch can be part of a rational system of government.
POSTED BY: adams AT 12:33 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Since I am an uppity commoner I will forgo flattery of the company to which I have been kindly elevated and dive right in. The belief posited by Pitt that a defense of Monarchism rests necessarily on a belief in god, a hierarchy ordained by god, and a moral order ordained by god is to my mind false.
As a republican, a defender of mixed and balanced government, I believe that there are several rational arguments to be made in favor of a constitutionally limited monarchy. I believe that when (to steal a line) in the course of human events a group of people must frame a government, there are reasons to consider a limited monarch.
First a hereditary head of state keeps the top job out of the hands of politicians. No matter the nobility of their intentions, all politicians want power. It is questionable weather it is a good idea to give the largest amount of state power and the prestige of Head of State to the same person and one who has fought hard to get it.
Second as you have noted, there is a definite (presumably natural) inequality among people. As many political observers have noticed, an aristocracy, hereditary or natural, is the repository of a great deal of talent and wisdom the taping of which is in the interests of the republic, but an aristocracy is also the reservoir of a great deal of ambition which can provoke serious and destructive rivalry. [An example of the later is the last presidential election where two members of the American aristocracy (such as it is) squared off against each other. Both men are descended from the early British settlers and are something like 14th cousins twice removed.] A monarch lessens this rivalry because the top spot is filled.
Third the Monarch can serve as check on the elected legislature and executive. Just because the majority wants something it does not always follow that they should get it. Further elected legislators and executive officers do not always act in their constituent’s interests. Powers such as: a limited veto, the chairmanship of a committee to nominate judges, and the presidency of the upper house of the legislature can be safely vested in a hereditary head of state.
Fourth, a hereditary head of State is trained from birth to fulfill this roll. This obviously has many advantages over having a Head of State who is trained to win elections.
Fifth, a hereditary head of state has the advantage of a life term of office to gather a huge amount of experience. The difference in experience between say President Ronald Reagan President 1980-1988 and H.M. Elizabeth II (1952-to the present) is simply incalculable. Her reign has already spanned 10 presidencies and if her mom is any indication it will span at least four more. She knows everyone of importance. A monarch is able to use this experience to advise the elected head of government.
Sixth, a Hereditary Head of State has a longer term view of the interests of the nation than an elected politician. Though an elected head of state may have the best of intentions for the long run health of the nation, he has no interest beyond his term of office. A Hereditary Head of State has an interest not only in the nation prospering during his or her reign, but for the reigns of his or her children and grand children.
Seventh, in countries where monarchism is already established, it’s a tradition. The idea that a Hereditary Head of State is old fashioned is just a way of saying it is traditional. The only justification for changing a tradition is that it is a positive evil or that it obstructs a positive good. Changing the form of government because it is unstylish is silly. Habits are a powerful force in everything and politics is no exception. Why does the loser of an election accept the results? Because that is what we (democratic peoples) do.
Eighth, is a closely allied reason to the forgoing, sentiment. People feel a sentimental attraction to the Royal Family, because they are a family. They are people and the public knows about them, their triumphs and their foibles. The late Queen Mum is an example of the power of sentiment. Her death was front page news even here in the states. I am one of many Americans who were saddened by her death. Who can forget how she and her husband helped inspire the British People in freedom’s darkest hour. Some might argue that sentiment is no basis for a political system, but sentiment is a powerful political force. The U.S. veneration of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is a similar phenomena.
Some may think it strange for a republican (and a libertarian one at that) to write a defense of the idea of a Hereditary Head of State, which leads me to the last point I want make, the United Kingdom is a republic. It has been a republic for several hundred years. A republic, res publica, the public thing, is a government not controlled solely by the one, the few, or the many. It is not a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy, but a blend of all three. This has described Britain since magna carta.
If it were true that monarchism could only be defended by reference to some realm of experience beyond rational human understanding than I would be an anti monarchist. Because this is far from the case, I hold that properly constrained (as all government must be constrained) a monarch can be part of a rational system of government.
POSTED BY: adams AT 12:33 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Remembering D-Day
MK Braaten delivers a sixty-first D-day tribute that went largely unmarked this year. Remembering means that we should bow our heads every year, and not just on those rare occasions where the anniversary happens to end in a zero. So go visit his site and read what he has to say. I assure you, you won't regret it. And neither will the vets.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:57 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
MK Braaten delivers a sixty-first D-day tribute that went largely unmarked this year. Remembering means that we should bow our heads every year, and not just on those rare occasions where the anniversary happens to end in a zero. So go visit his site and read what he has to say. I assure you, you won't regret it. And neither will the vets.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:57 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, June 03, 2005
Wanted: More Walsinghams
The Monarchist is looking for more gentlemen scribes (or ladies) of knightly or noble rank to contribute to this blog. Writers of feigned aristocratic blood like a Marlborough, a Wellington, a Devonshire, a Beaverbrook, a Strathcona or a Stanley are welcome, though titles of "Sir" and "Lord" will not be permitted unless proof can be provided that you are indeed a Sir or a Lord.
Must be a devout Anglophile and a fanatically loyal and humble servant of Her Majesty. All Crown Commonwealth subjects may apply; if you are a Quebecker or other Canadian Francophone, we recommend a spirited French imperialist name like Laurier; in the event you are an American, you must be a fiercely commited advocate of the Anglospherist project, as found here, here and here, in order to qualify for possible reinstatement. Great men of your revolutionary period such as Washington, Jefferson and Adams may be considered on the basis of their intelligence, idealism, force of character and strength of virtue.
Must be able to approximate patriotic writing like this and this, or at the very minimum, demonstrate that you are thoroughly devoted to the principles they espouse: namely, that of responsible and ethical government and ensuring that we are represented by people of the utmost honesty and integrity. Self-respect and dignity deserve no less; and we can ask for no more.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:55 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Monarchist is looking for more gentlemen scribes (or ladies) of knightly or noble rank to contribute to this blog. Writers of feigned aristocratic blood like a Marlborough, a Wellington, a Devonshire, a Beaverbrook, a Strathcona or a Stanley are welcome, though titles of "Sir" and "Lord" will not be permitted unless proof can be provided that you are indeed a Sir or a Lord.
Must be a devout Anglophile and a fanatically loyal and humble servant of Her Majesty. All Crown Commonwealth subjects may apply; if you are a Quebecker or other Canadian Francophone, we recommend a spirited French imperialist name like Laurier; in the event you are an American, you must be a fiercely commited advocate of the Anglospherist project, as found here, here and here, in order to qualify for possible reinstatement. Great men of your revolutionary period such as Washington, Jefferson and Adams may be considered on the basis of their intelligence, idealism, force of character and strength of virtue.
Must be able to approximate patriotic writing like this and this, or at the very minimum, demonstrate that you are thoroughly devoted to the principles they espouse: namely, that of responsible and ethical government and ensuring that we are represented by people of the utmost honesty and integrity. Self-respect and dignity deserve no less; and we can ask for no more.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:55 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, June 02, 2005
We've Been Tagged
Excuse us for being a little behind the eight ball here, but Alan at OCCAM'S CARBUNCLE has book tagged us after being book tagged himself and so on and so forth. It would seem that there is some sort of grand game of "you're it" circulating throughout the boogeysphere. We're it: I'm a casual collector of old Victorians; Walsingham has an impressive and growing Folio collection; both of us despise dustjackets.
THE MONARCHIST
Number of Books I Own: 200 hardcover, 100 softcover.
Last Book I Bought: "Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom", Conrad Black
Last Book I Read: "Beaverbrook", AJP Taylor
Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me: I'm a rather one dimensional, true connoisseur of military and naval history works, some of the best being Churchill's WWII Memoirs, Tuchman's Guns of August, Wedgwood's Thirty Years War, Parkman's Montcalm and Wolfe...
WALSINGHAM (just edit this post, W)
Number of Books I Own: excluding fluff, probably ~ 300 (Folio addict...)
Last Book I Bought: The Great Fire of London (author escapes me for now)
Last Book I Read: Richard III, P.M. Kendall
Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me: Thirty Years' War, Wedgewood; A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Churchill; A History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon; Collected Poems of Rudyard Kipling; the Bible
TAG 5 MORE: Politblogo, Sinister Thoughts, The Journal of N=1, Shiny Happy Gulag, West Coast Chaos.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Excuse us for being a little behind the eight ball here, but Alan at OCCAM'S CARBUNCLE has book tagged us after being book tagged himself and so on and so forth. It would seem that there is some sort of grand game of "you're it" circulating throughout the boogeysphere. We're it: I'm a casual collector of old Victorians; Walsingham has an impressive and growing Folio collection; both of us despise dustjackets.
THE MONARCHIST
Number of Books I Own: 200 hardcover, 100 softcover.
Last Book I Bought: "Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom", Conrad Black
Last Book I Read: "Beaverbrook", AJP Taylor
Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me: I'm a rather one dimensional, true connoisseur of military and naval history works, some of the best being Churchill's WWII Memoirs, Tuchman's Guns of August, Wedgwood's Thirty Years War, Parkman's Montcalm and Wolfe...
WALSINGHAM (just edit this post, W)
Number of Books I Own: excluding fluff, probably ~ 300 (Folio addict...)
Last Book I Bought: The Great Fire of London (author escapes me for now)
Last Book I Read: Richard III, P.M. Kendall
Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me: Thirty Years' War, Wedgewood; A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Churchill; A History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon; Collected Poems of Rudyard Kipling; the Bible
TAG 5 MORE: Politblogo, Sinister Thoughts, The Journal of N=1, Shiny Happy Gulag, West Coast Chaos.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Walsingham's Works
Traffic on this site went up measurably over the past week (upwards of 500 hits per day) based primarily on the strength of one brilliant essay by Walsingham, which has by now been read by a couple of thousand visitors. The humble Walsingham would be disappointed in me for underselling myself, and embarrased that I would dare to heap praise in this manner, but the fact remains that this PhD, this scholar, this champion debater who finds it natural to hang out with British Lords is in a class all of his own. For those salivating for more of Walsingham, I beseech you to wet your appetite with these works:
The Tipping Point
The Tipping Point - Part II
In the name of God, go
Blair's Folly
In Defence of Pomp
'Britain's Real Monarch' and more pulp fiction nonsense...
(SEE ALSO: This hillarious response to a "Tipping Point" commenter.)
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:26 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Traffic on this site went up measurably over the past week (upwards of 500 hits per day) based primarily on the strength of one brilliant essay by Walsingham, which has by now been read by a couple of thousand visitors. The humble Walsingham would be disappointed in me for underselling myself, and embarrased that I would dare to heap praise in this manner, but the fact remains that this PhD, this scholar, this champion debater who finds it natural to hang out with British Lords is in a class all of his own. For those salivating for more of Walsingham, I beseech you to wet your appetite with these works:
The Tipping Point
The Tipping Point - Part II
In the name of God, go
Blair's Folly
In Defence of Pomp
'Britain's Real Monarch' and more pulp fiction nonsense...
(SEE ALSO: This hillarious response to a "Tipping Point" commenter.)
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:26 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
