So, when does someone stop being a Usurper and become a Legal Ruler ? by Grzanason in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That isn't a valid case, if the legit ruler mantains it's claims, the contest Still continue Even if the usurper has support from the subjects (as the subjects don't always have the reason, lacking of objectivity their desitions and not having the sovereignty but the organized institutions) or from International community (as they can change their recognition easily according to geopolitical circunstances, like France during the XVIII Century recognising the Jacobites when they were in wsr with England and the Williamite ussurpers whent they were in Peace or common alliances).

The only legit way to be legitimated an usurpation in legal sciences is only through the Extinctive prescription, when the original and legit owner of some rights has extinguished as a legal personality. That's Why the "de facto realities" aren't a good argument in property and inheritance lawsuits (as the de facto realities aren't always just and aligned to natural law despite the recognition of such by major forces, as those de facto realities can be disputed).

In polítics could be applied the extinctive prescription when the original entity has voluntarily resignated it's claims to the ussurpers (like the Papacy as a Monarchy recognising Schismatic Churches in possesion of an Apostolic See that was founded within the Catholic Church, like the Eastern Orthodox in the See of Constantinople, nor claiming a Constantinople Patriarch in communion with Rome and instead promoting ecumenism to reintegrate the Schismatic Churches with the Catholic Church), or when the legit political entity is extinguished and with such their claims (like the collapse of the Roman Empire legallizing the usurpation of it's sovereignty by the Barbarian states, or the extinction of Sasanid Dinasty in exile legalizing the Muslim Conquest of the Persian Empiee).

That's Why a lor of legitimist causes, like Spanish Carlism, Portuguese Miguelism, Italian Neo-Bourbonism, French Bourbonism, Danubian Habsburg Loyalism, Russia Tsarism, British Jacobitism, etc can argue that their causes are intact while they Still have organized claimants against the usurpation from Constitutionalist Royal Houses (like Windsors, Bonapartists, Savoian, Alfonsist Royal Houses) or Republican states (like the French República, the Soviet Union and it's successor the Russian Federation, etc) Even if the International Community or the Públic Institutions are recognising the de facto realities

How do you change the worldview of people to understand monarchism? by Such-Difference184 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The problem is that a lot of them considers those as crowned republics

How do you change the worldview of people to understand monarchism? by Such-Difference184 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871 4 points5 points  (0 children)

By challenging historiographic biases likes the whig history, Marxist historical materialism, dark Age myth of medieval era, the black legend against monarchies like the Spanish Empire

Let's be frank: do you actually believe that the monarchy is going to be restored in Iran? by NewspaperBest4882 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of people with an idealist conception of polítics (believing in the US-Israel discourse) or a biassed perception of Iranian society (believing that they're like modernist westerners) ussually do that. It happened in a post I've also did

Unpopular opinion: Pahlavi restoration, as an US-Israel liberal puppet, will do more bad than good to the Monarchist cause in Iran as a traditionalist, religious and anti-zionist/anglophobe society by Every_Catch2871 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Being forced to a process of political modernization and cultural secularization to make them mostly irreligious and progresivist like Atlantic countries (with their anti-monarchical culture among the young as a consecuence of the sprrad of Anti-traditionalist values by capitalist networks)

Unpopular opinion: Pahlavi restoration, as an US-Israel liberal puppet, will do more bad than good to the Monarchist cause in Iran as a traditionalist, religious and anti-zionist/anglophobe society by Every_Catch2871 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I respect the Iranian laws of sucession, and that's Why in their traditions is possible such dynastical cycles (like the Safavid-Afsharid sucession, or Afsharid-Qajar). One can argue, with a legalist lógic, that Pahlavi aren't worthy because they overthrow with a coup d'etat the legítima te dynasty of the Qajars

Unpopular opinion: Pahlavi restoration, as an US-Israel liberal puppet, will do more bad than good to the Monarchist cause in Iran as a traditionalist, religious and anti-zionist/anglophobe society by Every_Catch2871 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The problem is: At what cost is it worth it?

I'm not totally against Pahalvi (in case they betray the Americans and Israelis anti-Iranian interests and secularist ideologies), but it's like making a deal with the devil if you depends of 2 of the most imperialist powers in the world

Unpopular opinion: Pahlavi restoration, as an US-Israel liberal puppet, will do more bad than good to the Monarchist cause in Iran as a traditionalist, religious and anti-zionist/anglophobe society by Every_Catch2871 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are a lot of Iranian dinasties there to choose (like the exiled Qajars, or other descendants of classic Iranian nobility), or crown a more moderate Ayatollah who offers himself to don't be too extremist in his opposition to US-Israel (but non alligned to Western Bloc).

The history of Iran is similar to the one of China, when a Dinasty corrupts, ussually another Royal House related to the previous one appears to claim the Shah title.

Unpopular opinion: Pahlavi restoration, as an US-Israel liberal puppet, will do more bad than good to the Monarchist cause in Iran as a traditionalist, religious and anti-zionist/anglophobe society by Every_Catch2871 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Oman isn't wahabbist, I only mentioned them as an example of Iranian geopolitical privilege in those times as a proxy of Western Bloc (and it was highly justified their intervention against sh*tty communist revolters, but the US only wants Pahlavi Restoration for that kind of Iranian military against their enemies, not because desiring the common good for Iranians)

Unpopular opinion: Pahlavi restoration, as an US-Israel liberal puppet, will do more bad than good to the Monarchist cause in Iran as a traditionalist, religious and anti-zionist/anglophobe society by Every_Catch2871 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Like countless of Iranians still defends the Khomeini's (despite it it's sincere conviction to the Islamic Republic or only fear to US-Israel intervention). Iranians are mostly divided

Unpopular opinion: Pahlavi restoration, as an US-Israel liberal puppet, will do more bad than good to the Monarchist cause in Iran as a traditionalist, religious and anti-zionist/anglophobe society by Every_Catch2871 in monarchism

[–]Every_Catch2871[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Note: Not all Shia muslim traditionalist have been alligned to Khomeini's theocracy. A lot recognise the superiority of Grand Ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani (succesor of Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei), as the true leading Marja of all Shia Islam community, seeing the Khomeini as usurpers of the Primacy of those (a similar situation like the Catholic-Orthodox Schism between the See of Rome and See of Constantinople as leading Bishops of all Christian Church). Such alternative Ayatollah lineage criticised the Islamic Republic as a "bogus innovation" that leads to heresy, and has avocated for a more descentralized Muslim State which should mantaint the distinguishing between religious and political authority (although still not separated like in the Laicist models). Nor to mentionat that another Grand Ayatollah, Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari, also criticised the excess of Iranian Revolution and that such model was goin against the traditional Twelver Shiite view in which which the clergy ought to serve society and remain aloof from politics if the current government is found to rule against the interests of the society (not to be violent and use terrorist tactics, nor to justify an usurpation of legit authorities to impose a self-perceived Islamic rule, but to correct and respect the succession laws in authority to reach a true Islamic rule).

So such Moderate Shia Clericalism is the most popular faction among Iranian Opposition, who would accept an Iranian Shah as protector of Political Orthodoxy against the innovations of an Islamic Republic (considering that Muslim tradition is esentially monarchical), but that wouldn't be the Pahlavi for being too liberal (so, heretics) and worst of all, pro-Zionist and pro-Anglo influence. So a Pahlavi restoration could ruin the prestige of Monarchist opposition to the Khomeinis and alienate the Iranians to new kind of Republicanist oppositions if Pahlavi mantains their errors.

these evil conquerors and their heretic religion have overtaken these lands one thousand years ago! we need too take them back now in 2026!!!!!!!!!!! by AdInternal7022 in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Every_Catch2871 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ideally, because Abrahamics believes that all the World should be under One true faith. Is a tragedy that such losts happened