I'm opposed to taxation here in the US at the national level because once my money goes to Washington the Congress can use it for anything. To put it another way, once the government gets your money, the money is no longer yours. I like to have my taxes paid to my local city or county where I can see the results. Even better I would like to not be taxed at all, then the money would truly be mine.

Yeah, right. Nothing else attract so many posters on various forums than open questioning of their anthropocentric religion.

I concur. It would seem that this royalist stance is little more than a stunt aimed at capturing the attention of the commentators here, most of which are republicans - nearly all of which are democrats.

 
Civilizations ebb and flow not unlike the stock market. Even at their height, civilizations are rife with pundits deploring "cultural and moral degredation". Inter-war Germany is a particularly telling case. In the 1920s, conservative Germans were appalled at the collapse of the Deutsches Reich and the institutions that upheld it - the military, monarchy, aristocracy and church. The once pre-eminent industrialized economy was in ruins, the Freikorps roamed the countryside, the youth embraced American popular culture (e.g. jazz, cabarets) and all forms of socialism were gaining ground. Indeed, it must have seemed as though another Thirty Years War might explode from this combustible mix over which the Weimar Republic was powerless and the Allies were unwilling to bring to heel. And yet within a remarkably short period of time, the Deutsches Reich resurged with a vengeance. One must note that very few voices questioned the Großdeutsches Reich. Perhaps it is best that there is no solution.

Referring to, "Democracies in technologically advanced states can provide security from external forces. However this system degenerate from the inside...", I must say such technical help will be needed by all nations challenged by islamic hyper sensitivity and fascist power projection. Many may know that it was India that suffered most murderous riots for events outside its borders:
** SADDAM'S HANGING in far away Iraq
** Rev Jerry Falwell's foul remarks
** Danish catoons
** 1921 turkish caliphate; etc etc.
driven by islamic xenophobic hate and sub-human greed for power to keep the the gentle and vulnerable Indians under neo-colonialism. Not many of the 60 odd islamic states had any such attack for all these events. Incidentally, India carries the criminal and economic burden of more muslims on its soil than any other nation both - islamic and non-islamic barring Indonesia.

More power to the Indians! Let us do everything we can to empower them!!..!

@ Kapitein Andre

You are wasting your time and considerable talent.  The best you might achieve in the end is that Monarchist will finally get your (beautiful) name right.

He does have a point, though, about the ongoing cultural and moral degradation of Western civilisation.  But, he got the wrong 'solution', largely because of his adherence to an over-romanticised view of history, especially monarchical history.  There is nothing new about the felt-need and calls for a monarch or 'father figure' in difficult times of degeneracy.  History is replete with such 'calls' (just look at Russia today) and, obviously, dictatorship is so much easier to fall into than to work for and achieve moral revival.
 

1. Democracy imperfect in practice? Democracy in practice wont be even decent system, this is impossible. I'm aware of weaknesses of monarchy however I would take this risk in a moment that I would find appropriate.

RE:
 
1.  It is irrational to both reject democracy on the basis that it is imperfect in practice, and advocate absolutist monarchism on the basis of its ideal.
 
3.  It is beyond doubt that humans exist individually and socially. Whereas liberalism fails to account for the latter and regards social organization seemingly as a necessary evil, egalitarianism attempts to reform social organization at the expense of the individual.
 
4.  It is unreasonable to assume that democracies cannot provide security to its citizens or that monarchies are more efficient in this regard. And whereas the former can provide both liberty and security, the latter is incapable of offering true liberty.
 
6.  It is uncertain what you mean by "socialism". Communism or Marxism-Leninism effectively "collapsed" in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Social democracy is not merely a softer version of socialism; it also has its origins in classical conservatism. Indeed, many communists believe that social democratism was a capitalist attempt to stall a working class revolution.

I'm not aware of regulations in other states. However this is sad that you seems to accept that your money in fact belong to the state. If such view is shared by large amount of population in the so called west then I must say that communists behind the iron curtain could only dream that their propaganda would be so effective.

I think that I know even bigger swindle, this is pension system! I think that TBJ could write something about recent Polish Constitutional Tribunal decision that money collected by people in fact belong to the fascist state!!! Polish politicians were lying all the time, according to all mainstream parties these money were supposed to belong to individuals. Thus one guy demanded his money back and this is the final outcome!!! Simply this thieving democratic regime must be destroyed!

Under any system of government any money collected by the state is property of the state. The only way the pension money is yours is if it is in your pocket, because once the state has it is too late to sue.

As for your hatred of democracy, I do see your point. Here in the US we had far better government when the franchise was limited to property owners or at least to White men who could pay a poll tax. But as an American, I do not want a monarchy, it would paper over some of our problems, but those stem from having Blacks, and an open southern border. Eventually there will be an eruption regardless of the system we live under, so I prefer to not live in a monarchy or a dictatorship. Our problem is very simple one party (the Democrats) is bent on destroying the country. The other party is composed of cowards and those who agree with the Dems. But either way, I think we are very screwed.

1. There is no need to look at Commonwealth history, of course it also show stupidity of democratism. However my dislike of democracy originated from observations of modern Polish politics and later international politics.

I.  Assuming that you are familiar with the rather frustrating history of the Seym – in particular its “election” of monarchs, the liberum veto, and the alliances of various members with foreign powers – your almost Aristotelian disdain for democracy is somewhat understandable.
 
II.  Theoretically speaking, representative democracy is a response to the valid criticism that democracy hinders the effectiveness of potestas; that auctoritas is held and wielded by the electorate is not in question.
 
III.  Democracy comes in many forms, and yes, there is no prerequisite that democracy must be liberal. However, the “West” is not merely a collection of democracies; the political cultures of its constituent states are decidedly influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment i.e. liberty and equality.
 
IV.  The Patriot Act – irrespective of its specific content and the motivations of its proponents – is an example of a “rebalancing” in order to maximize effectiveness in a crisis.
 
V.  The Islamic insurgents have numerous grievances with the United States, some of which are reasonably legitimate and others, which clearly are not. Indeed, it is one thing to oppose American support for Israel as well as various authoritarian Arab regimes, the US military presence, and US “interest” in Middle Eastern energy resources; it is quite another to loathe American society for not adhering to Islamic norms, as Qutb did. Rejecting foreign interference is worlds apart from seeking to interfere in other countries.
 
VI.  Your rationale for the re–establishment of absolutist monarchies is entirely fallacious. Unless the people choose their monarch, which means that he or she differs little from a dictator, then both authority and power are vested in the monarch, and therefore, the monarch acts in his or her own interest and any benefit to his or her subjects is residual.

@ Monarchist

1) You certainly have something in common with your fellow European paleo-conservative from Bretagne, i.e. an inability to read, inability to stay on subject, and a compulsive tendency to misrepresent other people's views.  You even do not hesitate to actually make things up, e.g. like claiming that I called you "the voice of Poland".  Note the quotation marks!  I defy you to find anywhere in the preceding postings to find a sentence where I called you as such.  However, I did write that you provide a further "indication etc..." (of converging values/attitudes of Poland and Brussels). And that was an opinion, not a fact. Talking about "honesty" on your part....!   You manifestly are incapable of separating facts from opinions. And, for your information, Armor is much better than you at writing logical (or meaningful) sentences in English, whether one agrees with his opinions or not.

2)  You are also incapable of making empirical observations. Otherwise you would not assert that I write "all the time about liberalism (in a European sense) and claim that this is democracy".   In fact, I rarely ever write about "liberalism in a European sense", and you are responding to a posting of mine in which I did the opposite of what you claim (i.e. I claimed that the EU is NOT a democracy).  In short, you are pretty much a 'hopeless case'.

3) Indeed, you have never explicitly declared support for "totalitarian rulers".   I cannot imagine anybody doing such a thing in the year 2009 on a 'western' website like The Brussels Journal.  That would be like declaring support for characters like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam etc... But, one can say with reasonable certainty that you (1) hate the institution of 'democracy' (without you understanding the term in any meaningful sense) and that you (2) advocate the authoritarian institution of "monarchy".  And this in the 21st century.  Unbelievable perhaps to 'normal' western people, but nevertheless true!

Finito.    

1. You cannot deny that neocon propaganda claim that terrorists want to destroy the US because this is democratic state. If Patriot Act is great example how democracy work then congratulation /sarcasm/. Soon Democrats will decide who is terrorist and who is not.

@ Monarchist

1) -- Your reference to the "Patriot Act" is silly.  It has nothing to do with "democrats" as such.   The Patriot Act is a specific law which was proposed by the US Executive and enacted by the duly-elected parliament of a democratic polity.  It is concerned with methods the Executive is allowed to use to protect the citizens from FOREIGN terrorists.  And it was further 'tested' in the courts, and revised by the Legislature, to ensure that there is nothing unconstitutional in the Act.  So, the Patriot Act is a perfect example of how a genuine democracy goes about dealing with unpleasant realities such as islamic terrorism, by ensuring that the division of powers (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) is respected and that they are properly acting in concert.

-- I agree that "collective judgements" can be wrong, but I maintain that opinions about 'collectives' are often necessary and just 'common sense'.  Thus, your attitude and that of Mr Griffon (in the sense of relying on Uncle Sam to preserve democracy and freedom in the world, and of indifference to the fates of democrats elsewhere) is a further INDICATION that Polish and British attitudes and values are converging with those of Brussels.  Of course, there are numerous other indications of the same phenomenon, and there are even indications that the US may be 'converging' in the same direction in the future.  Too bad for the world's democrats.    

2) "Representative democracy" is a fancy NAME. It does not equate with genuine "democracy", unless the culture and polity EFFECTIVELY respect freedom of political speech, and unless there is ACTUAL power alternation between different ideologies at regular intervals.  Without freedom of political speech there can be no genuine 'free' elections and no genuine 'representation'. And unless power alternates between different ideologies, politics becomes a matter of the game of 'musical chairs' between some individuals or cliques.  Democracy requires that it is the people who 'control' the government and who can change its nature or worldview, and not vice versa (like in Russia, China or the EU).

3) -- NO, democracy does not equate with "elections".  Every country in the world has 'elections' (or a charade of elections), that does not mean that its is free and democratic.

 -- Democracy does NOT even equate with "free elections". There are numerous countries which have had fairly-free elections ONE TIME, and charades of elections afterwards.  There can not be free elections unless the culture and polity EFFECTIVELY tolerates freedom of political speech, i.e. alternative worldviews must be able to be heard freely.

-- Au contraire, The French Revolution was NOT an example of "a democracy without elections", and democracy does not equate with tyranny of a (any) majority.  Democracy DOES require (regular) elections, but it must also require effective respect for basic INDIVIDUAL constitutional rights, of which habeas corpus and freedom of political speech are the most important ones.    

4) I certainly do not "hide" my true views. Rather the problem is that you cannot understand or tolerate nuanced views.  In that, you surely reflect a majority of people in the world, which is also why 'democracy' is so exceedingly rare in the world, and why it is never guaranteed to last across the generations anywhere.

5) It may well be that there are not many "honest people" in democratic polities. Honesty is a matter of morality (and thus culture), not of the political system as such.  But why you would (or even could!!) think that there are many honest people in autocratic and/or totalitarian polities truly boggles the mind....  
 

P.S. I hope that by now you have figured out that there is a difference between "polity" (or polities) and "policy" (or policies).  But I have my doubts, and I am not responsible for your 'education' or lack thereof. 

1. Of course democrats are 'threatened' everywhere thus some come up with Patriot Acts.

More and more the leftist media are using the term Zionist. For them there is a difference between Zionists and Jews living in Israel. Wikipedia defines Zionism as:
Zionism is an international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, "the Land of Israel"), and continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.
How can a Jew living in Israel not be a Zionist? Just by being there he/she supports the existance of the state of Israel. Zionist bashing is the political correct way of Jew bashing or antisemitism. Most of the world regards Hamas as terrorists. Nobody qualifies the Palestinian people as a terrorist people. Although Hamas and with them the Western media would like to qualify the Israeli Jews as terrorists, they know this is politically incorrect. They think by naming Israeli Jews 'Zionists' they pass the political correctness test. Is this the first step in declaring all Israeli Jews politically correct free game?

@ Monarchist

1) -- You think that there are no 'democrats' threathened in Lebanon today (nor in the world perhaps either)?  Amazing, how you can make such a statement. Are you living in a parallel world or something?

-- Oh, but I understand your point perfectly, about the eurocrats (and Mr Griffin etc...).  They wouldn't lift a finger (let alone send troops) to defend/assist threathened 'democrats' in Lebanon or anywhere else). It is you who did not understand my point which was, phrased differently, that - judging by your comments and Mr Griffin's - Polish values/attitudes  and Brussels values /attitudes are converging.  Neither of you care about democrats, and will always hide behind Uncle Sam when the chips are down.

2) I do not think that eurocrats care much about 'democrats'.  In words they (pretend to) do, not in their concrete actions.  Moreover, the EU is not a genuine democracy, so how could they "keep" it, if they haven't got it in the first place?  

3)  I do NOT oppose the existence of democratic governments ANYWHERE (so that must include your "above-mentioned" countries).  But, before you go off again in unnecessary diversions, let me inform you that there exists no genuine democracy today in Palestine and Iraq. However, they do have some kind of 'elections' which represent a modest improvement on the preceding tyrannies.  Democracy is NOT the same thing as 'elections'.    

4) NO, I did NOT say that I would only support democrats, nor did I say anywhere that "others" could not deserve any support.  Where do you get all these affirmations from?  You asked me a specific question about "Christians in Lebanon", and I have given you a nuanced answer.  But, you seem to be unable to read IN CONTEXT, and you make wild unsubstantiated deductions.

5) I now understand better what you meant by "democratic calculations".  I can only conclude that you are extremely cynical about ALL democratic-minded politicians, and seem to be extremely naive about authoritarian (monarchical) ones.

The 'unreliable' Melanie Philips uses the term "Eurabia" and Armor criticizes her for using it because it is "slightly disparaging of Europeans as well as Arabs". However, Armor accepts that Eurabia is a reality, blaming its creation on somethng he calls "Jewrabia". But Jewrabia is a comic fantasyland and here's the proof
http://www.newsgroper.com/george-w-bush/2008/05/15/jewrabia-fun-park-everyone
 
On the other hand the 'unreliable' Melanie P's Eurabia is a clear and ever growing reality.
 
So, it's Oy vey to you, Armor, 'cause I think you have some more explaining to do.
 
 
 

I would even agree with your comment. However most of the society consider representative democracy to be form of democracy. If you accept such view then you will find out that eurocrats although oppose direct democracy, completely support representative democracy.

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/jewrope.blogspot.com
 
And that's 'official'.

2. Funny how you compare me with eurocrats. Even if we ignore their and mine completely diffrent stances on many issues. How about the most important one? They are all for democracy, that I oppose. They profit from this system, unlike me who must deal with bureacracy.They will do everything to keep democracy, while I would not cry if democracy would disappear.

Actually, the Eurocrats don't value the will of the people, the people in a majority of EU countries did not get the chance to vote on the proposed EU constitution. If I remember correctly, the EU wants to force a revote on the EU constitution since the Irish rejected it.

Also, mass immigration is the biggest swindle, just ahead of the global warming scam.

1. Democrats of course care about fate of other democrats if threat is really serious. This is not the case! If they would think that the US cannot handle situation then they would send some troops for sure. However when they know that Obama already have 'proper' advisor they concentrate on local issues. they are aware that they cannot win votes out of this mission, just opposite. This perspective determine their choice. What is so hard to understand?

Is Melanie Phillips a reliable source? No !
I think what made Eurabia possible in the first place is Jewrope.

PS: isn't Melanie Phillips' use of a word like "Eurabia" slightly disparaging of Europeans as well as Arabs?

@ Monarchist

1) If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the world's democrats should not concern themselves with the fates of democrats elsewhere in the world, because there is always Uncle Sam to take care of things.  Two comments:

-- First, you got the 'right' (note the inverted commas!) attitude to fit very well into the current culture of the EU.  Poland and Brussels are obviously 'converging' culturally.

--   Second, you may be naive as far as Uncle Sam is concerned.  But, only the future will confirm it.

2) Please, make an effort to read more carefully, so that you understand what is in front of you and so that you can avoid wasting time and effort on irrelevant sneering.  I did NOT "push democracy in the Middle East".  You asked me a question about the Christians of Lebanon (still a sizable minority concentrated north of Beirout in Maronite-land) , and I have given you a nuanced answer.  Obviously, the nuances have escaped your attention.  Your commentary about Palestine and Iraq is irrelevant to your question, and to my answer.

In future, try tro be more serious if you want to receive serious responses to your posted questions.

P.S. I have no idea what you mean by "democratic calculations".  And I doubt that you do either.

Millar: Melanie Phillips reported a few days ago that Hamas supporters demonstrating in London have acted threateningly and violently, intimidating, and in some cases assaulting, Jews or anyone showing support for Israel. She cites several eye-witness accounts, including one that describes a Hamas supporter who “spat at a young Jewish boy,” and another by an Orthodox Jewish man who recalls Hamas supporters spitting at him and shouting “‘death to the Jews’ and  ‘Hamas should finish where Hitler left off.’” He also describes being “[…] set upon by two Asian youths (one wearing a keffiya and one wearing a badge with the Palestinian flag on his jacket) who punched me in the head, threw me to the ground and continued to kick and punch me in the head and other parts of my body […]”
 
I have little confidence in Ms. Phillips' "reporting". Earlier she claimed that a film making the rounds depicted Hamas massacring a wedding party in Gaza for singing and dancing was real. Fortunately for those involved, there was no massacre, and Hamas was crashing a wedding in order to detain several Fatah members, when Hamas had already "banned fireworks, celebratory gunfire and overly nosiy gatherings" due to tensions with Fatah. Believe it, Melanie? No.

1. Griffin know very well that Jewish lobby in the US will help Israel when necessary. Thus why would he waste money of British taxpayers, risk troops to send them for unpopular mission? So, his comment is very wise, everything according to democratic calculations.

When CNN did a report on anger toward Israel in the streets of the Arab-Muslim world--the footage they used was that from a rally in London.

And with crap like this going on in London who can blame them?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/01/14/london_demonstrators_against_israel_depict_the_jew_eating_dead_babies

This doesn't seem to bother anyone there much, in fact, it seems to be tacitly encouraged by leftist publications like the Guardian.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/14/video-israeli-tv-goofs-on-bbcs-gaza-bias/
 

Rally around the flag.
 
http://207.228.243.82/static/chickenhead.jpg
 

@ Monarchist

1) Mr Griffin is saying  - in the same breath - that the survival of Israel is a "national interest" of Britain, but that he would oppose "any move to entangle Britain in a war on behalf of Israel.  That is either (a) wanting your cake and eat it too, or (b) as a minimum it reflects a cavalier attitude vis-a-vis the "national interest".   The key word here is "entangle".  What does that mean?  One certainly ought to be prepared to make efforts, sacrifice, take risks....on behalf of the national interest!  Who else, but Britain, does he think should take risks on behalf of the British national interest?   

2)  I would certainly NOT be prepared to send troops to restore "Christian rule" in Lebanon.  But, I would be prepared to HELP and SUPPORT democratic forces in Lebanon (which would be largely - but not solely - 'Christian forces') in their efforts to preserve basic democratic features of their political system.  In practice, this would only likely happen if such forces would move to a regional break-up of the country when the central state could no longer guarantee the preservation of basic constitutional provisions of the democratic state. 

Whether 'my' assistance would take the form of "troops" would depend on many factors (especially on what was happening in Lebanon itself), which I can not foresee with certainty.  So your question is too hypothetical.  It would also depend on 'limitations' imposed by my own democratic polity, particularly parliament.   But, I would not  send "troops" to defend people who were not willing to fight for their own freedom and democracy. 

Would you be willing to send troops to Lebanon to restore Christian rule in this state? 

The statement by BNP Chairman Griffin strikes me as a perfect example of wishful thinking and of a short-sighted head-in-the-sand attitude. 

If the world's democrats are not willing to support each other when one of them is threatened by islamists or by other totalitarians, they should not be surprised that they will be 'picked off' one by one over time.