This is a good point, that the focus of government should be on fostering an environment conducive to salvation. But recall that two of the cardinal virtues are prudence and justice. In my view, accepting a monarch who would abuse his subjects would be in violation of those two principles. We are asked to figure out the best way to govern, to treat all people with love and to not bring more suffering into this world if we can. Christ knows we cannot be perfect, but He asks us to try our best.
Certainly, democracy takes much of the blame for our current situation. But I'm unsure whether it's a symptom or root cause. We also have the problem of the industrial revolution, technology, scientism, Jewish subversion, etc... All of which acted synergistically to ensure our demise.
I concur with your analysis in regards to the local level. We can all agree that we need to keep states like Idaho red, as they are become the last sane regions of the nation. However, I disagree with the notion of going out of my way to vote in federal elections, as the crucible that the national system is held within is the problem. One can't stop the growing dysgenic, and leftist trend, with open borders and universal suffrage. The Republicans may be able to make small changes, such as removing the irrational federal protection on aborition, which may be something, but large systemic changes will never occur, as the American population continues to spiral towards degeneracy. Simply evaluate the political climate of 20, 50, or 100 years ago. The modern Republicans, with few exceptions, have become leftists themselves to stay relevant. A Democrat in 1920 was more conservative, more religious, and rejected the platitudes of universal equality, more than your stock modern "conservative".Before you vote in this thread's poll, please read!
Wasn't sure where to post this thread, but I figure it's a cultural topic since I see the same criticism pop up over and over again after 2020 - voting is rigged, so there's no point in voting. This criticism isn't just on this forum, but I see it frequently in the real world, and on comment sections all over the net. I even felt this way for several months after 2020 as well.
In order to actually make a focused discussion on the topic, especially with the 2024 race coming up, I think having a thread to contain the discussion is a good idea. Far too many threads get hijacked with the topic of voting being worth it or not, so let's just have it out here and people can link to this thread instead of clogging up every other political thread.
I agree with the general thrust of the argument that voting seems dumb and irrational in a rigged game. After all, why play in a rigged game? The only winning move in a rigged game is not to play.
However, upon closer reflection and analysis, there are several problems with "not voting".
1. Local elections matter - voting in local elections is definitely not rigged in most parts of the USA, and local taxes can be just as oppressive as state or federal taxes. I think everyone will agree local elections are important, which is why the poll is "federal elections."
2. It takes no effort to vote for federal elections since you'll already be there to vote for local candidates, right?
3. It costs them a LOT of money to rig elections:
Most expensive ever: 2020 election cost $14.4 billion
Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion, more than doubling the total cost of the record-breaking 2016 cycle.www.opensecrets.org
I think this number of $14.4 far underestimates just how much was spent - this really only measures campaign contributions and ad spending. What about all the money spent to change laws in each individual state, money spent to change voting laws with the corona hoax, and money spent to defend the rigged voting laws in courts? I believe the amount well totals over hundreds of billions.
Each race in each state is very expensive, added onto perhaps bribing judges and paying for the best lawyers... the total cost is more closely reflected in left-wing lawfare institutions like the Open Society, which spends $16+ billion a year, and this is just one of the many NGO's liberals are using to take over the America. When you add up all of the ways the influence peddling is performed, the amount is in the hundreds of billions.
Now, what does it cost you to vote? About 30 minutes of your time, by comparison. And perhaps a bit of gas money, maybe 4 or 5 bucks.
So, even if the vote is rigged, you spend basically nothing, meanwhile our enemies are forced to spend at minimum, tens of billions each election, more likely hundreds of billions, over the course of years in order to make water flow uphill. Because at the end of the day, none of this is organic or natural, it's all money driven based on the Federal Reserve rigging the economy to give trillions to those connected to the FED.
And this money printing comes at the cost of the empire itself, as every dollar printed further erodes whatever hegemony is left of America's rotting Empire.
So, while the game is rigged, it costs them a lot to rig it the game, and it costs us very little by comparison. Rather than be blackpilled about voting, it makes more sense to keep fighting since rigging elections comes at a pyrrhic victory for them, costing us nothing by comparison. While you vote for your local candidates, cast a federal vote as well because it costs them billions to undo your free vote.
Conversely, if you stop voting, then it frees up hundreds of billions that will be used against us in other ways. This is war, my brothers and sisters in Christ, and if you think by refraining from fighting (and in this case, voting = fighting back), things will improve, you are denying reality and are actually hurting yourself and your Neighbors. I recommend voting because it hurts them and helps us regardless of the outcome of the actual election.
All systems fail, it's a matter of time before someone eventually extends the suffrage to all parities, or a new tyrannical dictator is appointed.I don't think that absolute would be necessarily be necessary. I believe that most of European history was not particularly absolute. But I think the notion of absolute today would be very different to 1,000 years ago. Many people in Saudi Arabia lead very modern lives in many ways; and it will be going much more that way as they are looking to copy the Dubai-Abu Dhabi model. And without getting into detail, I believe that following that model will eventually lead to their downfall, but it's going to be temporally good for them in the more near-term. The area should be one of continual economic growth based on not having to educate much of the population or provide them healthcare, pensions etc.
If you are preoccupied with the negative of the absolute model, you can borrow from the UAE model where there are six monarchs who operate as a council. Below them is what would otherwise seem a lot like a modern Western government, but they are a lot more efficient, partly because they don't have all sorts of bureaucrats and lawyers getting in the way. They get things done in a way that Western governments no longer can. The modal of governance is much more like under a CEO, which is more like what you'd get if a Western country went back to monarchy and what you get in the last monarchies in Europe - Lichtenstein and Monaco.
But an absolute monarchy that is entwined with the church is going to be the most efficient at establishing moral order over long periods of time. The more people make decisions, the more liberal you get. And then you get revisionism. Even if you have an absolute monarchy, you are going to get revisionism, until you end up with what we have today. It's similar to revision of the church. Once you open the door to one small thing being changed, then you open the door to everything being changed and trans priests. Again what we have today.
The nature of the monarchy is not to create lives for people where everything is "perfect". That is one of the big issues of the UAE system - because that's what the model has done for citizens. The nature of a monarch is, among other things, to establish the divinely inspired moral system, and create an environment conducive to salvation. We don't even remotely have that in place now. Spiritually, abused peasants were better off than the fat pampered slobs of today.
It's natural to the position of a monarch, or anyone else with considerable power, to be more susceptible to corruption and sin. I don't know how that should fully be understood. But it seems to me the correct way for his subjects is to suffer through it and not resent it. As you get into below, it is resentment of monarchs that led to their demise. And with that we also lost the spiritual protection they had provided for 100s of years.
In short, these arguments against monarch are essentially secular. I feel the spiritual argument is very firmly with monarchy. Want a more comfortable and free life - then you sacrifice the spiritual.
I think that you are right that the system would be new, in a similar way to the CEO Sheikhdom being new to their feudal sheikhdoms. It's something to take notes from. But they are making the exact same mistakes. They are liberalising and chipping away at the system they still claim is divine - to make life easier, to be more fabulous etc. Over a long enough time line I think they will end up being overthrown. There will people people whose ancestors have lived there for 100+ years, yet they are second class citizens. There's a lot of resentful young Indians there who are saturated in SJW ideology. Natives make up 10% of the population and they are far more pampered than Westerners. And under the surface, there is a lot of degeneracy that spilling out, just as happened in the West.
Wealth breeds freedom and freedom chipping away all of what itself stands on and was built upon - traditional society. The query is - can you develop a wealthy society that is able to maintain its traditional base (without which it cannot project itself into the future)? I think the answer is a difficult - yes. But only under very strict conditions, which will require you to not have huge swathes of your population deciding they know how things should work.
There's only a small amount of men who fall into this category. The only examples of when the tide of leftism is turned back is when a leader is elected and they start parring back at democracy - Orban, Erdogan, Hitler. But this limited form of democracy is the direct precursor for representative democracy. If you've got to landowners getting the vote, then it's all men, then all women. You have to chop this off at its root and go with the model that has a very good track record with law and order and enforcing religion; rather than the model that has an awful track record with them. Once you go down the route of opening up to everyone having their own idea, it's extremely difficult to put it back in the box. Just chopping back democracy back to 10% of men voting would now be fascism.
There is a very narrow spectrum of things which are the basis of society that can project itself into the future. Monarchy is the only, imperfect, corruptible and will eventually be subverted way of keeping them in place for a long period of time. What's one reason or example of democracy being able to do this? It's not been around for long in the form we know, and it's very quickly eviscerated all of this.
Bahrain seems very successful. UAE on the other hand is a highly materialistic and decadent society built on foreign quasi-slave labor. I really don't see that country's future going anywhere but down.
I have thought about living this way too. The problem is if we do not master technology, our enemies will and they will use it against us.
You are correct, we really don't know the full story. All I know is there are enough documented cases of abuse that I am extremely wary of putting my faith in any one man.
dailystormer.in
Re: the video clip
Well on a more serious note; there's no difference in power as with both you don't steer the direction of the country anyways. Moreover, a dictatorship/kingdom gives clarity and hierarchy: you don't have to worry about the state of politics or the direction of the country, it's outsourced. Even with fascism if you just shut your mouth and do what is expected of you, you'll probably get by pretty well. In communism, given the randomness of just persecuting everyone regardless of their actions, this is less. I can imagine living as a German in Nazi-Germany in the 30s must've been pretty good: economic boom, no worries about politics, you feel good about your people and country, strong social ties, purpose in living. Overall the problem with dictatorship is that the most dark triad types rise to the top (Machiavellian, sociopath and narcissism) which we've seen in gruesome detail in the communist countries. Therefore a religious, preferably Christian, theocracy seems to be the best option, with a king or emperor/tsar, which isn't a perfect system, but there's stability and continuance in reign, with the dark triad types probably rising to the higher echelons of courts to a degree, but not being able to take direct power.
