@ Monarchist

1) Indeed, I am not aware of any "conservative group that supported democracy during the French Revolution".  Perhaps there were some, perhaps there were not?  So, what is your point? That democracy would be 'bad' because the French Revolution was not about democracy, but about removing the tyranny of the Ancien Regime? How silly of you.

2) Indeed, Russians generally do not support democracy today, and probably did not a hundred years ago either.  So, what is your point?  That democray is 'bad' because the Russians do not support it?  How silly of you.

3)  Again, what is your point under para 3?  That the distinction between left and right is not important?  I agree.  What really matters is the distinction between democrats and nondemocrats, i.e. between people who tolerate feedom of speech of others, and those who do not. 

4) Again what is your point? That there is/was no difference between Bush and Kerry?  If so, then you are a superficial and poor observer.

5) Take a piece of advice, please.  Do not waste your time reading websites like Huffington.com.  Pollution of the physical world is a serious problem.  Pollution of the mind with trivia is even worse.

6) What would a "conservative" be, according to a Monarchist?  And what would a "man of honor" be?  I bet you that few monarchists could define these terms in a sensible way, and that even fewer could agree on the proper content of these terms.  Which is precisely the reason why freedom of political speech should be 'honored' by all democrats, and why democracy is the LEAST bad political system there is.

@ Kapitein Andre

1) I think that you make a valid point that I should NOT lump you together with Conservative swede and Rzeczpospolita w.r.t. the monarchy/republican dichotomy.  My apologies for that.  My only excuse is that, when I did lump you together with them, I had foremost in mind that for all of you "some concept of 'group' is always at the center of your politics, not the individual".  I believe there is ample evidence for that, and we have been over this before.  But, it is true that, unlike with the two others, I have not seen you making explicit statements revealing sympathy for monarchy/aristocracy.  I am glad to read that you are a "staunch republican" and that you "belief in democracy and meritocray, and not aristocracy". At the same time we should recognize that these terms leave a lot of room for interpretation, which is another reason why genuine democrats should never tolerate violations of individual free political speech rights by government (with monopoly police and judicial power).

2) I broadly agree with your comments on extreme individualism and extreme communitarianism as a practical matter of political organisation (in the sense of being "unworkable").  At the same time, in my view the fundamental civic rights of the individual (habeas corpus, and freedom of conscience, i.e. speech) must be at the core of any MORAL judgment about political systems.  Human morality demands it.  And there is ample evidence that you are deeply infected by the prevailing moral relativism of the current dominant cultural naive-left orthodoxy.  I will not fail to point it out again in the future with specific examples when the occasion will arise.  It is one of my pet projects, precisely because you are a commentator who produces 'value added' on this blog (if I may use that economic term).  In my opinion fundamental civic rights of the individual do not really have an econonomic dimension, but I do believe that individual property rights certainly help in maintaining the aforementioned 'fundamental' rights to survive against governmental infractions.  So, if at all, any tinkering on that score should be done very very cautiously. And you also do know that I do recognise cultural 'group rights', but only to the extent that they can help preserve individual freedom. They are not fundamental, but rather 'derived' from the individual (human being).

3) Yes, procedures are certainly debatable, and constitutions are changeable.  But when you challenge the bedrock of democracy and individual freedom, then your constitution becomes like 'ordinary law', subject to the whims and follies of temporary majorities.  And when you touch on freedom of political speech, you touch on the average individual's chance and opportunity to get at information and you enter 'controlled speech' and 'unfree' elections.   I have no compunction about claiming that on this score you have repeatedly in the past shown support for the ongoing violations of constitutional free speech rights in Western Europe. 

No, I do NOT think that "all speech should be free".  And you know it!  I just went through a lengthy debate with Schaveiger on that very subject, and I am sure that you have seen that.  I claim that political speech should be totally free in appropriate circumstances, and I have given several concrete examples of what would be clearly inappropriate.  The point is that all subjects should be allowed to be freely debated, and that the state should never be able to persecute someone for IDEAS or WORDS, as opposed to ACTIONS.  In democracy (and you claim to be a democrat, not an aristocrat) it is the people who are in principle 'sovereign', and neither the 'king'/ruler nor the government should be able to control the people's access to IDEAS or opinions.  That is - or was - the core of the European Enlightenment.  

4) No, I try not to make hasty judgements on the basis of singular sentences, like you do.  It took me a long time (and many observations) before I made broad judgments, certainly about you, and also about others.   

@ Rzeczpospolita

...

3)  I am well aware that the Jacobins were not genuine 'democrats', and I am also aware that "socialistic demagoguery" is full of 'democratic' slogans.  My God, North Korea still calls itself today a "Democratic Socialist Republic".  But none of these people believe in constitutional protections for individual rights.  So they are definitely not 'democrats'.  You only CONFIRM what I said about the "sides" in the French revolution.  Can you please make a distinction between (a) genuine democrats and (b) demagogues who pretend to be democrats!  I use 2 specific criteria to judge whether a particular system is genuinely "democratic": First, is there regular power alternation between different ideologies over time and, second, is there genuine respect for freedom of political speech.  I certainly do NOT judge people as democratic on the basis of them declaring themselves as such. 

4) How is my summary of the Russian revolution "weaker"?  I am aware of all the points you now make about that, but they do not disprove what I wrote. On the contrary they confirm it.  There is no democratic culture in Russia to sustain a democratic political system.  In addition, I still maintain that the atrocious tsarist regime and the war conditions (at the time) helped the communist revolution succeed there.  It is just common sense.  And today we have a new 'Tsar', and his name is Vladimir Putin.  And, yes, he gets regular photo ops with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch (or 'pope', if you will).  And the latter works closely with him, to 'safeguard' his 'privileges'.  

5) I never said that democracy is easy.  Its problems are well known since the time of 'Classical Greece', and Socrates and his 'students' had a lot more to say about it (over 2 millenia ago) than you and me.  And yes, a big part of the left today is demagogic, but parts of the right are too.  A more careful and honest analysis of western history could teach you that there have been parts of the left that have been 'democratic' in nature.  But the history of cultures moves in waves of rise and decline, and the current violations of freedom of speech by the ruling naive-left (left in a cultural sense) in Europe are a clear sign of cultural decline.

P.S. Popular opinion does NOT ALWAYS elect "populists" and demagogues.  In some cultures it tends to do that (for instance in big parts of Latin America), but in others it does not.  Whether or not it does in reasonably-democratic cultures will depend a lot on the degree to which they can succeed in keeping ideology out of the education system.  That is where my generation of Europeans has manifestly failed  over the past half century.

marcfrans: The fact that Kapitein Andre calls for the return of Edward 1, does not prove that monarchists form a serious wing of European conservatism.

This "call" was mere sarcasm. That you take that post seriously is ridiculous; even more so is that you take it as evidence of monarchism. On the contrary I am a staunch republican.

marcfrans: we now have already 3 observations here of aristocratic sympathies (Conservative Swede, Kapitein Andre, and Rzeczpospolita)...

Aristocratic sympathies? Laughable. Again, I believe in democracy and meritocracy not aristocracy. The weakest strawman I have ever seen.

marcfrans: none of these characters believe truly in individual rights, but they do in 'group' rights.

I cannot speak for the others in your witch hunt, but one can believe in individual and group rights. Extreme individualism and extreme communitarianism are equally problematic social values. The shifting of liberals to the right (neoconservatism e.g. Republicans) and the left (reform liberalism e.g. New Labour), and social democrats to the right, is indicative that pure liberalism and socialism are unworkable for the very reason that they ignore group rights.

marcfrans: what they have in common with the ruling naive-left elites in Europe is a disrespect for the individual, in the sense of not strictly adhering to democratic procedures and not respecting constitutional individual rights.

Democratic "procedures" are debatable. Constitutions are changeable. Challenging either, or challenging those that you consider 'set in stone' is not disrespectful in the least. A strawman argument again.

marcfrans: our 3 'aristocrats' agree broadly with the ruling naive-leftist 'elites' on the admissability of restrictions on freedom of political speech, they do part company on multiculturalism. 

You're repeating yourself. Since when have I advocated restricting freedom of speech? Moreover, you refer to "political speech" as opposed to speech, so it would be interesting to clarify if you believe all speech should be free.

marcfrans: the aristocratic exceptions among us want to go back to 'old' Europe of kings and queens, which is even more fanciful.  Both sides have missed the 'American Revolution' and its Constitution, emphasizing INDIVIDUAL rights (as opposed to group rights) which is the cornerstone for maintaining freedom in the world.
 

Your incessant references to the American Revolution and the United States Constitution are tiresome. Both were inspired by developments in Europe of which the vast majority of us are well aware.

 
marcfrans: monarchists are truly a tiny minority among their 'subjects'.  Hence, these monarchs have long ago adopted the 'talking points' (discours) of the ruling naive-left elites in order to keep themselves (a bit longer) acceptable to the cultural mainstream in Europe. 

Again strawmen and repitition.

marcfrans: unlike the Kapitein Andre, I do not make overall judgements on the basis of individual sentences.

Apparently you do! (see above). You make assumptions on other posters all the time, as Rzeczpospolita noted. And you know what happens when you ass|u|me, don't you?

atheling: Indeed, I have noticed that they [Conservative Swede, Kapitein Andre and Rzeczpospolita] parallel their leftist counterparts by their dismissal of individual rights and free speech... just a different "road to serfdom", it seems.

Is there an echo in this thread? Am I debating you on anything? No. So there's no need to follow marcfrans' erroneous judgements and assumptions, then is there?

@ Rzecz...

1) I believe in God too, AND in democracy as well.  The one belief does not exclude the other.

2) On what basis do you think that I do not "tolerate" your belief in God?  That is a pure 'strawmen', false conjecture on your part.  I also tolerate your freedom to express your disbelief in democracy.  But I know that if your type becomes a majority in society, then my freedom of opinion expression would be threathened.  Your freedom of expression is not threathened by 'democrats' like myself who respect freedom of political speech.

3)  I categorically reject your false notion that the "demagogues" of the French revolution were "democrats".  And neither were the "monarchists".  So, I do not like either "side".  My contention was that the absence of 'democracy' during the monarchical "Ancien Regime" is a direct cause of "la Terreur" that was to follow. 

4) Yes, perhaps, the communist revolution could be said to be "inspired" to some extent by the French revolution.  But it was also "inspired" (in a negative sense) by all the monarchical/aristocratic  regimes and their terrible abuses as well.  And it probably succeeded in Russia primarily because of the atrocious tsarist regime and the war conditions that resulted from the actions of different European monarchical regimes.  

5) Yes, Hitler came to power through "elections".  Whether these were "democratic" is more dubious.   You do not think, I hope, that Putin held "democratic elections" last weekend, do you?  So what is your point?  Does it matter whether a tyrant comes to power through elections or through the machinations of unelected 'aristocrats'?  

The fundamental point is that a genuine democratic political system is not possible without a genuine democratic culture to sustain it.  The very first condition for maintaining a democratic culture is to maintain freedom of political speech.  

Ah, how I'd like to see this story repeated with an Arabian grandfather convicted to the same punishment for the same offense.

He wasn't Arabian, this grandfather, was he?

@ Rzeczpospolita

I am very well aware that yesterday you backed my position on "freedom of speech in other thread".  However, unlike the Kapitein Andre, I do not make overall judgements on the basis of individual sentences.  Nor am I terribly impressed with nice words that people tend to use.  After all, Schaveiger also claims to be for "freedom of speech", but it turns out that he only does this until.....it gets difficult and has to apply it also to people that he has been told (for a long time by his friends, teachers, and media) that he should hate.  In short, he only respects freedom of speech when it is sympathetic speech to his worldview.  If 'democracy' were only that simple, the whole world could be democratic.  But it isn't. 

So, my judgement about you does not rest on yesterday's verbal 'support', but rather on the 'big picture' of everything else that you have written.  It rests particularly on (1) your statements that you do not believe in democracy, in fact that you do not like it, (2) on your advocacy of some kind of 'guided' monarchy/aristocracy, and (3) on your arrogant dismissal of "mainstream culture" as a contradiction in terms. There are different concepts of "culture" other than your elitist one!     Your system, sir, has been tried before for many centuries in Europe, and it led - among many other disasters - to the French Revolution, and helped to lay the groundwork for European totalitarianisms in the 20th century.

I was not born yesterday and I have no illusions as to what freedom of speech would mean under unconstitutional (guided) monarchy.  It would be some kind of 'cross' between Mubarak's authoritarianism and Schaveiger's current naive-left orthodoxy.

@ Atheling

Do not get fooled by a few commentators.  The fact that Kapitein Andre calls for the return of Edward 1, does not prove that monarchists form a serious wing of European conservatism.  True, we now have already 3 observations here of aristocratic sympathies (Conservative Swede, Kapitein Andre, and Rzeczpospolita).  But these are all 'dreamers'. 

 Note that none of these characters believe truly in individual rights, but they do in 'group' rights.  In one way or another, some concept of 'group' is always at the center of their politics, not the individual.  Which explains why they are not really democrats and are not particularly 'exercised' about the current violations of constitutional free speech rights in Europe.  In short, what they have in common with the ruling naive-left elites in Europe is a disrespect for the individual, in the sense of not strictly adhering to democratic procedures and not respecting constitutional individual rights.   And, as you know, in some others this can easily and quickly descend into absurd racism. 

While our 3 'aristocrats' agree broadly with the ruling naive-leftist 'elites' on the admissability of restrictions on freedom of political speech, they do part company on multiculturalism. 

In short, the ruling European elites are imbued with moral relativism and marxist notions of cultural selfhatred.  So, they want to destroy European cultures and replace them by some utopian multicultural ideal.  By contrast, the aristocratic exceptions among us want to go back to 'old' Europe of kings and queens, which is even more fanciful.  Both sides have missed the 'American Revolution' and its Constitution, emphasizing INDIVIDUAL rights (as opposed to group rights) which is the cornerstone for maintaining freedom in the world.

P.S. Also, note that the remaining ruling 'Monarchs' in Europe have learned long ago that their own monarchists are truly a tiny minority among their 'subjects'.  Hence, these monarchs have long ago adopted the 'talking points' (discours) of the ruling naive-left elites in order to keep themselves (a bit longer) acceptable to the cultural mainstream in Europe. 

Daily Mail: A grandfather has been given a prison sentence for racial harassment after calling a Welsh woman “English”. Mick Forsythe used the term during an argument over a scratched car in his Welsh home town. He called the vehicle’s owner, Lorna Steele, an “English bitch”. She and her husband took great offence at the jibe and decided to take him to court. The 55-year-old former lorry driver was found guilty of racially aggravated disorderly behaviour, and received a ten-week prison sentence suspended for 12 months. […]

At least the British judiciary is upholding racism against the English nation...Aren't the Welsh another race? I would have to disagree with MarcFrans on this one. When comments such as these are permissible, the integrity of the kingdom is in doubt, unless of course one were to grant the Welsh independence...

Daily Mail: The car belonged to Mrs Steele, who runs the tattoo parlour next door with her husband Gavin. […] She said: “I’m Welsh – I was born in Welshpool. […]” Her husband, a 40-year-old Englishman originally from Hull, added of Mr Forsythe: “He is a racist. He doesn’t like the English.” […] Forsythe, of Newtown, was ordered to pay £200 in costs in the hearing at Welshpool Magistrates Court.

Apparently, Newtown avoided the English conquest some centuries before, given Mr. Forsythe's attitude. However, while Mr. Forsythe clearly "doesn't like the English" the same cannot be said of Mrs. Steele. Perhaps she's English after all?

@ Rzeczpospolita

You are missing the main point.  It doesn't matter what the court's definition of "race" is.  That is always going to be very subjective and arbitrary.

The main point is that one can get today convicted for WORDS as opposed to DEEDS.   If you can get convicted for calling someone a name, any name, it means that you can get convicted for ANYTHING, if the authorities so decide.  It is the end of freedom, and of civilisation as we used to know it (at least for a while).   We are back to 'your' days of kings and queens and aristocracy, who have put themselves and especially their 'creed' beyong namecalling and criticism.  It is very similar to what has always happened in the Arab world.  Recently individuals have been convicted in Egypt and Syria for 'insulting' islam, for insulting the 'President' (i.e. their king) and for insulting the 'state' (of Egypt).   In Eurabia today, from Cairo to Brussels (via Beijing), rule by judicial intimidation is 'king'!

I'm curious what is the definition of "race" according to this court? This couple just represent the level of average voter, so one cannot blame them. What is really outstanding is ignorance of judges.

Frodo, I don't think you'll go to jail for thinking that salafist imams are revolting.  You'll probably be burnt at the stake.

Don't worry, there will be plenty of us to keep you company there.
 

Related, anyone in the know about this framework proposal:

http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33178.htm

If adopted and applied literally, I'll probably go to jail, as I'm in the board of a Society for Danish Culture - who happens to think that Christianity is better than Islam and that Salafist imams are revolting :)