Interdisciplinary Symposium on Monarchy in September

[Haiduk]

From 26th to 28th of September 2008 there will be in Laufen a symposium with a rich program of scientific lectures, including presentations from Prof. Dr. Reinhard Heydenreuter and Prof. Dr. Karl Freiherr von Aretin and a plenary discussion. This announcement provides information about the symposium along with a call for submission of publications.

Laufen an der Salzach: (MPA) The first Monarchy Forum organized by the German Monarchist Society will be held from 26 through 28 September 2008 in Laufen in Bavaria. The purpose of this conference is to set new courses that promote the interdisciplinary discourse among political sciences, jurisprudence, and historical sciences.

Rich Lectures Program

The symposium begins on Friday evening with a welcome speech by the first governing mayor of Laufen, Mr. Hans Feil. Professor Dr. Karl Otmar Freiherr von Aretin follows immediately with a lecture on the “shipwreck of the Weimar Republic, resistance from 1932-33 in the Bavarian monarchist movement against the NS-regime, and the 1950-52 efforts towards the reintroduction of monarchy.” Dr. Freiherr von Aretin has lectured for many years at the Technical University of Darmstadt in the faculty for social and historical sciences. Dr. Freiherr von Aretin is also the former director of the Institute for European History.

On Saturday morning, Dr. Götz Freiherr von Boyneburg-Lengsfeld-Dornkasch will provide some future insight with his topic “relevance of inherited values for the 21st century.” After lunch, the distinguished jurisprudent and historican Prof. Dr. Reinhard Heydenreuter will talk about the legal status of the nobility after the year 1918.

Plenary Debate and Forecast for the Monarchy Forum 2009

On Sunday before lunch, there will be an opportunity for all participants to discuss and debate before the forum officially closes. Because there will probably be questions that remain unanswered, this debate will likely provide some suggestions for topics for the second Monarchy Forum in 2009.

Call for papers for the MOFO ‘08

As a complement to the lecture program, participants will also have access to scientific papers. For that reason the Monarchy Forum calls also for the submission of related works. Works will be considered only if they meet scientific standards and were sent in by the author(s) themselves. Paper submission closing date is September 5, 2008, at 6pm (CET).

Monarchy Forum Contact

For participant inquiries, for inquiries from the press, or to submit a paper, contact monarchieforum2008[at]googlemail[dot]com.

Source: http://kaisertreu.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/interdisciplinary-symposium-on-monarchy-in-september/

[Ulli]

Intresting, but I have no time. 

[Zelhar]

Are they trying to bring back the Hohenzollerns ?

[underthesun]

Are they trying to bring back the Hohenzollerns ?

Yes they are.

http://www.kaisertreue-jugend.org/frame.html

[Ulli]

Is this Symposion not about the issue of Monarchy in general?

I know some Monarchists near my former home town. They are in favour of the Guelphs and have there a great monument, where they meet. I know a group from Bavaria, that is in favour of another dynasty. Also the Habsburg-monarchists are well known.

[Haiduk]

Are they trying to bring back the Hohenzollerns ?

Our focus in Bavaria is actually on the Wittelsbach dynasty, but at the level of nation Hohenzollern is undisputed amongst almost all monarchists

From my IMC (International Monarchist Conference) contact in France I know their situation is quite different, because France has historically not the federal strucutre as Germany has.

[Haiduk]

Is this Symposion not about the issue of Monarchy in general?

Yes and no. The speeches are on monarchist activities during the republican NS-regime, on the legal state of the nobility and on the meaning of inherited values in 21st century. None of these speeches will actually promote monarchy, but the connection still is obvious. The first one is probably the most important, since it brings a new view into the never-ending history debate in Germany and Freiherr von Aretin is one of the most respectable historican 

[mord]

I like benevolent monarchies but would'nt problems arise in Germany ?The Bavarians would want their Monarchy the Saxony their Monarchy would'nt it cause some problems?

[Haiduk]

I like benevolent monarchies but would'nt problems arise in Germany ?The Bavarians would want their Monarchy the Saxony their Monarchy would'nt it cause some problems?

Well, I would rather argue that problems would arise, if there were only one single monarchy in Germany. It could be I'm too much influenced by historical situation here, but Germany always had a federal structure. Only exception was the period of 1933-45 where everything was under the rule of one single person. Though this person is not comparable with a monarch, since the NS-regime still was a repubic, but people here are very suspicious if someone argues against the federalism.

Thus the only problem that could arise from regional monarchies is the role of the nation-wide monarch. In the past his title was "Kaiser" which leans against "Cesar" and thus can be seen as a reference on Germany being the successor of the Roman Empire. Actually in a sense this reference is even justified, but conservative Russians see their state also as successor of the Roman Empire. For that reason it is truly wise to deliberately understate the role of the german monarch/kaiser/king!

[Zelhar]

Why do you need these monarchs anyway, what good would they bring?

[Ulli]

Why do you need these monarchs anyway, what good would they bring?

One point is that a real free market economy is not possible in a democracy.

In a democracy are everytime agitators who promise the people to steal money from the working people and give it to the lazy in exchange for votes.

In my oppinion Hitler was no exception of the rule. He murdered and robbed the Jews and gave the businesses, real estate and money to his followers.

In ancient Greece, in ancient Rome and in the last two hundred years - in every democracy you have this phenomenon. This two civilisations became through this weaker and weaker. In Rom i.e. you have in the late time only lazy welfare people who were greedy towards bread and games. The minority of hard working people were taxed to death.

I think we need to "end history", through ending politics as we know them. We need a new constitution with fundamental rights of the citizens and a limited democracy, where only people which pay taxes can vote and are able to be elected. This ideal state has in my oppinion only limited functions, like law and order, defense, traffic network (waterway, railway and road), perhaps an elementary school system  but no welfare, public health, universities etc.

You need an institution abouve this limeted democracy to garantee the rights of the citizens and to make the free market economy work.

This can be in my oppinion a king or some sort of council. This institution needs an own army, police and intelligence service to enforce the constitution in it's whole scope.

You can controll this executive by some sort of senat.

P.S.: This is only my personal oppinion - This is perhaps not the oppinion of the vast majority of monarchist movement.

[Zelhar]

P.S.: This is only my personal oppinion - This is perhaps not the oppinion of the vast majority of monarchist movement.

Yes I reckon not, they simply try to reinstate the monarch as a figurehead, like the Queen of Holland.

I think your idea of limited democracy is very flawed. Great nations must have Fraternity, Equality and Liberty (At list the French revolutionaries had the right slogan if not the intention). Without fraternity the society becomes too cruel to weak and unfortunate persons, it lacks moral and compassion and its citizens become too selfish. That is why the government has to make sure that proper health care and education is provided to the citizens.

In Ancient Athene 10% were citizens and perhaps 50% were slaves, so this is not a real democracy. The late Imperial Rome (the western half) was basically plundered by the legions- the legions controlled it by their might and the law was disregarded.

I think that Democracy is the best government possible. The next to best is an authoritarian regime like the one in Singapore.  However if all the great nations in the world became like Singapore the result would be stagnation.

I think that the most important ingredient is to have some sort of homogeneity, or at list national unity. I think that basically any model would fail if a great portion of the population comprises a hostile parasitic element. There is no way around this root problem, it must be approached directly.

[Ulli]

I am in favour of liberty and equality, but not so much of fraternity.

Fraternity is imo something you grant only special people.

For you as a Jew is it much easier, because your peoples are at the same time members of your religion and you live in the Jewish state. This would be the same if I would live in Genf of the 16th century

For me as a Calvinist Christian is there nothing like society. There is only the church-community and perhaps outside today a few brothers in faith and some friends, but then is there beneath this only the gouvernmental-authority. The less the gouvernment is acting on social, educational and society issues, the more free I am in business and religion.

The greatest danger I personally see is too much fraternity.

I don't meant with my Athen example the slaves, but the poor people (free citizens) who became there like in Rome more and more powerfull because of their votes.

The most successfull agitators during all times became Tyrants who brought great suffering and war over the people.

Example for Athen: Peisistratos
Example for Rome: Julius Caesar
Example for France: Napoleon
Example for Russia: Lenin

And homogenity is no guarantee for a prosperous state, because look to Sweden.

In the second half of the 20th century it was the most evil socialist welfare state in Europe and there lived until 1990 nearly no foreigner in it.

Then smelled the Muzzies the welfare and like the rodent to the cheese ...

But it is the same all over Europe. Socialism is assisting evil. Without this free healthcare, free education and welfare systems we would not have the Muzzie problem.

[Zelhar]

The Agitators are evil people who exploit democracy in order to take over, and then they destroy it. So the state has to be strong enough to resist such a thing. It is interesting that homogeneity is not a guaranty against agitators as the case that you brought up. However the common theme in all these societies was social instability and class wars. There was no fraternity between people of different classes. Also in the case of Wiemar Republic it was a very unstable and weak state and not a real democracy albeit it was ultra liberal and degenerate so Hitler and the Nazis had the perfect  habitat to germinate.

I think that Sweden, excluding the Muslim immigrants, is a very good model for a state. They have a prosperous society which long term economical growth and very good services to all citizens. Of course the Swedish model is going to collapse because of the growing parasitic elements in Sweden- the Muslim immigrants. They are not Swedes, they came there to suck the bone marrow of the hard working people and when they are done with them they would turn Sweden into yet another sharia hell whole. There is no fraternity between ethnic Swedes and Muslims parasites.

As a Jew fraternity with my fellow Jews is ingrained in me, it is not optional, this is part of being Jew- the mutual guaranty, the love for Israel. However I think fraternity is required from any nation. Because it provides the national unity that is required for example- when the need rise for the citizens to bear arms and fight for the defense of their nation.

[Ulli]

The Agitators are evil people who exploit democracy in order to take over, and then they destroy it. So the state has to be strong enough to resist such a thing. It is interesting that homogeneity is not a guaranty against agitators as the case that you brought up. However the common theme in all these societies was social instability and class wars. There was no fraternity between people of different classes. Also in the case of Wiemar Republic it was a very unstable and weak state and not a real democracy albeit it was ultra liberal and degenerate so Hitler and the Nazis had the perfect  habitat to germinate.

I think that Sweden, excluding the Muslim immigrants, is a very good model for a state. They have a prosperous society which long term economical growth and very good services to all citizens. Of course the Swedish model is going to collapse because of the growing parasitic elements in Sweden- the Muslim immigrants. They are not Swedes, they came there to suck the bone marrow of the hard working people and when they are done with them they would turn Sweden into yet another sharia hell whole. There is no fraternity between ethnic Swedes and Muslims parasites.

As a Jew fraternity with my fellow Jews is ingrained in me, it is not optional, this is part of being Jew- the mutual guaranty, the love for Israel. However I think fraternity is required from any nation. Because it provides the national unity that is required for example- when the need rise for the citizens to bear arms and fight for the defense of their nation.

I have learned a new word: ingrain 

and I feel you: It is a pleasure to be a Jew

But with the exception of Israel because of the special constellation of people and religion where I agree with you of community = society,

I can only agree to differ with you on my state. 

If I would be in charge I would implement a combination of law & order and the purest form of Manchester Capitalism. This will bring the lazybones in motion and the Muslimes will be looking for another pasture to graze. 

I think too the hard work will restore moral and family values again and will bring selfrespect to the people again. 

[Haiduk]

Why do you need these monarchs anyway, what good would they bring?

It is the best way to stand up against leftist autocracy without falling into extremism.

"All Staates which had in the past or will have governance over men,
are either republics or monarchies." (Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469-1527)