Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A resurgent right (Germany's Extreme Right Gathers Strength)
expatica ^ | 10 Feb 2005 | expatica

Posted on 02/10/2005 4:49:24 AM PST by Cornpone

Suddenly a resurgent far-right is taking centre political stage in Germany just as the nation marks the end of the war and the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps. Leon Mangasarian reports.

Sixty years after the Third Reich's defeat, German leaders seem at a loss to counter a tightly organised rightist party which is exploiting the Holocaust in a brazen bid to expand its power.

Germany bickers over what to do with radical right Germany's establishment politicians have been locked in furious debate since January when the extremist National Democratic Party (NPD) marred sombre commemoration of Auschwitz death camp's liberation by comparing the Holocaust to the 1945 Allied firebombing of Dresden.

In a carefully planned affront, NPD members in eastern Saxony state's parliament walked out of a memorial service for victims of the Third Reich. For good measure, they also issued a statement equating Auschwitz with abortion.

"Since the end of Auschwitz, 18 million unborn people have been murdered in Germany ... is Auschwitz really over?" says the NPD on its website www.npd.de

Turning up the political heating in the debate about the extreme right and the NPD, Bavaria's conservative premier, Edmund Stoiber, accused Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrat-led government for causing the "economic failure" that was fuelling extremist parties.

In a weekend newspaper interview, Stoiber said that tackling high unemployment was the key to combating the far right.

Much of Germany is aghast over the NPD, which won 9.2 per ent, or 190,000 votes, last September in economically depressed Saxony. An Infratest Agency poll shows 63 percent want the NPD banned.

Germany's tough-minded interior minister, Otto Schily, is furious.

Neo-Nazis have managed to establish themselves in the mainstream. His ministry outlawed the party in 2000 only to see Germany's highest court overturn the ban in 2003. The reason given by judges was that too many NPD members had been recruited by Schily's ministry as informants.

The Constitutional Court justices alleged the informants were "steering" the NPD.

Schily, who remembers seeing the 1938 "Kristallnacht" or night of broken glass as a six-year-old boy when Nazis launched the Holocaust, angrily rejects this.

"A criminal does not become a state employee just because he gives the police information," says Schily.

Leaders in Berlin are arguing over a possible new bid to ban the NPD - but many are warning this might spark even more support for rightists.

"A second failure [of a ban] would be a disaster," admits Schily.

Political extremism experts, such as Eckhard Jesse of the Technical University of Chemnitz, say banning has not worked in the past and that democratic parties must meet rightists head on with better arguments.

"There is now an intellectual right-wing extremism in Germany," warns Jesse.

The news weekly Der Spiegel agrees, saying, "Neo-Nazis have managed to establish themselves in the mainstream."

Worrying as this may be, the rightists need to be kept in perspective: For years, polls have shown that the far-right has a maximum potential of 10 to 15 percent in Germany which is about on par with other European countries.

Meanwhile, the NPD and their German People's Union (DVU) ally have been cleaning up their act to escape the skinhead and streetfighter image they had in the 1980s and early 90s.

Suits, ties and courses in rhetoric are now the order of the day with private donors funding party thinktanks and rightist academics who serve as advisers. The NPD has temporarily frozen informal ties with Saxony's "SSS" skinhead group.

The NPD's chief strategist and spin doctor is a slick lawyer who, ironically, is named Peter Marx.

Under the ever-smiling Marx, the NPD has focused on east German anger over cuts to unemployment benefits as a way of broadening its appeal and seeks to be both a nationalist and a socialist party.

"The goal is supporting native families ... German money for Germans!" says the website of Holger Apfel, the NPD leader in Saxony's state parliament.

If a party ban is not on the cards, what is to be done? The established parties in Saxony appear clueless, according to Der Spiegel, and notes, "Up until now they have reacted helplessly."

NPD leader Holger Apfel: The radical right's new technocratic look Jesse says Germany's Christian Democrats have made "a terrible mistake" by failing to provide a political home for conservative patriots and thus helped drive them to the far-right.

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.

A letter to the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper by Juergen Schulz expresses this increasingly held view.

Schulz begins by underlining his distaste over the NPD's refusal to honour Holocaust victims.

But he adds: "When we remember the firebombing victims, isn't it time that we can say their death was murder and a war crime? Are not the established parties also partly guilty for the rise of the NPD and anti-Semitism in Germany, if they continue to treat this problem as a taboo and leave it to the far-right?"

The confused and uncertain response of established parties seems even stranger given the militant stance of the NPD.

NPD objectives are brutally clear to anybody who bothers to view the party's website or the latest edition of the German domestic security agency's annual report.

A poll shows 63 percent of Germans want the NPD banned. The NPD's geopolitics are shown on a map of Germany from 1938 - including parts of the country lost after World War II to Poland and Russia - which is available as a silver coin to raise funds for the movement. The map has a sword across it with the words, "The Reich, our Mission".

The weekly Stern magazine says the NPD sells T-shirts, sweatshirts and posters emblazoned with the number "88". The letter "H" is the eighth letter of the alphabet and "HH" stands for "Heil Hitler" an expression which has been banned since the Federal Republic of Germany was created in 1949.

The NPD treats Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess as heroes and takes aggressive, anti-foreign and anti-Semitic positions, says Germany's home security agency, the Verfassungsschutz.

A commentary in the party newspaper, "Deutsche Stimme" (German Voice), provides just one example: "The Torah is the original document of Jewish hatred of (other) nations."

Another NPD commentary warns that immigrants are threatening what it terms "the continent of the white nations with disintegration and decomposition".

Following their propaganda success with the Holocaust in Saxony, NPD activists plan at least two more big demonstrations aimed at upstaging Germany's established parties.

The NPD has called for a march through Dresden on 13 February to mark the 60th anniversary of the World War II firebombing of the city by British and US aircraft which left at least 25,000 dead.

An even worse public relations disaster for Germany could be in store on 8 May - the 60th anniversary of the Third Reich's defeat - when NPD leaders plan to march past the new Holocaust memorial in Berlin.

"Sixty years of Liberation Lies - End the Cult of Guilt," is the NPD's motto for the demonstration.

The party is also gearing up for state elections and functionaries have high hopes of winning seats in Schleswig-Holstein on 20 February and in North Rhine-Westphalia on 22 May.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Germany; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fascism; germany; npd; skinheads
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 last
To: kjvail

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?


101 posted on 02/10/2005 10:12:22 AM PST by Killing Time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: kjvail

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/


102 posted on 02/10/2005 10:19:09 AM PST by acw011 ("Hey whitey, where's your hat?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
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.
103 posted on 02/10/2005 10:23:40 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time
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.

104 posted on 02/10/2005 10:26:29 AM PST by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: kjvail

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


105 posted on 02/10/2005 10:33:56 AM PST by Killing Time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
"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.
106 posted on 02/10/2005 10:37:35 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
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.
107 posted on 02/10/2005 10:38:50 AM PST by Antoninus (In hoc sign, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time
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..

108 posted on 02/10/2005 10:40:08 AM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

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.


109 posted on 02/10/2005 10:44:51 AM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Who Dares Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time
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

110 posted on 02/10/2005 10:44:55 AM PST by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
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.
111 posted on 02/10/2005 10:47:48 AM PST by Antoninus (In hoc sign, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: monday
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.

112 posted on 02/10/2005 11:00:13 AM PST by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: monday
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..

113 posted on 02/10/2005 11:00:45 AM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
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..

114 posted on 02/10/2005 11:05:27 AM PST by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time
" . . . 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.

115 posted on 02/10/2005 11:21:31 AM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen

Welcome! Now this is funny

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

I like the about page.


116 posted on 02/10/2005 11:33:09 AM PST by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time
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.
117 posted on 02/10/2005 11:33:41 AM PST by TheForceOfOne (Social Security – I thought pyramid schemes were illegal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
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.

118 posted on 02/10/2005 12:26:27 PM PST by mississippi red-neck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: longjack

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


119 posted on 02/10/2005 1:22:21 PM PST by americanbychoice2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: americanbychoice2
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

120 posted on 02/10/2005 1:52:35 PM PST by longjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen

That is certainly correct in my case. I would have been glad to be a Tory in 1776, but I'm from Texas and so that little dust up had nothing to do with us. However, modern U.S. rule over Texas can certainly be considered illegal since the Republic of Texas joined the Union by treaty, authorized by a popular vote, and some years later also voted to leave the U.S. and join the Confederacy. Although no invasion of Texas ever succeeded (damn right!) after the war the state was occupied and re-joined the Union by force, not by law or democratic vote. In fact, even this reveals the hypocrisy of the federal government as the whole basis of Lincoln's war had been that the states had no right to secede (their stars weren't removed from the flag) and yet they were still forced to crawl on their bellies to be re-admitted to a Union they were never supposed to have left......yeah, THAT makes sense.

As for the American Revolution, what seems to me to be the silliest thing is the villification of King George III. In my opinion, not only was he not a tyrant, he was the best of all the Hannoverian monarchs, the rest of whom included some real bums. Compared to his father or his son G-3 was an absolute saint.


121 posted on 02/10/2005 5:29:43 PM PST by Guelph4ever (“Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

Pullin' On The Boots - With Red Shoelaces

*PING*

122 posted on 02/10/2005 5:44:28 PM PST by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
National Socialism and Communism were different because one believed in government-corporate controlled production and the other wanted one class to over-achieve for the welfare of others. Both failed.

The so-called far-right in Germany sees a socialist state failing and is doing the popular route to get some things addressed. Most skinheads are dead from indulgences worldwide. It's over. The powers that be feel threatened by people that don't conform, so the scare articles come. Russia has them too, but those skinheads are more of a fad than what was going on 20 years ago in Britain.

123 posted on 02/10/2005 6:01:54 PM PST by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
Thanks for the ping. I've been gone all day (went to see the wonderful exhibit "Nicholas and Alexandra: At Home with the Last Tsar and His Family" in Cincinatti; highly recommended!) and will be travelling (from Indianapolis to Charlotte) tomorrow. I'll try to respond to some of the above posts after I get back.
124 posted on 02/10/2005 9:40:49 PM PST by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
NPD leader Holger Apfel: The radical right's new technocratic look Jesse says Germany's Christian Democrats have made "a terrible mistake" by failing to provide a political home for conservative patriots and thus helped drive them to the far-right.

This says it all. Neo-cons and other liberals have called anyone to the right of them Nazis for so long, it wouldn't surprise me to see this happen here as well.

How does one maintain a true democracy when you ban certain political parties you disagree with, however vehemently?

125 posted on 02/11/2005 5:37:50 AM PST by TradicalRC (I'd rather live in a Christian theocracy than a secular democracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
Nazi'ism is not rightist.

No kidding. Since when is socialism right-wing? This shows how successful the left has been in framing the political debate.

126 posted on 02/11/2005 5:40:49 AM PST by TradicalRC (I'd rather live in a Christian theocracy than a secular democracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Guelph4ever

The essential legal problem with Lincoln's view of the Union is that it is an hereditary contract that binds third parties (non-signatories) and cannot be broken even in the event of non-compliance by one of the contracting parties (i.e. the federal government). The other word for such a contractual arrangement is slavery.

I agree entirely about George III.

The sovereigns who had been deposed were generally the most morally upright of their respective lines -- Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II -- thus proving that nice guys finish last.

Nobody ever messed with Vlad the Impaler.


127 posted on 02/11/2005 6:51:54 AM PST by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: mississippi red-neck
What law, where did it come from, and what makes it unchangeable?

Thanks for the question, I been looking all morning for St. Thomas Aquinas' On Kingship online, if anyone has a link for it please drop me a freepmail. Anyways. What is the law and why is it eternal? The Angelic Doctor answers:

a law is nothing else but a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community. Now it is evident, granted that the world is ruled by Divine Providence, as was stated in the I, 22, A1,2, that the whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason. Wherefore the very Idea of the government of things in God the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal, according to Prov. 8:23, therefore it is that this kind of law must be called eternal.

Prima Secundæ Partis 91,1

Further man participates in this eternal law thru the light of natural reason - this participation is called the natural law. From that natural law proceeds the human law. The process of applying these laws to human acts is called causitry (see Thomas Fleming's Morality of Everday Life for a full discussion of causitry as it was practiced in the Middle Ages).

In short the law cannot be changed by man because man did not create it

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

The Monarch is accountable for acts under pain of sin. This is why the traditional Catholic monarchies are to be preferred for the Church provided a real and substantial check on the power of the monarch.

This is of course broken in Protestant monarchies particularly where the King assumes the role as the head of the national "church". In such cases, and in addition to the Church in the case of Catholic monarchies, the power of the King is held in check by the aristocracy who thru pure self-interest are committed to restraining the authority of the central government, this check is damaged in absolutist monarchies.

The King is also accountable to his own family. A monarchy is in essence a privately-owned government. The King owns the state, he may sell parts and he may bequeath it to his heirs. The current monarch stands in a long line of individuals who have at the least preserved if not increased the value of their holding and his family expects him to do the same. In the thesis of Hoppe his self-interest will cause him to act conservatively so as not to depreciate the value of his holdings and inciting the public to rebellion thru brutal tyranny would do just that. The fact is most "bad" monarchs were assassinated by members of their own families who had a vested interest in preserving their status and power and bequeathing it to the next generation.

Monarchs generally (there are always exceptions) operate with a low time-preference, meaning they are interested in the long term. This is opposed to the situation in republics where the current office holder cannot increase the value of his "publically-owned" post and acts only as a temporary care-taker. This position as a temporary care-taker increases his time-preference - he needs to exploit his position now or he may never get the opportunity to do so again. This is a reformulation of the "Tragedy of the commons" idea of economics.

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

You questions seem thoughtful and sincere. My question to you is what history? History is always subjective, it is quite literally written by the winners. One has to dig a little (or alot) to find "the other side of the story" if it any longer exists at all. Some writers to investigate - Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin, Hilaire Belloc, Christopher Dawson and Harry W. Crocker III.

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

The Holy Roman Empire and related Catholic monarchies of Europe circa 800 AD - 1900 AD.

128 posted on 02/11/2005 9:23:12 AM PST by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.; All

How rare it is to come across such a lucid and insightful post such as your #79.

Thank you for penetrating to the heart of the matter.


129 posted on 02/11/2005 10:03:35 AM PST by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
Thanks so much for your reply.

Some of it is quite deep for me and will require some little time of study before I respond.

I will respond but wish to do so in a manner that is coherent and none offensive based on the only authority we have from Him, His word.

130 posted on 02/11/2005 11:39:27 AM PST by mississippi red-neck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen

I think that's exactly right, and I wrote a little rant on that subject some time ago. It is especially clear with the Russians, as you see how the liberals repaid the "Tsar Liberator" and all this accomplished was for the conservatives around Alexander III to say, "See, Nicholas I was right, we can't bargain with these people, we can't trust them, all we can do is stand them up against a wall".

There were few places in the *world* with greater freedom and prosperity in the early 1700's than the British North American colonies. They ran their own business for the most part, paid almost no taxes at all, yet still enjoyed the benefits of British trade, military protection and 'the rights of free Englishmen'. But, I see I'm talking to a "Hessian" so I'm really preaching to the choir...

We just have to be careful about this sort of talk about Lincoln (or mentioning much of what the man himself said) otherwise we shall be burned for heresy against the "greatest" of America's secular pantheon of gods.


131 posted on 02/11/2005 12:30:13 PM PST by Guelph4ever (“Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time

As has already been explained above, even from a monarchist perspective the independence of the United States is quite legitimate since it was recognized by King George III himself in 1783.

However, as a side note, US ownership of Hawaii is hardly legitimate. The Kingdom of Hawaii was an independent country which had treaties with all the major powers; the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy and 1898 annexation were in violation of international law. To his credit, President Grover Cleveland recognized this, opposing the unjust ouster of Queen Liliuokalini, and it was not until he was out of office that Hawaii was annexed.

The overthrow of the Bourbon and Hapsburg monarchies cannot be equated with the American War of Independence. The events of 1775-83 did not interfere with George III's position as King of Great Britain. But the French and Austrian republics displaced ancient monarchies, integral to those countries' heritages, laws, and traditions, whose last sovereigns never renounced their rights and could not have lawfully done so even if they had wanted to. Therefore they remain illegitimate, unlike the United States.


132 posted on 02/11/2005 1:42:19 PM PST by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time; kjvail
Speaking as a Yorkshireman wasn't Richard III illegally usurped and everything that happened since invalid?

No. Unless one holds to the hardline Jacobite position, Queen Elizabeth II is the only possible claimant to the British throne today, other lines having died out long ago.

There is a world of difference between a dispute over the succession, no matter how bloody, and the abolition of a monarchy. The former never questions the existence of fundamental laws and institutions, only the identity of the occupant of the throne. The latter, however, rejects all principles on which order had been based, decisively severing a country's link to its past and creating a new order contrary to the nation's heritage and traditions. No traditional conservative can approve of such a dismal development.

133 posted on 02/11/2005 1:50:15 PM PST by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC; kjvail; Cornpone

The NPD is republican and therefore cannot be considered authentically "right-wing" in a German context. (Neither, of course, can Nazism or neo-Nazism.) True German right-wingers are monarchists, advocating the restoration of the 1871-1918 Hohenzollern empire or (even better, in my view) the break-up of Germany into its pre-unification states, almost all of which were monarchies.

Here's the home of the real German right:
http://www.pro-monarchie.de/


134 posted on 02/11/2005 1:56:31 PM PST by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

As an adherent of European-style "altar & throne" monarchist conservatism myself, who happens to be an American, I have to say that from my side of the spectrum I agree with your summary.


135 posted on 02/11/2005 2:01:40 PM PST by royalcello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
NAZI SOCIALIST

National Socialist I believe.

136 posted on 02/11/2005 2:01:55 PM PST by Nov3 ("This is the best election night in history." --DNC chair Terry McAuliffe Nov. 2,2004 8p.m.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kjvail

Nazi'ism is not rightist."

No it isn't, but are they lumping anyone who is against abortion with nazis?


137 posted on 02/11/2005 2:17:39 PM PST by philetus (What goes around comes around)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: philetus

Actually the national socialist party was very pro-abortion. (quite literally pro-murder in all it's forms)


138 posted on 02/11/2005 3:16:25 PM PST by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
I want all the Freedom I can get..

Aye, there's the rub. How do you define freedom? Communists define it as a completely egalitarian society. Libertarians define it as anything goes as long as I have my property rights. The place where the rubber really meets the road is not freedom versus tyranny, but a free society versus a good society. They may well overlap, but they are not the same thing.

139 posted on 02/11/2005 9:30:29 PM PST by TradicalRC (I'd rather live in a Christian theocracy than a secular democracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: longjack

bttt


140 posted on 02/11/2005 11:48:40 PM PST by lainde ( ...we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
Forgive my tardiness in replying , as I have been somewhat busy on the last couple of days. I wasn’t going to since I was so much later than I thought I would be. Then again I said I would so here it is.

Thanks for the question, I been looking all morning for St. Thomas Aquinas' On Kingship online, if anyone has a link for it please drop me a freepmail.

Anyways. What is the law and why is it eternal? The Angelic Doctor answers:

a law is nothing else but a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community. Now it is evident, granted that the world is ruled by Divine Providence, as was stated in the I, 22, A1,2, that the whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason.

Wherefore the very Idea of the government of things in God the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal, according to Prov. 8:23, therefore it is that this kind of law must be called eternal.

Understand that my formal education ended forty years ago and was meager at best. So I ask you to suffer with me as I seek to state my views concerning the information offered. They are mine and subject to error and a lack of understanding.

I am not familiar with the above source but find some points of disagreement which may be because I’m not sure as yet as to what law or laws we are talking about i.e.: moral, civil , or physical.

I certainly agree that the Creator is outside of time and not subject to it or the other physical laws of the universe. If He where He could not be eternal.

I do not agree that God does not conceive of time or subject things to them as all of the universe and the things contained therein are.

I find I cannot agree with the conclusion reached above concerning the law because I do not know what law or type of law is being addressed. If it is the physical laws of the universe such as time then these laws are certainly not eternal.

I say this because they are part of the universe that had a beginning and has an end and so do those physical laws that govern it .

This is also the reason have a problem with certain religions that say God is in everything and everything is God. Well if He is He is not eternal and he is limited and cannot be the God of the Bible..

Prima Secundæ Partis 91,1 Further man participates in this eternal law thru the light of natural reason - this participation is called the natural law. From that natural law proceeds the human law.

The process of applying these laws to human acts is called causitry (see Thomas Fleming's Morality of Everday Life for a full discussion of causitry as it was practiced in the Middle Ages). In short the law cannot be changed by man because man did not create it What and who holds this monarch accountable if they violate this law?

The Monarch is accountable for acts under pain of sin. This is why the traditional Catholic monarchies are to be preferred for the Church provided a real and substantial check on the power of the monarch.

This is of course broken in Protestant monarchies particularly where the King assumes the role as the head of the national "church".

In such cases, and in addition to the Church in the case of Catholic monarchies, the power of the King is held in check by the aristocracy who thru pure self-interest are committed to restraining the authority of the central government, this check is damaged in absolutist monarchies.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Since all are under the “penalty of sin” I do not see any reason for a catholic monarch to be subject to greater restraint by it than any individual Christian regardless of denomination.

I also do not see how a monarch who is one, who by inheritance rules an autocracy which is “ A political theory favoring unlimited authority by a single individual” could be restrained by any individual or group of individuals over who he has complete authority.

The King is also accountable to his own family. A monarchy is in essence a privately-owned government. The King owns the state, he may sell parts and he may bequeath it to his heirs.

The current monarch stands in a long line of individuals who have at the least preserved if not increased the value of their holding and his family expects him to do the same.

In the thesis of Hoppe his self-interest will cause him to act conservatively so as not to depreciate the value of his holdings and inciting the public to rebellion thru brutal tyranny would do just that.

The fact is most "bad" monarchs were assassinated by members of their own families who had a vested interest in preserving their status and power and bequeathing it to the next generation.

That kings have been greatly influenced by their families [and their advisors who have with their on motives] is true.

That they have been killed by their family members and others around them for their injustices and replaced by those who where “good” is also true.

How ever the reverse , where good ones were murdered by their wives and their heirs in order that they may obtain the throne.

I find that history does not validate the idea of a smooth transition from “king to son” or that the said transition will result in a continuation of good administration or the replacement of a bad one.

History is full of all kind of plots and schemes sparked by sibling rivalries with their mothers cheering them on. This leads to a very unstable environment around the throne .

For example King Herod in Josephus”s “Wars Of The Jews” Book 1 Chapters 27 and 33 has his only two sons and put to death by strangulation and a later a grandson who was to succeed him killed by his guards while he lay dying all of them for perceived plots . He only lived five days afterward.

Around 70A.D. you had the Roman Empire change hands four times in less than two years and I do not believe any where from the same bloodline.

Both of the paragraphs of the thesis above makes reference to the fact that the King and those around him would be influenced to a large degree by self-interest.

As history bears this out I heartily agree with the statement.

That the fact that this selfish behavior would be good a large majority of the time and therefore would be a reliable reason to choose this form of government I would not agree.

There are many instances in all forms of government where the people and the government where thrust aside and harmed because of the self-interest of those in power or those with access to it caused grievous harm to the people and state even to their destruction.

History is always subjective, it is quite literally written by the winners. One has to dig a little (or alot) to find "the other side of the story" if it any longer exists at all. Some writers to investigate - Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin, Hilaire Belloc, Christopher Dawson and Harry W. Crocker III.

What you say about history is true to a certain degree, but since everything we know from today back is history, as you say we have to do the best we can.

We have too hope that most historical writers cared enough about the future of their kinsmen and the survival of the human race to leave us a record of not only our triumphs but of our failures in order that we may benefit from their experiences.

The Holy Roman Empire and related Catholic monarchies of Europe circa 800 AD - 1900 AD.

I hoped not to go here into too great of detail since this history of the Church and Papal rule is fairly well known, some good and some not so good.

There are those that feel that their Church is picked upon and are offended at the mention of things that transpired during this period and that is something I have no wish to do.

I will simply say that I do not see anything from that form of government to cause me to desire it’s return by whatever religious belief it might come in on.

I do not believe it is mission of the followers of Christ in any denomination to rule or reign in place of Him, only to rule and reign with Him after His return.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

I guess as of now I still see as I first said that any form of government that is administered by man is subject too and will be overtime decayed through corruption.

The best government that I see offered to man while he is still inhabited by his old nature that makes him susceptible to sin is that offered in the millennium .

That of a Theocracy where Christ rules with a rod of iron and even that fails for the same reason.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

141 posted on 02/13/2005 1:19:52 AM PST by mississippi red-neck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time

"Oh for goodness sake, whatever you think about the Dims they have no program for setting up extermination camps"

..except that FDR set up concentration camps for Japanese Americans in WWII, I agree with you.


142 posted on 02/13/2005 2:04:11 AM PST by Owl558 (Please excuse my poor spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: mississippi red-neck
I am not familiar with the above source but find some points of disagreement which may be because I’m not sure as yet as to what law or laws we are talking about i.e.: moral, civil , or physical.

Sorry I shouldn't have used the somewhat obscure Catholic name given to St. Thomas Aquinas (The Angelic Doctor). The passage is from his Summa Theologica . In which he discusses the Divine Law, the Natural Law and Human law and their relationship to each other.

. A political theory favoring unlimited authority by a single individual” could be restrained by any individual or group of individuals over who he has complete authority.

Your definition here is flawed since the power of the monarch was not unlimited, but rather strictly limited by all the factors in my first post (tradition, the aristocracy and the Church chiefly).

History is full of all kind of plots and schemes sparked by sibling rivalries with their mothers cheering them on. This leads to a very unstable environment around the throne .

The charge of instability is a curious one to make, since stability is one of the chief benefits of the monarchial government. With one exception, the Swiss cantons, democracies are inherently far more unstable. The oldest existing mass democracy (the aforemnetioned Swiss system could not be called "mass" democracy, each canton is virtually independent and consists of thousands not 100s of millions) is the US which has stood for 240 years give or take. The governments of Europe only a fraction of that. Democracies always contain the element of the the legistlative authority resulting in the constant production of positive law to justify it's existance. This in turn leads to legal uncertainity

We have too hope that most historical writers cared enough about the future of their kinsmen and the survival of the human race to leave us a record of not only our triumphs but of our failures in order that we may benefit from their experiences.

Pardon me but that's an incredibly naive assumption. Every writer of history has an idealogy, consciously and unconscious he is immersed in the events and current of the day. It is easy enough to say John Smith did such and such on this date, that is empirical. But an analysis of history asks why he did such and such and absent direct testimony from the individual that interpetation tells us more about the writer than the actor.

All that assumes the writer was trying for objectivity, it is more common that history is written explicitly for propoganda purposes. "Control the past and you control the future".

I hoped not to go here into too great of detail since this history of the Church and Papal rule is fairly well known, some good and some not so good.

Actually I would argue it is not well known since it is so often misrepresented, which is why I referred to those particular authors.

143 posted on 02/13/2005 5:33:02 AM PST by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: royalcello; kjvail

I'm sorry, but after a period of mature reflection I have concluded that you are both clinically insane.


144 posted on 02/13/2005 9:31:51 AM PST by Killing Time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time; royalcello; kjvail
Mature? I guess your diagnosis of clinical insanity goes for Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Bertrand de Jouvenel, and the likes as well - not to speak of all those prior to 1918 who believed that there was reason in monarchy beyond symbolic roles. Where one ceases to be able to refute by reason declaration of insanity is an easy way out.
145 posted on 02/13/2005 12:56:06 PM PST by Unreconstructed Selmerite (Regem honorificate! Vox populi vox diaboli est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Killing Time

"I don't suffer from insanity . . . . . . I enjoy every minute of it."

I tend to think the same about anyone who believes that rule by politicians is the highest thing any nation can aspire to. In a monarchy you can have good kings, sometimes even saintly ones (Ferdinand of Aragon, Edward the Confessor, Stephen I, Louis IX...) but when it comes to modern republicanism the system ensures that no one of much good can possibly succeed. Most are corrupt going into office, and all of them are after they've been there a while.


146 posted on 02/13/2005 1:13:08 PM PST by Guelph4ever (“Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher

Most of the members of the SA started out as Communist Party thugs, but the Nazis had better beer I guess.


147 posted on 02/13/2005 1:17:03 PM PST by dfwgator (It's sad that the news media treats Michael Jackson better than our military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
Sorry I shouldn't have used the somewhat obscure Catholic name given to St. Thomas Aquinas (The Angelic Doctor). The passage is from his Summa Theologica.

Went to your link. I do not see a sound reason for basing your support on this writing by this man.

I cannot for the simple reason that after some sort of divine revelation he left off writing or finishing and when question as to why give this reason the year before his death.

"I cannot go on...All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me."

Now if a man after a revelation, and later reflection sees his writings as basically useless why should I you or anyone else give them more consideration than he.

Your definition here is flawed since the power of the monarch was not unlimited,

The definition was not my own which were the reason for the quotation marks. It was from a dictionary program for which I can't seem to find the source. However here is one from Webster's 1828 edition.

Monarch: The prince or ruler of a nation, who exercises all the powers of government without control, or who is vested with absolute sovereign power; an emperor, king or prince invested with an unlimited power.

Democracies always contain the element of the the legislative authority resulting in the constant production of positive law to justify it's existence. This in turn leads to legal uncertainty

The same can be said to be true of monarchs by the fact that they issue decrees some permanent and some time-limited.This was [is] done at times on a daily basis.

The same occurs in a Church monarchy when changes in, or new doctrines or polices are issued on various subjects ie: birth control, abortion, way if salvation etc.

Pardon me but that's an incredibly naive assumption. Every writer of history has an ideology, consciously and unconscious he is immersed in the events and current of the day.

...it is more common that history is written explicitly for propaganda purposes. "Control the past and you control the future".

No offense taken, or any intended... But this is where I find the greatest difficulty with your reasoning and logic.

You find fault with me for relying on historical writers for my source of information and condemn them as unreliable at best as in both of your previous post for the reasons you mention.

Then you proceed straightway to these same unreliable sources ie: history writers, and use them to support your point of view.

This seems to me to defy all the rules of logic and common sense reasoning.

Actually I would argue it is not well known since it is so often misrepresented,

If it was not for wrongs in the history of the Catholic Church, then what was the public apology made by the Pope on March 3, 2000 for?

148 posted on 02/13/2005 5:36:34 PM PST by mississippi red-neck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson