The Royalist Party of America has a FaceBook page. Apparently the page has been around a while, but my attention was only recently drawn to it. It looks like lately they have been posting more in the way of philosophical arguments in favor of constitutional monarchy. Here are a couple of samples:
A constitutional monarchy is the most stable form of government because its head of state is representative of the nation and responsible to its people, not to a party. A presidency divides people because he is the head of a party and is voted by its members, meaning those whom did not vote are not fully represented.
And here:
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or blended constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution. (Kind of like the Egyptian Soicial Pyramid) So to answer your question: Yes, a constitutional monarchy is a democratic country. In fact, the top 7 most democratic countries in the world (According to the Democracy Index) are constitutional monarchies (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands).
Closing thread to further comment. Enough is enough.
Fuck you………. I don’t even feel good, why do you have to make this hard? :/
Someone else can download it and see if it’s a virus, I’m not doing it.
http://www.fast-files.com/getfile.aspx?file=71518 I can’t find the info of the judge or anything, but I did find this on my computer (after a 5-3 minutes) of searching thrw mi files……..
I guess it could be. April 1st coming soon!
Is this joke night on IPR?
For fuck’s sake. It also stands for several other things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFS
What is Ffs?
Not good enough. You’ll also need evidence that Glenda something, of Fresno county, is a real judge, who really did issue that order, and an explanation of the legal theory by which the order extends to us.
Fine, I’ll get another copy of it and will post it here.
How can I be glad to be rid of you when you keep coming back?
I’m not even good with names, sorry! Ffs.
Thanks for the laugh. When I hear from Glenda something, of Fresno county, with proof that Glenda something, of Fresno county, is in fact the person talking to me, is a judge, and is ordering me to remove a news article that was true at the time it was written, then I’ll consider whether appealing Glenda something’s diktat is worth the trouble. Until then, thanks again for playing.
Fine… Whatever…. I’ll just tell them that you refused and then you can deal with them…. In all honesty, your a fucking dick. Bye.
info*
I’m wondering if it’s just Emily’s latest fiction out of a desperate need for attention, which it probably is. But if any IPR writers are concerned that there’s a real legal issue, ask Warren about it.
Glenda something, of Fresno county. Forgot the contact him and burent the order in my fire place after getting the police called on me for being to loud. I’m not even lying…. Stop making this difficult, please. I have a lot of stress going on right now.
That’s all fair, Paul, I’m just one to err on the side of caution. 🙂
Even if she does, it would still not apply to us. Ask Warren if you don’t believe me.
“Emily Molloy March 18, 2014 at 10:01 pm
No, I NEED this article removed…… The judge pretty much ordered me to have this removed.”
Who is this judge? Post a name of the judge and contact information. Show us a copy of the order.
I’m wondering if it is a judge or a psychiatrist.
Paulie, ffs mate. Yes, sorry……… That was me, I wantes to back off from the debate. Sorry. But I’m being serious now.
jed, sure, all she needs to do is mail the court order, or post it here for us to see.
Your party allegedly existed at the time this article was posted, so there is nothing inaccurate in the article that warrants its removal.
I lost, supposedly some dick claimed my party, and I stupidly had no LEGAL proof to back it up….. I have made a new party though ‘Royalist Tea Party’, on Facebook…… Although the other one is now gone.
If she violated copyright law that doesn’t mean we can’t report on her alleged party, as a court order would not bind *us* unless we were a party to the lawsuit, and I’m not taking anything Emily says at face value (scroll up to see why) so I am not taking her word that a court order even exists. Start by producing proof.
If this is an actual legal issue regarding Emily & her group violating copyright law or some such thing, then it probably should be removed, or at least made private until we can get this all straightened out.
Figure it out yourself. And no judge can order you to do something that you have no power to do. That doesn’t pass the laugh test, and neither does your attention whoring.
No, I NEED this article removed…… The judge pretty much ordered me to have this removed. If you won’t remove this, please give me your contact info and business licence for your news website.
I’ll tell you what I will do. If you comment on this again after today I will change the date of your comment to today’s date and that way pretty much no one will ever see any comments you leave on this thread ever again. Thus very few people will ever see the thread.
So you refuse to take this down? All right, thank you for the proof…. Less stress for me now. Again, sorry to bother you. Take care.
No, not deleting it, and “court order”? LOL.
But, people would forget about this article (pretty much) if you would quit stirring the pot and starting new rounds of comments. Since you already know this, you must be craving attention.
Wow, disrespectful… Right, ok. Thank you anyway.
“Emily Molloy March 18, 2014 at 8:20 pm
Please delete this article……. Court order. The RPOFA has been deleted/changed due to some copyright/personal issues. Please delete this article. Thank you! I have enough stress as it is, just please be fair.”
As if anyone gives a rat’s ass about this article or this political party (which is probably fake anyway).
Please delete this article……. Court order. The RPOFA has been deleted/changed due to some copyright/personal issues. Please delete this article. Thank you! I have enough stress as it is, just please be fair.
Certainly delusional (see above), not sure about the rest.
Having recently visited the page in question where I posed a simple question concerning the current monarchy hoping to see some other peoples opinions on the subject. But no, my question was deleted shortly after and when I asked why, I was told we don’t allow debates or discussions on the page. I then started scrolling around and I noticed that there are no discussions on any of the posts other than a few comments, none of which were more than two words. As a PhD candidate in Political Science I would say that this page is being run by someone is either delusional, power hungry or a closet fascist. The English system has multiple parties and therefore multiple opinions, debates and discourse. I would love to see the US switch to a multiple party parliamentary system but not as long as this twit has anything to do with it.
Nothing wrong with having your say. I’m just not expecting any serious discussion with Emily after all the antics. Perhaps some other monarchists (not Emily multiple personalities) could pop in an give it a go.
Well this Irishman needed to have his say.
It may be possible to have a serious discussion of the merits of monarchism with someone, but not with Emily…sorry.
I’ll jump in on this ‘debate’, and give whichever Emily some serious counterpoints..
The idea of returning to a monarchy is completely laughable, and also unAmerican, simply put.
Our founding fathers fought to be free of a tyrannical monarchy, and to return to such would be spitting in their faces.
Plus it would run counter to our U.S. Constitution unless there’s a vote, or drive to abolish or greatly alter our constitution (con-con), which principled conservatives and constitutionalists like me vehemently oppose in the first place.
Another thing, to actually attempt to enter into the British Commonwealth would not only be completely disrespectful and ruin the legacy that our founding fathers, and those Americans that fought hard to be free of British rule and to be a sovereign nation that ELECTS it’s own leaders, and simply elects NEW leaders when either they served their full term, or have done a bad job as our leader.
After all, if you have a bad monarch, then you’re stuck with him/her until they die, or until there is a coup.
And even if you had a monarchy where the monarch, or ruling family is limited in their power, it still doesn’t matter because they could still find ways around the law and manipulate the government behind the scenes.
And again, OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND FELLOW COLONISTS DID NOT LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES JUST TO SEE THIS COUNTRY GO BACK TO BEING UNDER THE RULE OF A MONARCH!
Granted, some countries are different and indeed maybe a monarchy might be best for them, yet this country doesn’t need a monarchy, period. We have enough wealthy and influential families in this country that hold a lot of power with the government.
Lastly, my Irish ancestors fought for hundreds of years against British rule and the religious and social oppression that came with it.
The fact of the matter is the British were the predecessors of the Nazis, and are 100% guilty of committing genocide against the Celts, the Afrikaners, the Indians, and others that feel victim to the British Crown for the last 500 years.
So personally, I’d rather use the Union Jack to wipe my ass with and then mail it to the queen, then to even consider having America join the commonwealth, let alone establish a monarchy in this country.
Yet here you are accusing the frequent posters here of being trolls while you present your arguments like a bratty 5-year old, which is why we really can’t take you seriously, and it is quite obvious that you haven’t done much homework on political and international history and governments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCB-9wMylhU
Lol – thanks for the entertainment on my long car ride today.
BTW While you are in NY you may want to check out http://www.nyc.gov/html/hhc/bellevue/html/services/behavioral-health.shtml …they may be able to help you. And quit being such an attention whore.
That’s nice. The thread was dead for over a week til you stirred the pot again. It probably will be again soon if you don’t keep stirring it.
PS: I’m in New York at the moment with the family, trying to enjoy myself as well, but you people keep trying to cause drama… So you know what, I’m done being nice, say whatever you want, think whatever you want and do whatever you want. Quite frankly I no longer care what you or anyone else thinks. Goodbye!
I quote my last message: “@paulie and everyone else. As much as I would love to react to your insults and attacks, I simply do NOT have time. My IP is 192.3.173.21 and I assure everyone that I do NOT have any identity crisis. But you right about one thing paulie “I would need as many arms as Vishnu to have the appropriate number of facepalms”. I don’t have time for rude behaviour… Now excuse me, I have a debate to prepare for. PS paulie: You said: “I haven’t been rude to you. But you’ve been rude to us with the identity games, now-I’m-leaving-now-I’m-back games and constantly calling everyone stupid and uneducated.” That wasn’t me, that was the other person. Either way, I could really careless… I must go now as my time is indeed important and shouldn’t be wasted on pointless disputes”. But I’m also adding, despite you not realising the truth, and despite your insult “She may have mental health issues. I would suggest letting this thread die if she leaves it alone” the Royalist Party of America is real, and I myself am transsexual (yes). I’m not a troll…. I’ve tried to be nice whille trying to clean this mess up, I even had my best friend Olorunsky try to help me here; but you keep thinking what you want to think; you people DON’T deserve my time as you all are acting a bit childish. Goodbye now, take care!
It’s unlikely that Emily is the IPR troll or has trolled here before. It appears that there is actually an Emily Molloy who is involved with Royalist Party social media accounts and other online activity for this Royalist Party and most likely discovered IPR when Red posted this article here. She may actually be transexual, but I don’t particularly find that to be important. The info is easy to find with search engines. She appears not to have realized that some of us have access to IP addresses. She may have mental health issues. I would suggest letting this thread die if she leaves it alone.
A source told me that Emily is a man. Whatever the case may be, I suspect that the Royal Party is fake, and that “Emily” is fake, and that “Emily” may be a troll, perhaps the IPR Troll, or at least somebody who has trolled here before.
Sammy Kershaw is the only person who should have a royal family in America as far as I am concerned:
“Well I met her out at Murphy’s restaurant
She said she was fresh from the farm
I remember thinkin for a country girl
That she went pretty well armed
So I made her the Queen of my double wide trailer
With the polyester curtains and the redwood deck”
Lol
Nice try. No. Not deleting the article, or the comments. “Both” of the Emilies commented from the same IP until I pointed it out, then they “both” commented from a second IP. So honestly I don’t believe you that it was two different people. The other page did have more facebook likes than yours so that is not slander. I’d have to go back to check whether it still does. If you keep bringing this up you will only embarrass yourself more. Once a story has no recent comments and is several pages back in the index of articles few people will see it or remember it, but if you make new comments you just remind everyone. I do understand why you would be embarrassed though 🙂
Hello, this is Emily Molloy again. These comments are emberassing, can you please delete these comments? Emily Bracken pretty much destroyed this article, and if you are going to continue on acussing me of “I was Emily Bracken the whole time” (I assure you, I wasn’t, even though it may look bad, also I have more likes than the RPUSA, which for you to say I don’t is slander) then please just delete this whole article. Thank you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvN8vNm22o
A Visitor From The Past
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abBVoeD5ZCs
Technically, they are no longer the Hapsburgs. And E.II’s marriage throws the family name into even murkier waters.
Of course with all of the inbreeding over the last several centuries, who can say what they really are.
A monarchy? Can I be a Duke? Always wanted to be a Duke…
If you are going to advocate for a form of government that gave us such geniuses as Tsar Nicholas the Second, Philip of the four national bankruptcies of Spain, and the recent Sultans of Turkey, you could at least argue for a family with positive experiences. the Hapsburgs are currently underutilized. Besides, it would give you Hail theEmperor! Hoch Hapsburg! as a rallying cry.
Speaking of the Devil, there was just a link to this Hoppe article on my FaceBook feed. The article is from June 13, but it gets at some of the points I was making above.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/06/hans-hermann-hoppe/make-the-world-safe-from-democracy/
Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.
Very few of them deal with anything substantive.
I agree and made that point earlier.
Based on what we have seen here…even better.
Who knew this post would cause all this? There are too many comments to reply to specifically, so here are a few thoughts. There isn’t necessarily a relationship between the form of government and individual freedom. One could easily envision a monarchy substantially more free than we are today in the supposed democracy of America. Some people consider the ability to pick your leader an essential element of freedom, but I would think that libertarians should not fall into this trap. A hereditary monarch who leaves you alone is substantially preferable to a popularly elected leader who wants to act like your nanny.
Hoppe’s point is that democracy inevitably degenerates into mob rule and is not the best way to enhance individual liberty. A Monarch theoretically has an interest in preserving the polity because he is going to hand it over to his family. Democratically elected officials, on the other hand, are primarily interested in keeping their jobs by pandering to the masses and the Powers That Be. This gives rise to a tendency for democracies to mortgaging the future for the sake of the present. One only need look at our massive debt, our unsustainable social programs, our unfunded liabilities, etc. to realize Hoppe has a point.
Also, historically speaking, monarchs weren’t nearly as powerful as modern mythology suggests. Kings theoretically had unlimited and arbitrary power and could certainly terrorize individuals or groups, but they lacked the power or ability to terrorize the whole population that modern governments that are based on the illusion of consent have. (NSA anyone?) Kings actually had limited resources at their command and had to rely on the support of patrons, local aristocrats and competing sources of power (such as the Church). Google Dr. Donald Livingston Secession and the Modern State. It’s about secession as the title suggests, but he makes this point about the historically limited power of monarchs very well. Kings had significantly smaller armies at their command than did post French-Revolutionary nation states such as France under Napoleon. One need only look at the history of the British throne to realize that there was constant intrigue. Kings were constantly in danger of being overthrown. There were battles over who was the rightful heir, etc.
That said, I’m not a monarchist because I think the Bible denounces it, but I am skeptical of modern democracy. But Israel’s plea for a King was based on the fact that everyone else had one, which suggests that there is a natural order aspect of monarchy. Any study of historical societies shows that there is a definite tendency toward single leaders whether they be monarchs, tribal chiefs, Caesars or African warlords. And in the post zombie apocalypse we wind up with Ricktatorships and Governors. 😉 This is one reason why ancient Greece and Rome stand out to us. Libertarian ideology about how things ought to be does not change how things really are.
Also, I’m still not totally convinced that the Royalist Party isn’t some Onion like spoof, but they are making many of the same arguments that legit monarchists make.
Emily,
At this point this is just sad. Seriously, get help.
emily bracken bonjour emily molloy is mi frend su please leev her alune ok? sorrie that mi english iz not tu gud. comprendre? je ne veux pas vous causer de problèmes but still just leev.
emily bracken sorry i english not tu gud, buht emily molloy m’a contacté she is mi frend leev her alone ok? merci.
paulie Jill Pyeatt Naw lol I’m not her, I thought I made myself clear that I’m not Emily Molloy, as for RedPhillips, who cares! She is a bitch… Sure I pretended to be her, but that was to make her look stupid; she thinks is all cool and what not lol naw.
@ Andy
“Speak for yourself, you stupid b*@#. Some of us prefer individual freedom.”
That was not at all nice. That’s no way to treat a lady or a visitor. We should be able to disagree without calling each other names.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder
I’ll try to be nicer. She can’t help it.
No, she called herself a stupid tranny, but she did call us trolls.
Emily…it doesn’t matter if you are trans. We have nothing against that.
If you seriously need mental health help, and it looks like you very well may….sorry for laughing at that, and I hope you get the help you need.
Emily – you don’t have to be that hard on yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE2t6HWmquc
She comes to our website and calls us trolls? And calls us trannies, as if there’s something wrong with that?
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Yes, that’s it, our website altered your IP to be the same as Emily Bracken’s until I pointed out that your slIP is showing, at which point it changed. Enjoy your walk, or debate, or whatever it is you are doing and see you soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w
@EmilyMolloy What do you mean by “unlike Emily Bracken” you stupid tranny.
“You do realize that Jill, myself and several dozen other people can see the IP of every previous comment left by Emily, Emily Molloy and Emily Bracken as well? Funny how it just now changed after I pointed that out, but the old comments are all still there, searchable by thread or by IP.” Clearly you need to fix your website then, this isn’t my problem. I’ve ran out of free time and must go do my nightly night walks. Take care! And I truly am sorry for what you think, unlike Emily Bracken, I could careless about having the last work so you trolls can continue on but without me. Thank you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDKGDPSq03A
We may well be talking to “her” here, but feel free: https://www.facebook.com/EmilyTheEnglishGirl
Yes, yes, we heard you say that several other times.
You do realize that Jill, myself and several dozen other people can see the IP of every previous comment left by Emily, Emily Molloy and Emily Bracken as well? Funny how it just now changed after I pointed that out, but the old comments are all still there, searchable by thread or by IP.
Then I suggest you stop, but I am getting the sense that you have plenty of time.
Emily Bracken vs. Emily Molloy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g5Hz17C4is
OK, so I’m guessing we’ll see you and/or “the other” Emily in a few minutes. Or maybe by the time I post this. If not, well…scroll up.
Yes, yes, you have.
I have to admit it’s been quite entertaining in a very grade school sort of way.
LOL–Missy apparently needs to have the last word. She doesn’t get it. You’re busted, Emily!
But, not to worry, we got some amusement out of it. Good luck to you.
@Jill Pyeatt http://who.is/whois-ip/ip-address/192.3.173.21 I don’t know what the other user is, but I assure you you’re incorrect.
We were not all rude to her. That’s just an excuse.
She doesn’t seem to realize that she’s busted because both Emilys’ IPs are the same, meaning they are using the same computer. This was at least worth a good laugh.
“…everyone on here is being rude to me…”
Not to make this about myself, but I’ve been super nice.
@paulie and everyone else. As much as I would love to react to your insults and attacks, I simply do NOT have time. My IP is 192.3.173.21 and I assure everyone that I do NOT have any identity crisis. But you right about one thing paulie “I would need as many arms as Vishnu to have the appropriate number of facepalms”. I don’t have time for rude behaviour… Now excuse me, I have a debate to prepare for. PS paulie: You said: “I haven’t been rude to you. But you’ve been rude to us with the identity games, now-I’m-leaving-now-I’m-back games and constantly calling everyone stupid and uneducated.” That wasn’t me, that was the other person. Either way, I could really careless… I must go now as my time is indeed important and shouldn’t be wasted on pointless disputes. Goodbye!
Omigod, this is hilarious. Someone should contact the real Emily Malloy and give her a laugh, too.
I actually don’t think I was particularly rude to her, either, yet she was pretty nasty to me. She doesn’t realize who the heck we are. LOL
Emily is now officially the Queen of the Nile.
Let me present the royal throne and scepter:
I don’t know why I’m responding to this conflicted person, but …
Much like slavery?
When we have a real one please let me know.
I think Emily will need to solve her(?) identity crisis first, but it doesn’t look too promising from there either.
I haven’t been rude to you. But you’ve been rude to us with the identity games, now-I’m-leaving-now-I’m-back games and constantly calling everyone stupid and uneducated.
I don’t necessarily think it is. As I said earlier, it is the coercive power of monopoly government, not whether it is hereditary or not, that is the problem.
Honesty is a prerequisite for a friendly debate.
I would need as many arms as Vishnu to have the appropriate number of facepalms.
Emily,
Heads up: some of us can see your IP address.
@Emily Bracken: Bloody hell! I don’t like the fact that you tried to be me, and the fact that you caused a lot of issues on here; to clear this mess up. I’ve started a debate on debate.org http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-the-United-States-join-the-Commonwealth-of-Nations-and-have-the-Queen-as-head-of-state/1/
I wouldn’t argue the point about a republic being better than a monarchy, anyway, because I’m an anarchist.
I’m at work and I’m too busy for that right now. All you have to do is google my name, and you can find several articles of why I believe in liberty and am working towards it.
@Jill Pyeatt, I wouldn’t be talking; everyone on here is being rude to me, including you… But I’m still waiting on why you think a republic is better than a Constitutional Monarchy. Afterall, I am trying to have a friendly debate right now.
You didn’t exactly start out with roses. I actually asked last night why everyone was being so rude to you. Now I get it.
Jill Pyeatt said: “Is that Who do you think you’re talking to, Miss Smarty-Pants? Perhaps you should do some research before you mounth off.” Is that all you can come up with? With insults? Lol.
“@Jill Pyeatt, Theirs a huge diffrence bewteen an absolute monachy and a constitutional monachy, and dictatorship. When will you Americans learn to properly educate yourselfs?”
Who do you think you’re talking to, Miss Smarty-Pants? Perhaps you should do some research before you mouth off.
@Jill Pyeatt, I’m not closed minded; I’m just educated, you should try it yeah? 😉
Emily says “but theirs (sic) no point in debating with clossed (sic) minded people”.
Ditto.
Already 13% of Americans, like me, are waking up to the truth…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/01/australia-had-a-government-shutdown-once-it-ended-with-the-queen-firing-everyone-in-parliament/ I will always be right on this subject, but theirs no point in debating with clossed minded people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013 How many government shutdowns is it going to take to make you Americans realise the truth? That I’m right, like Canada.
@Jill Pyeatt, Theirs a huge diffrence bewteen an absolute monachy and a constitutional monachy, and dictatorship. When will you Americans learn to properly educate yourselfs?
“Anybody that bothers studying history will discover monarchism is humanity’s most successful and enduring system of governance”.
That statement means nothing to me. History has had war after war after war, but that doesn’t make it right or even acceptable. I’m not interested in any government that doesn’t celebrate the absolute rights of the people. Since no government seems to do that, I’m up for none at all.
I got that off their page… You know their right.
Anybody that bothers studying history will discover monarchism is humanity’s most successful and enduring system of governance. They’ll also realize that republics, invented in ancient Greece, are a fatally flawed system that ultimately destroys every nation stupid enough to become a republic. Look no further than the way the United States and modern Greece are both falling apart politically, economically and societally like train wrecks in slow motion for proof of that.
That one appears to be part of some alternate-universe/role-playing type thing….http://www.scromett.com/Dictionary.html
Huh…looking closely, I don’t know what country Constitutional Monarchists or the seemingly identical Monarchist Party are. But they do have different approaches to Islam…
“•Peaceful co-existence with the Islamic States of the Midwest as far as possible”
“•Genocidal annihilation of the Islamic States of the Midwest”
Well that was amusing, good night folks.
Jared King FTW
Let’s agree that it was horribly rude to call her a ‘stupid bitch’ right out of the gate. Or at all. Not to say she didn’t call others ‘idiot’, but after that maybe she feels bullied.
Either way, now that I know there’s a third monarchist party in America I can say I’ve seen everything, WAIT
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/american-monarchist-party/
http://www.scromett.com/ConstitutionalMonarchists.html
http://www.scromett.com/MonarchistParty.html (Hey wait a minute…)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Orthodox-Monarchist-Party/104119302955096
Ah but you see, Emily wasn’t here to learn, debate or answer any points, only to expound rote, play identity games, and play the now-i’m-leaving-now-i’m-back, girl who cried wolf game.
Agreed Jill. But at the same time, Emily avoided my reasonable question about special interest groups in monarchies, in order to have a fruitless argument with libertarians, even though she still doesn’t show that she understands libertarianism.
Maybe she was really William Saturn’s brother, or the not-really-dead Nancy?
Shhhhh. I think that was supposed to be a secret..
I don’t think I was rude to her. I didn’t even respond in kind after several rounds of “idiot” this and “idiot” that.
Andy was somewhat rude, but that’s par for the course on the internet.
Emily is welcome to come back a (I’ve lost count) time or not; I’m fine with it either way.
Maybe she was really William Saturn’s brother, or the not-really-dead Nancy?
I don’t see the reason that eveeryone was so rude with Emily. When new people come here, why not have them stay for a whil;e? She may have seen on her own that much of what she was talking about was absurd.
Just my two cents worth.
http://www.royalistpartyusa.org/
http://royalcello.websitetoolbox.com/post/for-queen-and-country-the-royalist-party-usa-6446916
https://www.facebook.com/groups/205658289589231/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1393053927578380/
https://twitter.com/RoyalistPartyUS
And apparently there is also yet another one
http://monarchistamerica.webs.com/
That concisely defines your whole endeavor.
At this point that has become difficult to believe, but if you are…cheers!
I said I have other priorities. It is fully rational not to invest a great deal of time in exploring ideas one has no interest in.
In my case, I’m not interested in any form of coercive government, and this one does not seem to be any kind of imminent likelihood, so it’s really not a topic I want to spend a bunch of time and effort to learn about.
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. Alright, I regret commenting on this but either way, trying to urgue with idiots is like trying to urgue with a tree, it’s pointless. I’m leaving!
It’s not funny! Idiot, not speaking for the other one, but just for the RPOFA, we are real and serious!
@paulie FYI: You say you don’t want to read their website, posts, etc yet here you are making prejudgements… So we’re both in the wrong.
More than one Royalist Party…apparently so
https://www.facebook.com/RoyalistPartyUSA vs https://www.facebook.com/RPOFA and there may even be others.
More than one Emily…maybe, maybe not. It’s pretty funny either way.
@paulie Lol that insult is fair, I shouldn’t have pretended to be her. I may not be Emily Molloy, but I do ‘think’ thw RoyalistPartyUSA is fake; I mean they aren’t even active nor do they even have a working website or email.
Your credibility continues to increase every time you “come back.”
They have about three times the “likes” of your page, and as someone who either just pretended to be someone else or is now lamely trying to pretend not to be herself in order to try to retroactively be more anonymous, I guess you’d know a thing or two about fake.
@Jared King My real name is Emily Bracken. Sorry to Emily Molloy for trying to be her! **Epic fail* Lol :/
There’s more than one?
@Jered 01. President (Leader of the country).
02. Congress (Legislative, or lawmaking, branch of America’s national government).
03. Her Majesty (Head of State).
04. Parliaments (Every state controls its own state).
III. The Monarch’s powers and duties include: a) the right to represent the People of the United States oversees regardless of the political party/parties in power; b) the right to revoke any law passed by Congress; c) consenting or withholding consent to a law within one year of it being passed by Congress; d) the ability to dismiss a President, Cabinet Member, and/or Supreme Court Justice at the Monarch’s discretion.
@paulie, Yeah… That’s not my email address… I was trying to pretend to be Emily Molloy but that didn’t go to well… As for the https://www.facebook.com/RoyalistPartyUSA They’re fake.
https://www.facebook.com/RoyalistPartyUSA seems to have more followers….
I can’t say I approve of the namecalling although I find the Royalist Party’s ultimate goal disagreeable. If a country like England or Japan wants to keep their monarchy for tradition’s sake, that makes sense, but I don’t see the appeal in giving them any political power, however minimal.
And in the case of American (re) adopting a monarchy, it sounds like it would largely be the same as now. “Legislative powers, powers of war and peace, and power of the purse – among others – would all return to the United States Congress as was set out in America’s Constitution.” Sounds like this could be accomplished with simple old school conservative Constitutionalism.
That being said, I appreciate the anti-‘War of Democracy’ portion in your foreign policy plank, although I’m confused because the U.K. hasn’t been peaceful of late, nor in the past.
Well good luck with your group.
Actually yes, it would, if he wasn’t such a false hope.
But..
Well aside from claiming you’d leave three times and coming back each time in the space of a few hours now you are starting to make even less sense.
Not what Emily? What are you talking about? There’s an Emily Molloy that is listed as the Monarchist Party contact and you are using an email address that indicates you are that same person, as well as having said so initially in this discussion. What other Emily are we talking about?
And yet you keep comng back. Conflicted much?
You are right, it appears to be a similar group
https://www.facebook.com/RoyalistPartyUSA
I’ll fix that.
All monopoly regimes are shit, albeit less natural or biodegradable.
No thank you, I have other priorities.
“The American head of state grew up with a mother on food stamps. The British head of state grew up with a mother on postage stamps. Is that a contrast that fills you with pride?” – Johann Hari
Right, I’m not even the page the Royalist Party of America… My name really is Emily though! But not that Emily. Whatever, I don’t think I should of even commented on this. But also I do know that they messed up on RPOFA’s logo; as that isn’t their logo… Anyway, look everyone! America’s government is shit, and if you disagree with me; then you are shit as well. Simple as that. You should really read their posts and info and website. Maybe then you will realise how wrong you are… Presidential system, Federal republic, Constitutional republic vs Unitary state, Constitutional monarchy, Parliamentary system; like Canada. All of you just really need to educate yourself!
LOL
Not really. The institution, not the individual, is the hallmark of a monarchy.
I won’t count things that were talked about but did not happen.
If they reach the third generation like NK I will give you somewhat of a point on that.
And Beyoncé and Johnny Rotten shall have a son, and he shall be crowned King of the Commonwealth, overthrowing the illegitimate usurping Windsors. Sorry JZ (not sure if Johnny is married or not)
The former Bulgarian king Simeon II was Prime Minister of his country from 2001 to 2005. Although he did renounce the throne, I would still count that as moving toward the monarchy. there was also talk of restoring the monarchy of Afghanistan after the end of the Taliban, but the king decided not to go for it and he died. There are a few countries where a son has succeeded the father as President and is still in power after around 10 years; Azerbaijan and Togo.
Emily, please read a biography of Edward II of England. Or pretty much every king for that matter, but you can’t really tell me that the nobility, church, various court factions, royal family members, merchants, etc, are not special interest groups. Even some of the most powerful kings couldn’t reign them in a lot of the time.
I really want to say his name
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQgd6MccwZc
I hope you will stay Emily. We need some new interesting commenters around here. I would advise not repeating the same statement over and over again. One commenter did get banned for something like that; I really want to say his name, because I think he and Emily may get along quite well, but I will restrain myself…
Third time’s the charm?
I notice no examples of nations that are not North Korea recently moving towards monarchy.
I suppose the US move towards a quasi-revolving monarchy of the Bush and Clinton families may deserve half a point, but if Emily is really, really done this time maybe someone else can provide additional examples.
I’m being drawn to a debate, I’m done, my life is not dedicated on arguing with some idiots who don’t know what they’re talking about, I’ll be damned to seek to their level; I’m leaving officially, you can continue on with your slander, allthough I don’t see the point though.
Oh, I see “I am leaving…no, now I’m really leaving” LOL. Well that’s fine, hang around…
You are not even close.
So what are some others? Notice I said in recent years.
@paulie “By the way the only country I can think of that has moved toward monarchy in recent years is North Korea. Any others?” You are not even close.
Time and time again, men and women have rallied around banners, causes and individuals and united to save something, or accomplish something so great that they are recorded down in history. The Battle of Thermopylae. Battle of Gravelines.
The Battle of Moscow in 1812. We are continually reminded that history is fraught with examples of extraordinary monarchs and autocrats that were not besieged by special interests groups, political parties or other distracting bodies and organizations. They were honourable, dutiful patriots who had a love for their country and a zeal for their people’s prosperity.
This is what America needs in her darkest hour. A true person with the courage, morals and ethics to do not what is politic, or popular. We need a leader that will do what is right. One who is not afraid to do what must be done for the sake of the nation, and to rid the country of it’s corrupt two party “republic” that has failed consistently over the last 50 years.
We help fulfil the growing need for an alternative political solution in a climate where so many individuals are turning their back on politics altogether. The supreme goal of the Royalist Party of America is not the restoration of a medieval political theory, but a reinvention of a proven and successful form of governance. A form of government wherein the bickering, stagnation and consistent corruption inherent in democratic and republican forms of government is absent.
We aim to accomplish this through: Repeated exposure to the American public to monarchism, and its various forms, and benefits. Leading by example, and refusing to participate in the American political system at present, either in part or in whole. This means we refuse to give weight to any political party, or organization other than our own, by voting or protest. To do so would be to legitimize their partisan political system. Appealing to like minded Americans who share a deep mistrust of the government, and other forms of republican or democratic governance. Building a grassroots community encompassing all ethnic groups, faiths, and individuals of all walks of life to help build a better alternative for tomorrow’s America.
“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ But conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
We believe the second constitutional flaw that is ultimately responsible for this foul up, is this whole business of separation of powers where the executive and legislature are totally independent of each other, in a Parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister cannot remain in office if he cannot command the support of the lower house, in the US the President can stay in office whether he has the support of congress or not leading to a great political deficit, if the chief executive cannot even get congress to support his proposals how can he get laws passed? Especially since he himself does not even have a seat in the house (which is of itself another shortsighted move). Clearly there must eventually be some political fallout from such a system. The simple fact is that the Westminster Model with its constitutional monarchy and its parliamentary structure has been proven as the most efficient of all forms of democracy that have been tried.
Let’s make this clear, we DO NOT want the United States of America to terminate their independence. We, the official Royalist Party of America, commit ourselves to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy for the United States of America. That constitutional monarchy is called: The House of Windsor.
We hope to replace the office of Head of State with our Sovereign Queen. Her Majesty, or her representative in the United States, the Governor-General, would assume the original, Constitutional powers of the President of the United States, and would serve as a non-partisan and impartial arbiter of our Constitutional government. Legislative powers, powers of war and peace, and power of the purse – among others – would all return to the United States Congress as was set out in America’s Constitution. The Royalist Party of America would also see the United States join the Commonwealth of Nations, in the interest of forming stronger cultural, trade, and political bonds with nations who share our heritage in the English language, British liberty, and peace among nations. We appreciate your support and time!
By the way the only country I can think of that has moved toward monarchy in recent years is North Korea. Any others?
How did I “allow” 9/11? Did the queen allow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings, and regardless of where one falls on that question…Just because some queen, president, motorcycle club, mob family or street gang claims I am on their turf does not make me responsible for their failures, or for that matter for their false flag attacks.
There was no government shutdown, as the monopoly regime continued to operate at a slightly slower yet still quite horrifyingly alarming pace during the much ado about nothing government slowdown. A real government shutdown would be awesome, especially if it could be permanent.
Yes, quite well done and crispy; absolut burnt toast.
Please let the door spank your naughty bottom on the way out.
LMFAO. I know I said I wasn’t going to reply; but I just have to reply to paulie and the video he posted. “God save the Queen
she ain’t no human being.
There is no future
in England’s dreaming” Says the Americans who allowed 9/11 and has government shutdowns. American Dream? Lol whopps! https://www.facebook.com/RPOFA? I’m done completely now, I’m walking away from you idiots. Goodbye!
I’ve always admired and loved the idea of monarchy.
So long and thanks for playing; we have some lovely parting gifts…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8fLOJswWtk
PS: And to answer your last question before leaving; yes I have… Republicans are just bloody nonsense, hence why they always lose. Buh bye now! 🙂 x
Antirevolutionary, I’m not here to debate with anyone. Hence why I’m no longer responding after this lol.
Emily, I recommend that you read more about libertarianism before responding to Andy and Paulie. Otherwise it’s pretty impossible for the conversation to go anywhere. Arguing with a libertarian about your political beliefs is much different than arguing with anybody else. I’m not a libertarian, but I am also not a monarchist. I do however believe in a parliamentary system overseen by a weak President who may be elected by a special assembly, as is done now in Germany. Have you ever debated a Canadian, British or Australian republican?
If you are fake, it would take the fun out of it if you admit it.
I’m actually more of an individualist.
No, we aren’t fake. Like many of you that may read this, we too have become disgusted with the current state of affairs in American politics. We are patriots just like you. We are sick of the squabbling, backroom deals, special interest groups and the pandering thereto. It really is enough to make one’s stomach turn. To think that America’s forefathers fought, and died to prevent this sort of corruption from occurring only to see it propagated in their name is a sad fact. However, there is still hope for America, and her citizens.
http://www.rpofa.weebly.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_comGBmnYew
So long, farewell, auf wiedersehn…
BTW I wonder if, like the Onion, this Royalist Party is also comedy. If so, Kudos!
Is this party for real, or is this some kind of joke? It sounds like a joke to me, even if it is for real.
It’s time for the United States to join the Commonwealth. Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalization that is in the American national interest, and it would serve as a hedge against the emergence of a less benign international order based on civilizational power politics. In return, United States membership would offer the Commonwealth a much-needed shot in the arm in terms of resources and ideas that could transform it from a persistent underachiever into a leading model of transcivilizational co-operation. THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: This is the one and only alternative to the creation of the North American Union, or at the very least, it would serve as a backup method of globalization using natural organic bonds once the Masonic trading blocks of the NAU and EU fail. They will most certainly fail you see, in the most violent ways, once Islam is firmly rooted in Europe and American nationalism becomes mainstream.
ELIGIBILITY:
The Commonwealth is an important world organisation. It covers peoples of every religion, every colour, many languages, and every level of wealth. The common link is that all but one of these countries were at some point part of the British Empire. The United States of America therefore qualifies for membership.
COMMONWEALTH POSITIVES:
Within the family of nations that is the Commonwealth are Republics such as India and the Republic of South Africa, Monarchies like Fiji, Dominions like Canada and Australia, and emerging third world powers like Nigeria, and commercial centres like Singapore. Her Majesty is not Head of State of all of these countries, but she is Head of the Commonwealth.
Mozambique is part of the Commonwealth, even though the British flag never flew there. It came in as a side deal when South Africa rejoined the Commonwealth after South Africa became a full democracy.
ADVANTAGES OF THE COMMONWEALTH:
If a Commonwealth country has an issue on another continent, there are friends on that continent to whom it can turn for friendly advice and sometimes discreet friendly lobbying.
As Zimbabwe is finding, and Pakistan and Nigeria before that, the united Commonwealth is a formidable bloc to encourage or discourage certain developments. When a country is criticised by a predominantly non-white Commonwealth it is hard to claim racism or colonialism convincingly.
WHY SHOULD THE USA JOIN?
The USA has slowly realised that it cannot act alone as a world power. Even world powers need friends. And frankly sometimes it has to be your best friend who tells you home truths in a private setting. What goes on the fringes of Commonwealth meetings is hugely significant. Side deals to open markets, grant scholarships, and organise placements and training in advanced countries outside any normal rules all help.
ARE THERE DIFFICULTIES?
The USA may have to understand that in the Commonwealth economic strength and population size and military capacity are all part of the picture. In every family every sibling gets a look in, and the bigger siblings cannot just push everyone around. Britain and India and Nigeria and South Africa earn respect not only for what they contribute but also for how they behave.
Americans will be able to learn these new forms of diplomacy. Threatening, destabilising, and encouraging military coups are not the way the Commonwealth does things. Reason, encouragement, and mutual help, being part of a shared family, and like siblings looking out for each others interests are what makes the Commonwealth work.
The Americans can learn to behave this way, and might even learn to transfer these techniques and approaches to their diplomacy generally.
Are the Americans big enough to join a community of adults? Yes, if they want to.
Don’t agree with me? That’s alright, I have a lot of people who already do. Goodbye! 🙂 x
Noooooo…you’ve shattered my whole world 🙂
Yes, it’s comedy. Funny, funny, comedy….
Political gridlock is a good thing. The less politicians can “accomplish” the better.
@paulie, You do know that the onion is comedy and not real, right? Lol.
01. President (Leader of the country).
02. Congress (Legislative, or lawmaking, branch of America’s national government).
03. Her Majesty (Head of State).
04. Parliaments (Every state controls its own state).
III. The Monarch’s powers and duties include: a) the right to represent the People of the United States oversees regardless of the political party/parties in power; b) the right to revoke any law passed by Congress; c) consenting or withholding consent to a law within one year of it being passed by Congress; d) the ability to dismiss a President, Cabinet Member, and/or Supreme Court Justice at the Monarch’s discretion.
A constitutional monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. A constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).
http://www.theonion.com/articles/15yearold-duchess-of-mccomb-al-announces-pregnancy,30615/
No different than other forms of involuntary government. It is the involuntary part that is the problem, not the hereditary part.
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or blended constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution. (Kind of like the Egyptian Soicial Pyramid) So to answer your question: Yes, a constitutional monarchy is a democratic country. In fact, the top 7 most democratic countries in the world (According to the Democracy Index) are constitutional monarchies (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands).
There’s no government like no government.
“paulie January 1, 2014 at 9:26 pm
The need to lead or be led is not incompatible with individual freedom, if that leadership is voluntary. A voluntarily supported (ie non-taxing) and purely ceremonial monarchy is not necessarily incompatible with freedom, but giving it any coercive authority is.”
The history of monarchies is one of authoritarianism.
Monarchies are a disgusting relic of the past that should be sent to the dustbin of history.
PS: @Andy, A constitutional monarchy is the most stable form of government because its head of state is representative of the nation and responsible to its people, not to a party. A presidency divides people because he is the head of a party and is voted by its members, meaning those whom did not vote are not fully represented.
“Emily January 1, 2014 at 9:21 pm
@Andy, 9/11 and how many government shutdowns?”
One big government shutdown that is permanent would be nice.
“I don’t know why you think I’m a stupid b*@#, afterall you did just say ‘Some of us prefer individual freedom’ which makes no sense.”
Yeah, in your version of the world there are control freaks and people who like to be lead about around by control freaks. Individual freedom does not compute with you, obviously.
The need to lead or be led is not incompatible with individual freedom, if that leadership is voluntary. A voluntarily supported (ie non-taxing) and purely ceremonial monarchy is not necessarily incompatible with freedom, but giving it any coercive authority is.
And to address a point further up…
Hoppe does indeed believe monrachy is less bad than democracy.
@Andy, 9/11 and how many government shutdowns? I don’t know why you think I’m a stupid b*@#, afterall you did just say “Some of us prefer individual freedom” which makes no sense. But you really aren’t worth my time.
Emily Molloy [RPOFA Administrator]
“I believe in Monarchy. From the long ago civilizations of humankind on the planet, until this present modern age, there has dwelt within our hearts the need and/or desire to lead or be led.”
Speak for yourself, you stupid b*@#. Some of us prefer individual freedom.
We created our page on 1 January 2010: https://www.facebook.com/RPOFA/ http://www.rpofa.weebly.com/
Emily Molloy [RPOFA Administrator]
“I believe in Monarchy. From the long ago civilizations of humankind on the planet, until this present modern age, there has dwelt within our hearts the need and/or desire to lead or be led. In the northern reaches of Europe, among the many tribes of kin whom had migrated there from the mountainous steeps of the Caucasus, a certain regularity of government was organically formed through social interaction. Practically, socially, and spiritually, having a Monarch, is the form of government towards which humans are most naturally disposed. Practically: People needed food, clothing and shelter from the demanding elements of nature. The group looked to someone strong, or of sensible character and emotional means, who could rise above the crowd and provide for their people those basic needs. One person who was willing to stand and lead, one who was willing to look for the common good of the group, one who was willing to dedicate their living so that others could live. Socially: A group of people in a given area, sometimes called a clan or tribe, would name that one person their chief or earl. As time proved a leader’s quality of skill with providing food, clothing and shelter, and the crowd continued to be pleased with the result of their choice, that one person who led, received more honour. Eventually, whole families of such individuals began to be respected in this way, and pass on their leadership qualities to their descendants. A noble man of such character was given the title of Duke, or King and such wealth was often gifted unto him as tribute for his successful efforts. In some circumstances of history, women were looked to in this role and named Princess or Queen. Lands where people dwelt together under the common protection of their leader, came to be considered not only their own homelands, but culturally identified as their native lands or kingdoms. Spiritually: Over time, such situations of joint and mutual cooperation between the group and the leader have often been abused or misused to one side’s favour over the other, but that has more to do with an individual’s character than any fault of the governmental system itself. I think that our human desire is fixed on either leading or being led. This is our social wakeup as physical beings on this planet. As the old saying goes, “Many cooks, spoil the broth” and this holds true with governance. It is best for someone to stand up in any group and give clear voice to guide the others, than for all voices to attempt to share equal part of both leading and following. Long ago, in Ancient Greece, the Humanists took a stand against those who believed in the benefit of leaders, such as kings to guide and protect the people, just as they ridiculed those who believed that humankind should have faith in divine beings stronger or more powerful than themselves. Republicanism and it’s concepts of mass rule stood out in stark contrast to our human inclination for faith in a Supreme Being or our capacity to place faith in another to lead us and protect us from harm. Humanism and Republicanism taught that the individual should look to himself to meet all of the needs which historically, humans had always trusted in God and King to provide. The individual was capable of discerning and governing for himself. From the Ancient reaches of the Caucasus Mountains, across the north of Europe and over into the New World, the simple human desire of leadership has culturally been passed on to our modern generation. Group after group of individuals in our cultural and historical past, have faithfully laid aside their differences to place their faith in one person who was willing to rise above the crowd and lead them in the direction they needed to go for food, clothing and shelter, the basic ingredients of human existence. In America, many of those White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants (WASPS), who originally came to this continent in pursuit of a better life, wealth, or religious freedom, are direct cultural and social descendants of those ancient Germanic tribes of Northern Europe, who lived for century after century following this same political model. It is in our DNA to lead or be lead. It is in our DNA to have one person rise above the crowd and be looked to for leadership and strength and guidance. Sure, in days gone by it was for food, clothing, shelter or security. Today, we feel less focused on those things, and more focused on other political and esoteric notions, however, the basics remain the same. Economically, Socially, Internationally and Psychologically, we still desire to look to someone to lead us and guide us, setting a course for our direction as a group of people, united together towards a common goal. This is not a role for the light hearted, inexperienced and temporary honour, it is a lifetime commitment. Humans desire to have faith in someone they can trust. Humans look to see the leadership qualities in someone that time has proven to be a valuable leader for the good of the commonwealth. That is what a Monarch does, that is what a Monarch provides and that is who a Monarch is. I believe in Monarchy. Practically, socially and spiritually, I believe having a Monarch is the best way to experience lasting and committed leadership. We believe in the good, we care what must be done, we care for the people and we care what the people have to say. God Save the Queen. Long live the Queen. God Save the Queen!”
ROYALIST PARTY OF AMERICA: Mission:
I. THE MONARCH:
I. The foremost aim of the Royalist Party of America [RPOFA] is to petition the Commonwealth of Nations to accept the United States as a member state and to restore the succession of the British Monarchy to the United States through Constitutional Convention (per Article V of the United States Constitution).
II. A restructured Executive Branch will incorporate Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs as the official Head of State.
III. The Monarch’s powers and duties include:
a) the right to represent the People of the United States oversees regardless of the political party/parties in power;
b) the right to revoke any law passed by Congress;
c) consenting or withholding consent to a law within one year of it being passed by Congress;
d) the ability to dismiss a President, Cabinet Member, and/or Supreme Court Justice at the Monarch’s discretion.
II. GOVERNOR-GENERAL:
I. The Governor-General will act as a plenipotentiary and viceroy appointed by the Monarch and invested with all of the Monarch’s powers and duties as the Monarch sees fit to assign.
II. Her Majesty would be represented by a Governor-General who is an American-born citizen. The Governor-General would be appointed at Her Majesty’s discretion and the Governor-General’s term would last until:
a) their death;
b) their resignation; or
c) they are removed at Her Majesty’s discretion.
III. SOCIAL POLICY:
I. We recognize and affirm the United Kingdom as our Patria, our ‘Fatherland’, and as such:
a) the British flag will be recognized as a valid flag of the United States meriting equal but not greater respect as is conferred on the American flag, b) the British Constitutions will be considered a valid and necessary means of interpreting the legal premises of the American legal system.)
IV. ECONOMIC POLICY:
I. Royalist Party of America recognizes the need for a strong national industry and will take a stance that is decisively in favour of encouraging national productivity and rapidly scaling back on dependence on foreign resources and manufacturers. Also, every state will have its own parliament, but no state can deny entry to any American citizen.
II. We will take into consideration the state of human and workers’ rights in our economic policy. Egregious human rights violators will be met with American trade sanctions (including embargo).
III. We recognize the agrarian community as the basis of every civilized economy. We also recognize the overwhelming national and local advantages of a reliable, self-sufficient, fresh, and healthy supply of meat, dairy, and produce. As such, we hope to:
a) return American agriculture to a place where local crops and livestock feed as many Americans as possible without straining of our farmers or placing the American economy at risk;
b) encourage local farmers’ markets for the mutual benefit of our farmers and consumers;
c) incentive ‘organization’ – tax incentives, tertiary education, and scaled-back imports – in order to make farming and husbandry a viable and desirable livelihood for Americans with no previous experience in agriculture.
IV. Local manufacturing is the key to revitalizing the American economy and ensuring that we can sustain ourselves as a nation in times of crisis. Therefore, the Royalist Party of America resolves to:
a) incentive local manufacturing to encourage competition with foreign markets and large corporations operating in the United States;
b) effectively combat monopoly – in terms of both market domination and hegemony over smaller corporations – to encourage local industry and entrepreneurship, as well as protect the rights of the worker;
c) allow every labourer to own what they produce and sell their product at a rate that is reasonable to them;
d) encourage a guild system, wherein employers and employees can work toward mutual benefit rather than dividing society along class lines, as is the case with modern labour unions;
V. We would see a gradual phasing out of mass private banking in favour of credit unions and stricter laws against usury. Banks which are necessary to state and public good (such as the Federal Reserve) will be nationalized and committed to public scrutiny once yearly.
V. FOREIGN POLICY:
I. In recognizing the United Kingdom as our mother country and the Commonwealth as our brotherhood of nations, the Royalist Party of America acknowledges that cultural, linguistic, political, philosophical, religious, and historical ties to the former British Empire constitute an unbreakable bond that we are obliged and well-advised to cultivate.
II. We insist that preferential trade, security, and diplomatic considerations should be given to Commonwealth nations.
III. We abhor any notion of ‘Wars of Democracy’ and would not impose a certain form of government on any other people through military or economic measures.
IV. We recognize the right for the United States to act in its best economic interests but believe that we must honourably execute all contracts made with foreign powers at least to the point of their termination.
If you think you can help, if you want more information, and or would like to participate, etc, feel free to email us: [email protected]
We too have become disgusted with the current state of affairs in American politics. We are patriots just like you. We are sick of the squabbling, backroom deals, special interest groups and the pandering thereto. It really is enough to make one’s stomach turn. To think that America’s forefathers fought, and died to prevent this sort of corruption from occurring only to see it propagated in their name is a sad fact. However, there is still hope for America, and her citizens.
Time and time again, men and women have rallied around banners, causes and individuals and united to save something, or accomplish something so great that they are recorded down in history. The Battle of Thermopylae. Battle of Gravelines.
The Battle of Moscow in 1812. We are continually reminded that history is fraught with examples of extraordinary monarchs and autocrats that were not besieged by special interests groups, political parties or other distracting bodies and organizations. They were honourable, dutiful patriots who had a love for their country and a zeal for their people’s prosperity.
This is what America needs in her darkest hour. A true person with the courage, morals and ethics to do not what is politic, or popular. We need a leader that will do what is right. One who is not afraid to do what must be done for the sake of the nation, and to rid the country of it’s corrupt two party “republic” that has failed consistently over the last 50 years.
We help fulfil the growing need for an alternative political solution in a climate where so many individuals are turning their back on politics altogether. The supreme goal of the Royalist Party of America is not the restoration of a medieval political theory, but a reinvention of a proven and successful form of governance. A form of government wherein the bickering, stagnation and consistent corruption inherent in democratic and republican forms of government is absent.
We aim to accomplish this through: Repeated exposure to the American public to monarchism, and its various forms, and benefits. Leading by example, and refusing to participate in the American political system at present, either in part or in whole. This means we refuse to give weight to any political party, or organization other than our own, by voting or protest. To do so would be to legitimize their partisan political system. Appealing to like minded Americans who share a deep mistrust of the government, and other forms of republican or democratic governance. Building a grassroots community encompassing all ethnic groups, faiths, and individuals of all walks of life to help build a better alternative for tomorrow’s America.
“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ But conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
We believe the second constitutional flaw that is ultimately responsible for this foul up, is this whole business of separation of powers where the executive and legislature are totally independent of each other, in a Parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister cannot remain in office if he cannot command the support of the lower house, in the US the President can stay in office whether he has the support of congress or not leading to a great political deficit, if the chief executive cannot even get congress to support his proposals how can he get laws passed? Especially since he himself does not even have a seat in the house (which is of itself another shortsighted move). Clearly there must eventually be some political fallout from such a system. The simple fact is that the Westminster Model with its constitutional monarchy and its parliamentary structure has been proven as the most efficient of all forms of democracy that have been tried.
Let’s make this clear, we DO NOT want the United States of America to terminate their independence. We, the official Royalist Party of America, commit ourselves to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy for the United States of America. That constitutional monarchy is called: The House of Windsor.
We hope to replace the office of Head of State with our Sovereign Queen. Her Majesty, or her representative in the United States, the Governor-General, would assume the original, Constitutional powers of the President of the United States, and would serve as a non-partisan and impartial arbiter of our Constitutional government. Legislative powers, powers of war and peace, and power of the purse – among others – would all return to the United States Congress as was set out in America’s Constitution. The Royalist Party of America would also see the United States join the Commonwealth of Nations, in the interest of forming stronger cultural, trade, and political bonds with nations who share our heritage in the English language, British liberty, and peace among nations. We appreciate your support and time!
There are monarchists in paleo circles, but most are theoretical monarchist, meaning they see some theoretical virtue in monarchism, but as some other paleos have pointed out, it’s pretty meaningless to be a theoretical monarchist. In the real world you have to support a particular family or line, like the Hapsburgs for example.
Looking at the RPofA page, what they want us to do is join the Commonwealth of Nations under the English Queen. Whatever one thinks of their idea, at least they have a plan compared to the theoretical monarchists.
Who would they want to be king?
Who’s their candidate for King? Root?
Didn’t Hans-Hermann Hoppe argue for monarchism in his book ‘Democracy: The God That Failed’? At the least he said it was better than democracy, although this ‘party’ doesn’t call for an end to democracy.
This would be hilarious to watch. I hope they run candidates.
By serious I didn’t mean politically serious, I just meant not a deliberate spoof.
There’s plenty of “parties” that exists only as Facebook pages, websites, etc. I see no evidence that they’re a serious political movement.
It’s always possible that this is mostly a spoof, but it looks serious on superficial inspection.