Category Archives: Politics

Exclusive Interview With Joshua S.A. Solomon, Royalist Party USA

RPUSA: Before I begin, I would like to thank the American Third Party Report [ATPR] for contacting the Royalist Party, USA [RPSUA] to request an interview. Overcoming political invisibility is difficult for American “third parties,” and the RPUSA certainly appreciates the opportunity to promote our altogether unique platform!

ATPR:  Our pleasure Mr. Solomon.  The main goal of the royalist party is to re-establish the Queen of England as the head of state in the United States. Why?

RPUSA: The Royalist Party, USA recognizes that the Crown is our rightful authority, that Queen Elizabeth II has a just claim to the throne of the United States, and that the House of Winsor holds the moral and legal right to reign in Columbia as in Britannia; we seek a return to royal government because the Revolution was illegitimate, and the disestablishment of the monarchy was a grave mistake. As the eminent apologist C. S. Lewis declared in his instant classic, Mere Christianity (I. 5.):

“…as to putting the clock back. Would you think I was joking if I said that you can put a clock back, and that if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible thing to do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea of clocks. We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We have all seen this when doing arithmetic. When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start over again, the faster I shall get on. There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.”

We are on the wrong road. Let us progress. Let us turn back.
ATPR: Why are you royalists and how active is the party in the political process?

RPUSA: The are as many reasons to be a royalist as there are royalists, but If I may echo another great man (G. K. Chesterton) I would say that “[t]he difficulty of explaining ‘why I am a [royalist]’ is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason”: Royalism is right! “I could fill all my space with separate sentences each beginning with the words, ‘It is the only thing that…’ As, for instance”: (1) It is the only thing that guarantees representation for all people rather than a political party, advocacy group, or the electorate. (2) It is the only thing that prevents ochlocracy, demagoguery, and populist politics. (3) It is the only thing that respects genuine social continuity; it precludes sudden, dramatic, and disruptive political change harmful to the organism of society. (4) It is the only thing that provides a living reference point and advocate for the tradition and culture, the identity, of a people. (5) It is the only thing that satisfies man’s natural desire for hierarchy; in the words (once more) of C. S. Lewis: “[w]here men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”

With respect to the participation of the RPUSA in the political process, it must be admitted that the party is presently more focused on building our membership and articulating who we are than nominating or endorsing a candidate for political office (although the party is working toward establishing chapters in key states such as Pennsylvania, Texas, and Florida). We are, of course, interested in achieving our very lofty goals (without attempting to immanentize the eschaton), but we are not a parody or frivolity party; we are building a serious and lasting movement, not capitalizing on present fears or promising simple solutions. It is in our nature as royalists to be prudent. Societies, like individuals, are complex, and frighteningly delicate (the remedy for our ills, therefore, must be applied carefully and slowly). Our goal is counter-revolutionary; our strategy must be also.
ATPR: You recognize, as many others do, that Christianity is the fundamental basis for our laws and way of life basically here in the US. To what en does that affect government under a Royalist Party President?

RPUSA: When asked why Christianity has such a prominent place in the RPUSA platform, the leadership of the party answered: “We believe that God is the creator of heaven and earth, and that Jesus Christ is his only begotten Son. As such, God is the author of all sound government and deserves public worship. We look to Christ and his Church for wisdom, blessing, and strength in all matters personal and political…” The answer to the question here posed, then, is this: Under the RPUSA, Christianity would inform all matters related to the government of nations as deliberately as it directs our actions as persons. Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei (21.-22.) on “the Christian Constitution of States,” aptly describes our vision for the United States, by describing Christendom as it once was:

“There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favour of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies… A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which No of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: ‘When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay.'”

The RPUSA would also support the formalization of that conviction, as expressed in the question as posed, “Christianity is the fundamental basis for our laws and way of life,” by way of a “Christian amendment,” such as that outlined in the National Reform Association’s memorial to Congress on January 27, 1864:

“We, citizens of the United States, respectfully ask your honorable bodies to adopt measures for amending the Constitution of the United States, so as to read, in substance, as follows:

‘We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the inalienable rights and the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves, our posterity, and all the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'”

ATPR: Please explain to our readers what Distributism is, why it is good for people and the economy and how the Royalist Party USA might institute such a system here?

RPUSA: The RPUSA FAQ defines Distributism as follows:

“Distributism an economic system based on Catholic social principles principally enunciated in the enycylicals of the Popes and the writings of G.K. Chesterton and his colleagues [primarily, Hilaire Belloc]. This philosophy is based on the principles of moral imperatives guiding civic life and the broad distribution of the means of production among the people. Distributism advocates advocates [sic] small business, solidarity of workers, agrarianism, and faith.”

Essentially, Distributism is a system in which the proper implications of the right to private property are fully realized: Man may earn his living with reliance on the land, capital, and labor which are his own; G. K. Chesterton’s “three acres and a cow” (as opposed to “forty acres and a mule”). Pope Leo XIII made this point emphatically in his landmark encyclical Rerum Novarum (47.), which is generally regarded as the impetus for the Distributist movement: “Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them.”

The factors of production might also be administered by a cooperation of men who own the resources requisite for large scale operations in common. Another key element of Distributism, however, is the principle of subsidiarity (meaning such co-ownership is justified only when necessary) as outlined by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno (79.):

“As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.”

As to how such a system might be instituted, especially in the United States, answers would vary by distributist. Ultimately, Distributism cannot be imposed, it must be embraced, like the religion that inspired it. Commercial law would obviously look very different under a RPUSA government, which would attempt to foster a distributist economy, but the specifics could certainly be profitably debated.
ATPR: Is the Royalist Party in favor of the British monarchy as it stands now and would you oppose it if it ever again became an absolute monarchy?

RPUSA: The RPUSA strongly supports the British Monarchy “as it stands now”, and would oppose any attempt to curtail the powers and prerogatives possessed by the Crown (along with similar attempts aimed at enfeebling the House of Lords).

As for the restitution of what has been lost by the Monarchy, the membership would likely be divided as to the prudence, practicability, and propriety of royal absolutism; the RPUSA does not have an official position on absolute monarchy.

Personally, I would not oppose the British Monarchy in any form; but I would most prefer a Medieval model, distinct from the modern dichotomy (“absolute” vs. “constitutional”) which, I would argue, is a product of Enlightenment liberalism.
ATPR: I think most people believe monarchy in the world to be dead and what is left are but shells of their former selves. You would disagree, tell us why..

RPUSA: It is no secret that Monarchy has been in decline, both in potency and presence, since the Age of Revolution (1789–1848). Of the crowned heads that remained, many were severed following the upheavals of the twentieth century. Our few remaining monarchies are, in many ways, miraculous! We would not disagree with the suggestion that contemporary monarchy, as an institution, has been marred by the aforementioned historical reality, but we would argue that what remains should be recognized and celebrated.

Most people would be surprised by the influence exercised by the world’s monarchies, these so-called “shells of their former selves.” The British Monarch, specifically, has a host of political powers including, but not limited to: the power to grant Royal Pardon and Assent, appoint/remove ministers, summon/suspend parliament, declare war, command the armed forces (and commission officers therein), create peers, and control passports!
ATPR: Has the rise in Europe of the far-right given any monarchist movements over there a boost? and have you guys are any other monarchist organizations here seen a boost as well?

RPUSA: The “rise of the far-right” is a predictable and understandable reaction against the prevailing modernism and liberalism in Europe. Unfortunately, what we have discovered is that monarchist organizations are in competition with other “rightist” political movements, both here and abroad, owing to our shared criticisms of the status quo; we have not seen a boost. The frustration that gave rise to the far-right, however, has provided royalists with the same opportunity for growth; the challenge is to propose a more attractive solution than that of the Alliance of European National Movements.
ATPR: Under a Royalist Party Government, would titles of nobility exist? and who do you think in the United States would be worthy to be called ‘noble’?

RPUSA: Yes, titles of nobility would exist under a Royalist Party Government; the “Title of Nobility Clause” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution) would be repealed. Rather than selecting particular persons (which is the Queen’s purview), the RPUSA would supply the criteria which could determine who “in the United States [if indeed anyone] would be worthy to be called ‘noble’.” For example, American nobility should possess the qualities of The Right Honourable Edmund Burke’s “natural aristocrat” as found in “An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs:”

“To be bred in a place of estimation; to see nothing low and sordid from one’s infancy; to be taught to respect one’s self; to be habituated to the censorial inspection of the public eye; to look early to public opinion; to stand upon such elevated ground as to be enabled to take a large view of the widespread and infinitely diversified combinations of men and affairs in a large society; to have leisure to read, to reflect, to converse; to be enabled to draw and court the attention of the wise and learned, wherever they are to be found; to be habituated in armies to command and to obey; to be taught to despise danger in the pursuit of honour and duty; to be formed to the greatest degree of vigilance, foresight, and circumspection, in a state of things in which no fault is committed with impunity and the slightest mistakes draw on the most ruinous consequences; to be led to a guarded and regulated conduct, from a sense that you are considered as an instructor of your fellow-citizens in their highest concerns, and that you act as a reconciler between God and man; to be employed as an administrator of law and justice, and to be thereby amongst the first benefactors to mankind; to be a professor of high science, or of liberal and ingenious art; to be amongst rich traders, who from their success are presumed to have sharp and vigorous understandings, and to possess the virtues of diligence, order, constancy, and regularity, and to have cultivated an habitual regard to communative justice: these are the circumstances of men that form what I should call a natural aristocracy…”
ATPR: Personally, who is your favorite monarch and why? (Any monarchy)

RPUSA: Blessed Charles I of Austria and IV of Hungary is my favorite monarch, for manifold reasons:
He combated corruption and usury, outlawed obscene publications and supported the Catholic press, and cited the name of God in all acts of government; during his exile, he was approached by Freemasons who offered their support for his cause, if he would accept the liberalization of the school system and marriage law, he responded, “What I have received from God I cannot accept from the devil’s hands.”
He understood the sacramental character and purpose of his marriage to Zita of Bourbon-Parma, saying, the day after their wedding, “Now, we must help each other to get to Heaven” (he also had the following inscribed on his wedding band: “Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix,” that is, “We take refuge under your protection, O Holy Mother of God”); although he died at only 34 the couple had 8 children, including the recently deceased Otto von Habsburg (who was himself an exemplary monarch).
He was habitually charitable; when his household coffers were emptied he is recorded to have said to the aide whose responsibility it was to distribute royal alms, “The need is so great, find the money from somewhere else and distribute that.”
He, alone among the heads of the belligerent nations, supported the peace proposal of Pope Benedict XV, writing to the pontiff, “…our government has not stopped repeating our continual call for peace—a call heard by the entire world—expressing the desire and agreement of the people of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy to put an end to the bloodshed according to the peace plan that Your Holiness has before you.”
He frequently visited the front, observing the horrors of war firsthand and offering material and moral support to his men; he so often appeared unexpectedly that he was nicknamed “Karl-the-Sudden.”
He rightly perceived of kingship as a vocation and therefore refused to abdicate amidst unrest, declaring, “My crown is a sacred trust given to me by God. I can never forsake that trust or my people;” he instead “relinquish[ed] every participation in the administration of the State” (following Austria’s defeat in the Great War), and accepted exile (following his failed attempts to regain the Holy Crown of Hungary).
He died with the name of the King of Kings on his lips, recognizing His will as supreme, praying, “Thy Holy Will be done. Jesus, Jesus, come! Yes—yes. My Jesus, as You will it—Jesus.”
(N.B. Dear Reader: Please consider praying for the canonization of Blessed Charles, and visiting the website dedicated to his cause: emperorcharles.org)
ATPR: Give me 5 reasons why a monarchy is better than a democracy, go.

RPUSA: As I’ve already argued for the unique superiority of monarchy above, I’ll conclude with five quotations, each underlining that contention:
“Hierarchies are celestial. In hell all are equal.” — Nicolás Gómez Dávila
“Don’t forget that in the history of the world, there was a plebiscite, in which Christ and Barabbas were being judged, and the people chose Barabbas.” — Augusto Pinochet
“In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it.” — Konstantin Pobedonostsev
“I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny and oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster’s grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt.” — Horatio Nelson
“The president of a republic is as though you pick a player from one of two teams and make him umpire.” — Simeon II of Bulgaria

ATPR: How can people join the Royalist Party USA? How can they be apart of your movement and help it grow?

RPUSA: For updates on our progress, and further information on the party, please visit us at our website, royalistpartyusa.wix.com/-royalist-party-usa, and join us on social media at facebook.com/RoyalistPartyUSA! Our National Executive Committee will be happy to respond to any inquiries via Facebook message. As we progress through the legal channels we will update our audience as to how to become an official member. There are any number of ways to volunteer at this stage!   God save the Queen!

HEDGES TO TAKE PART IN AIP PRIMARY

Prohibition Party nominee, James “Jim” Hedges is among those listed on the June 7 American Independent Party Presidential primary ballot in California. This marks the first time a Prohibition Presidential nominee has appeared on any statewide ballot in California since 1960.

The inclusion of Hedges on the AIP primary ballot is just another sign of the increased activity of the Prohibition Party during this election cycle.

Hedges expects an uphill fight in his bid to win the primary. However, he promises to campaign vigorously in the Golden State and is confident of a strong showing.

Alex Jones and Donald Trump compliment each other, Roger Stone

WTF @ IPR:

politico:

During the interview both Jones and Trump were very complimentary of each other and Roger Stone, Trump’s former top adviser who is still a vocal supporter of the billionaire. Continue reading

Tom Knapp: ‘I Have to Admit, Donald Trump is Making Me Re-Think the Whole “Deportation” Issue’

Via Wang Tang-Fu at IPR:

Thomas L. Knapp writes at Kn@ppster:

I have to admit, Donald Trump is making me re-think the whole “deportation” issue. Continue reading

To Be A Nation Once Again: My support for Scottish Independence

It will be this Thursday coming up in the proud (and perhaps soon-to-be country) of Scotland, that a simple plebiscite two sentences long and containing a mere ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ box for these two choices -that might have the incredible and deeply immense possibility of rocking Europe, America, and even the whole world to the point of upsetting long-standing hierarchies and status-quos that have been in place and governed regions, institutions, alliances, and even general free enterprise for so long that they have chronically transpired into corrupt, decayed inhibitors and suppressors of individual liberty and even national freedom.

The Scottish referendum on independence, in accurate portrayal, is a noble, democratic effort by it’s people and their elected legislators to achieve a legitimate, sovereign status among the world of long-standing nations and be able to govern it’s own affairs, make it’s own laws, and enter into treaties and agreements of it’s choosing. Moreover, it is more so an attempt by a proud, vigilant, and industrious people that were bribed and deceived into a multinational union, then conquered and subjected when attempting to break from this forced union years afterward until such punishment made them conform and afterward go along with the mother nation of this union in her many adventures, conquests, and attempts to expand and strengthen it into a global empire, regardless of the internal and colonial atrocities that this particular empire and her military committed at times in it’s global quest -to finally achieve the right and privilege to be free and sovereign in leaving this union on her own, and be regarded among the long-standing and free nations out there as an equal.

Yet despite the circumstances of the past, and in regardless of the past actions of other nations that attempted to leave this union and her empire, only to either fail to do so, or have done so through the cost of sweat, blood, and war– these people, these Scottish folk, do it in a peaceful, courteous manner in turning the other cheek to the wrongs and grievances committed against them in the past, and in exercising their own declaration of independence first through dialogue and peaceful negotiation with the powers and institutions of this union and that government primarily dominated by that of the union’s mother nation, England, and at last through the ballot box -is something to envy and marvel at, especially among such former colonies of the British Empire like that of the United States and Ireland, which long ago, had to fight in order to finally get the British Empire to grant them their independence (sometimes repeatedly), through the blood of their countrymen, and in seeing their homes and cities destroyed by the once mighty armies of Britain’s empire.

This author knows much about this, since not only is he well researched in history, but his own ancestors endured much, and fought against this empire too; future generation after another does not always diminish in memory, and history. Granted, this author may also not adhere to, or agree with the political ideology that makes up the beliefs and opinions of the Scottish people, or of their main political parties within their parliament, But, as many supportive Americans like me agree on- that national sovereignty and identity always come first before political ideology, that such nations and peoples should and must have the right to govern and run their own affairs how they and their people see fit. In this author’s opinion (and breaking with many of the philosophical views of renowned scholars and intellectuals); the human race itself is perpetually too sophisticated, diverse, and complex to ever be homogeneous and uniform in international society, culture, belief, and likewise in government. Yet in the past and present, many groups, nations, empires, and radical ideologies tied in, or not, with imperialism- tried, and still try to fight against this fact of common sense; especially in regards to the distorted, vain, and fear-inducing campaign undertaken by many businesses and institutions of the British union in regard to this healthy and justifiable vote for independence of the Scottish nation and it’s people, whom are not so easy to hoodwink as they used to be, and are even quite prone to call out those that do attempt to do, or continue to do so to them.

Yet sadly, such vain institutions even have government, business, and media allies among other nations, including here, which droll out the same distortions and vain attempts to protect those institutions and status-quos that feed and give them power and privilege, since they champion profit and luxury over national identity and memory of what the same forces had done to the American nation and/or even their ancestors many generations ago, yet now are the willing lap dogs in attempted manipulation of a people yearning to regain a lost standing they once had centuries ago in the civilized world. But then again, such businessmen, commentators, celebrities, and others instead care more about petty possession, artificial benefits, and in keeping arcane, futile traditions then they do for liberation and freedom.

However, even before this referendum- this empire, as with others of the ancient and even recent past, has been crumbling and withering away from time, political, and social decay, especially with Scotland and other regions and nations still attempting to remove such shackles of imperialism and foreign (English) interference within their own affairs. Likewise with Europe in general too, are they starting to fail against the changing times, attitudes, and situations relating to economics and ideology, as those utopian dreams and visions imagined by past and aging world and national leaders from before are proving to be what few saw them to be from the beginning; delusions and false assumptions of a more optimistic, complacent, and unified world that never existed, nor could it.

The country of Alba deserves, and should, be a nation again, with a better future, newer opportunities, and newly democratic notions of a sense of self-determination and distinct governance that it once had long ago, which granted must still follow the same practical footsteps that the Republic of Ireland took after securing it’s own independence in 1921 in maintaining the British monarch as their nation’s Head of State; being part of the understandable, acceptable compromise that Scottish patriots had to make in order to be able to vote in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that their ancestors repeatedly fought so hard for.

Yes besides Scotland, more and more people and areas of the globe are waking up and have had enough of the old orders and powers that have governed or influenced them from before. In this time of history, as it was after the end of both world wars, a new era is coming about on the international stage, and while this arriving change and the new balance that will come with it is paradoxical in outlook and possible conclusion- it is of the good and constructive side of this outcome, however, that the idea of Scotland being elevated to that of a legitimate nation and a sovereign state, should be welcomed to come to pass. After all, the part that the Scottish people, culture, and industry have had on the international community, especially in my country- should be a undisputed reminder that not only can an independent Scotland do well on it’s own, but will even prosper and flourish as well; that is something indeed that the supporters of Britain and their regional, international allies are well aware of and are doing their best right now to play down or even cover it up among the Scottish voters, especially in the false, spurious promise that is “devolution”.

This referendum goes beyond the SNP, the Labour, and the Tory parties, it is beyond the politics of Left and Right, and even beyond politics and religion itself; it is about Scotland, and about freedom, which is more then a word or even the theme of a movie; it is an idea that has caused necessary upheaval and brought about an end to oligarchic rule and notion; it has sparked individuals and diminished nations to get off their knees and onto their feet, to break the shackles that held them down and turn away from the newspeak that once pacified and inhibited them to think for themselves. Freedom inspires and instills individual, as well as national identity.

Scottish men and women (especially young adults), it is time to act on freedom this Thursday; it is time to to vote Aye, and be a free nation, once again.

Ballot Access News: Congressional Bill to Mandate Top-Two Primary System for All U.S. House Elections

(The following was originally published in Ballot Access News.)

Congressman John K. Delaney (D-Maryland) has introduced HR 5334, to require all elections for U.S. House to use the top-two system. The bill also mandates that election day in November would be a federal holiday, but the bill does not require primary voting day in each state to be a holiday, nor does the bill set up a national primary day.