Monarchy vs Democracy

Hans-Herman Hoppe, a prominent thinker in the Austrian school of economics, has interesting things to say about democracy.

My summarized take on this:

- Democracy encourages politicians who focus on short-term pandering and "goody programs" since they can leave the system and make it someone else's problem once the consequences of their policies start to take effect.

- The idea that everyone in a country's population should have an equal say in how the government is run is ridiculous. Even Winston Churchill believed this, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." People in general just do not dedicate enough time and knowledge to learning proper economic policy, political theory, and short-term vs. long-term planning. People who do not have to put as much capital into the system are encouraged to vote for things that they will benefit from by spending someone else's money. This is why all direct democracies have always tended towards leftism/progressivism.

- Democracy would work if democracy if voting rights were limited to the people who actually paid for and ran the system. America was like this originally. You couldn't vote unless you were a land owning male farmer. However, you were not taxed if you did not fall into this category. This I believe makes for a far more stable and reliable system, since those who do vote have the most to gain or lose, since they will be the ones who pay for it. This will encourage them to become more informed about how to vote properly and in general be more conservative with their votes. People who couldn't vote had no reason to complain, because they didn't have to pay into the system and still benefited from it.
This, however, is considered sacrilege in the modern dialogue, where the "right to vote" is considered sacred. I don't think we could go back to this sort of system. Note how things started getting a whole lot worse a whole lot faster once we started deviating from this system in America.

- Monarchy has some benefits. One is the incentive for long-term planning and power structures. Since ideally you'll be holding the position for a long time, you will want to put policies in place that are beneficial long-term. If you were to put a short-term program in to place with long-term consequences, you would still be in office and bear the public shame and responsibility for said program.

- In addition, hereditary monarchy in particular has long term stability and success incentive, mainly because many rulers want to be able to hand down a kingdom worth giving to their heir.

- However, you may run into the problem of having a problematic family/problematic ruler, and in that case it may take a very long time to remove them.
 
The aristocracy usually were not sellouts in times of old, they may be greedy and pompous and arrogant, but by the Lord if their shores were threatened they were standing with their countrymen. The divine right of kings was meant for good shepherds. The masses, as is, are not capable of self-governing themselves, as we can see this experiment in democracy, which is coming to a close one way or another. Nations need Kings, though they may be corruptible crowns, they must all be kings before the only incorruptible crown. The system of checks and balances has an expiration date which a long line of kings does not. There is no one system totally superior than the other, but men lived and died for thousands of years under kings without the kind of coercive satanic influences which are imposing themselves on the world now. Perhaps not a single monarchy, but a round table manifested in an Arthurian spirit would see good governance and obeisance to God's natural law, thus ensuring some order in human nations. From now until the day He comes back though, there will be strife in this world, but that is not to say that real leaders and real shepherds cannot rise up and lead the flock away from the bad herders which currently control the ebb and flow of societies.
 

Beaker

Robin
Nah, he killed Christians. I’ll take a Constantine instead.
Also a good king, the point is that succession has be sophisticated, it can't just be because your father is king. The king/emperor should handpick the next one with wisdom. In a system like this there can be no cruel or incompetent leadership, and that's the most important thing in preventing revolution.
 
Last edited:
The aristocracy usually were not sellouts in times of old, they may be greedy and pompous and arrogant, but by the Lord if their shores were threatened they were standing with their countrymen. The divine right of kings was meant for good shepherds. The masses, as is, are not capable of self-governing themselves, as we can see this experiment in democracy, which is coming to a close one way or another. Nations need Kings, though they may be corruptible crowns, they must all be kings before the only incorruptible crown. The system of checks and balances has an expiration date which a long line of kings does not. There is no one system totally superior than the other, but men lived and died for thousands of years under kings without the kind of coercive satanic influences which are imposing themselves on the world now. Perhaps not a single monarchy, but a round table manifested in an Arthurian spirit would see good governance and obeisance to God's natural law, thus ensuring some order in human nations. From now until the day He comes back though, there will be strife in this world, but that is not to say that real leaders and real shepherds cannot rise up and lead the flock away from the bad herders which currently control the ebb and flow of societies.

That mainly applied to Western Europe. The Eastern Kings ruled the country through Bureaucracy. Not the classic Warrior Nobility.

Ironically what enabled Europe to retain their Warrior Aristocracy which you envision is the relative lower levels of bloodshed compared to the warring states of the East:

The more Total Wars of Annihilation selected for more Bureaucratic States whose led by Generals under the Emperor or that the Emperor himself is the General.

And the Armies are composed of Professional Soldiers. More in the mold of Ancient Rome than the Feudal States of Europe.

Originally there was a Warrior Aristocracy in China as well:

The shi (士)​

During the ancient Shang and Zhou dynasties, the shi were regarded as a knightly social order of low-level aristocratic lineage compared to dukes and marquises.[5] This social class was distinguished by their right to ride in chariots and command battles from mobile chariots, while they also served civil functions.[5] They were also known by the weaponry they used, the double-edged sword, or jian. The type of clothing worn by the shi class also distinguished them from others; the shi wore long flowing silken robes, while all other men wore trousers.[6]


As chariot warfare became eclipsed by mounted cavalry and infantry units with effective crossbowmen in the Warring States period (403–221 BC), the participation of the shi in battle dwindled as rulers sought men with actual military training, not just aristocratic background.[7] This was also a period where philosophical schools flourished in China, while intellectual pursuits became highly valued amongst statesmen.[8] Thus, the shi eventually became renowned not for their warrior's skills, but for their scholarship, abilities in administration, and sound ethics and morality supported by competing philosophical schools.[

 

ilostabet

Pelican
no king but Christ.

«And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time; And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them. If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answering said to him: It is written: Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve
 
no king but Christ.

«And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time; And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them. If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answering said to him: It is written: Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve
You are right, there are no true kings except for Him. But it is our mandate to look out for the masses, despite any differences. There must be shepherds to guard the flock from the wolves, whatever earthly title they be known as, be it presidents, generals, guardians. Guaranteed that without the guidance of those fit to lead the people, the people will be led to hell, and I will not suffer my fathers anger because I refused to step up and lead people back to the light.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
I am not against leaders and authority, but I also don't confuse them with rulers and power. What strikes me in that passage from Luke is the fact that Jesus does not contradict satan, he doesn't tell him 'you're wrong', he doesn't say 'all this power and all these kingdoms belong to me, not you'. He concedes what satan said as fact and merely tells him to piss off. What this tells me is that political power is inherently of the devil. And seeing how utterly Jesus despises and ridicules political figures and power throughout the Gospels, it underlines this to me.

This of course does not mean there aren't worse and less worse evil rulers. Of course there are. But I think it important to always keep in mind that the choice is between, indeed, two evils. And to never, ever, ever swear loyalty to them.

If I am to say something positive about monarchy, is that it doesn't guarantee that the monarch will be a ruler - half the time they are just moochers and don't interfere too much in the lives of people, especially those who are living outside the city walls. This is the best we can expect, though not in our time unfortunately, as power reaches every inch of the earth.
 
You are right, there are no true kings except for Him. But it is our mandate to look out for the masses, despite any differences. There must be shepherds to guard the flock from the wolves, whatever earthly title they be known as, be it presidents, generals, guardians. Guaranteed that without the guidance of those fit to lead the people, the people will be led to hell, and I will not suffer my fathers anger because I refused to step up and lead people back to the light.

In addition. Future Monarchies is less likely to be the feudal model. Or feudal model for long as you would imagine in regards to Authur and the Round Table of Knights.

As they will be conquered and overtaken by armies of Professional soldiers as were the armies of Europe and Ancient China. As the Military Nobility lost its former status.

It would be more of an Imperial Kingdom. Ruled by the King through Bureaucrats and Professional Soldiers enforcing the Kings will.

And even then the King may not actually rule but the Bureaucracy instead.
 
I am not against leaders and authority, but I also don't confuse them with rulers and power. What strikes me in that passage from Luke is the fact that Jesus does not contradict satan, he doesn't tell him 'you're wrong', he doesn't say 'all this power and all these kingdoms belong to me, not you'. He concedes what satan said as fact and merely tells him to piss off. What this tells me is that political power is inherently of the devil. And seeing how utterly Jesus despises and ridicules political figures and power throughout the Gospels, it underlines this to me.

This of course does not mean there aren't worse and less worse evil rulers. Of course there are. But I think it important to always keep in mind that the choice is between, indeed, two evils. And to never, ever, ever swear loyalty to them.

If I am to say something positive about monarchy, is that it doesn't guarantee that the monarch will be a ruler - half the time they are just moochers and don't interfere too much in the lives of people, especially those who are living outside the city walls. This is the best we can expect, though not in our time unfortunately, as power reaches every inch of the earth.

I'd rather have moochers than tyrannical control freaks that love to micromanage his/her subject's lives. In fact in the future all or almost all the Kings of the Earth would be wicked and would persecute God's people.

And after the 2nd coming of Christ those Kings would be under the Kingship of Jesus. But they will chafe at his rule. Buying into the promises of freedom from the "Divine Tyranny" of Jesus Christ.

The Satanic Worldview of Gnosticism gives clues to that fact where Satan denounces keeping Mankind ignorant of Wisdom that God apparently doesn't want man to have. And he portrays himself as the light-bringer the one who helped to free Mankind from God's Tyranny.

Hence after the 1000 years are up and Satan is once again released most of. If not all the Kings of the Earth will rebel(Psalm 2). Seeking to cast off Divine Authority.
 
In addition. Future Monarchies is less likely to be the feudal model. Or feudal model for long as you would imagine in regards to Authur and the Round Table of Knights.

As they will be conquered and overtaken by armies of Professional soldiers as were the armies of Europe and Ancient China. As the Military Nobility lost its former status.

It would be more of an Imperial Kingdom. Ruled by the King through Bureaucrats and Professional Soldiers enforcing the Kings will.

And even then the King may not actually rule but the Bureaucracy instead.
Then the globalized world must be broken down and decentralized, and the number of shepherds must be manifold. A method where there are thousands of smaller nation-state like entities each with their own set of rules. The more leaders there are in the world, the less and less power each of them will have. Too few right now control too much, and it is imploding on them. No human system, even if demonically inspired, can last. Technology will not enslave the human spirit to microchips and soylent green to do the bidding of several thousand out-of-shape, cannibalistic, satanic bankers. Though I believe beyond that the true goal is to destroy everything on this earth, leave it an empty lifeless barren wasteland. Man has it in his power to destroy everything if he wishes, and the men in charge now seem to wish that.

The military dictatorship is a necessary eventuality given the current level of corruption, but even that cannot last. A line of rulers must be implemented to guide the people righteously. A line of rulers who await His return and will last with Him until the end.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
True. On the other hand, Jesus also said (in answer to a trick question) to return to Ceasar what is his.
Indeed, but many interpret this (and St. Paul's words on the subject of political rule and how Christians should act towards it) as, at least, tacit approval of political rule and politics - and in some even more distasteful cases, subservience. This to me is making the reverse mistake of the pharisees: whereas they wanted Jesus to be a political revolutionary to overthrow the government and implement an earthly kingdom of God but by men, these interpreters want a political appeaser of existing and future political rulers. Jesus is neither, and Christians should follow this. A Christian is to submit to political rule in the sense of not overthrowing it, of abiding by the rules and accepting the consequences if not (when the rules are clearly against God). The Christian is not to be a revolutionary and abide, but not in the sense of swearing allegiance or making the mistake that, because he is not to overthrow, he is to respect. The martyrdoms are clear indications that the path of the Christian is the middle, not one of the extremes, for what is martyrdom but refusing to respect the political rule above you, while still accepting the consequences of that attitude?
 
Then the globalized world must be broken down and decentralized, and the number of shepherds must be manifold. A method where there are thousands of smaller nation-state like entities each with their own set of rules. The more leaders there are in the world, the less and less power each of them will have. Too few right now control too much, and it is imploding on them. No human system, even if demonically inspired, can last. Technology will not enslave the human spirit to microchips and soylent green to do the bidding of several thousand out-of-shape, cannibalistic, satanic bankers. Though I believe beyond that the true goal is to destroy everything on this earth, leave it an empty lifeless barren wasteland. Man has it in his power to destroy everything if he wishes, and the men in charge now seem to wish that.

The military dictatorship is a necessary eventuality given the current level of corruption, but even that cannot last. A line of rulers must be implemented to guide the people righteously. A line of rulers who await His return and will last with Him until the end.

You can try do your part to decentralize a globalized world. And we may even lose our modern technological society and go back to the 19th century.

My interpretation could be wrong. But the fact that horses were used instead of Tanks and Airplanes when opposing the 2nd Coming may be a hint of future technological downgrade.

But it does seem that Anti-Christ will come and successfully conquer the world militarily and through various underhanded tactics. Before the 2nd Coming.

But the Blood magic of War is that. The greater the extent of bloodshed. The more unified the Empire and the more Globalized the World will become.

The reason so many States of China became one Empire is because of the Bloodshed:
Then an examination is conducted of Europe and why a similar situation did not arise of one state ultimately becoming strong enough to overcome the balance of power to unify Europe. In contrast to Qin, Victoria Hui argues early European kingdoms employed self weakening methods, that may have enabled swift short term raising of military strength but at the expense of long term loss of state revenue and loss of state power to intermediaries. The classic examples include taking out loans from merchants (often secured against future tax revenues), tax farming, and use of hired mercenaries. It is argued these short term expedients were the easiest ways in the more heavily monetized economy of Europe at the time, as compared to the Warring States period of ancient China. So whereas Qin and its neighbors were forced to extend the state apparatus wider and deeper to the local level to extract extra taxes and levies for its wars, in turn building up the centralized state and national armies, European rulers ended up dissipating their power through inefficient and unreliable mercenary forces, and landing themselves so deeply in debt that the ruler could become effectively hostage to others.

The second part of Victoria Hui's argument centers on the use of ruthless strategems. While both Europe and ancient China had its fair share of intrigues, alliances, and treacheries, she argues that Europe never reached the scale of bloodshed that the Chinese Warring States reached, not just in the numbers of killed but the purpose of war. The wars of national annihilation did not take place in Europe, and ended up in usually exchanges of territory or settling of succession issues. Tying in to her first point, Victoria Hui argues that the self weakening expedients practiced by the monarchs of early Europe led to inconclusive wars and states weakened to the point that no major state could get sufficient advantage over another to the point of truly being able to conquer and absorb another major state. The example of Napoleon is used as an example where a European power did attempt to adopt self strengthening measures that lead to a brief period of dominance in Europe, but which ultimately could not be sustained due to the long term weaknesses inherited from the self weakening measures of pre-Revolutionary France.


All in all it is a fascinating work and undermines some of the underlying assumptions of some followers of international relations today, which is dominated by a viewpoint that is very Western in focus and which assumes that a self balancing Westphalian system is the "natural" or stable state of affairs. The unification of the Chinese Warring States into one state and one dynasty demonstrates how fragile a balance of power can be, how it is not necessarily a stable equilibrium, and how a tipping point can be reached beyond which one state emerges as the "universal Leviathan".


This is from one of the reviews of the Amazon Book I linked to above.


The League of Nations and the UN both Globalist Organisation's was made possible and manifest because of WWI and WWII which took on the Nature of the Warring States period in Chinese History.


So if the Warring States Period can be replicated then Nationalism could be manipulated by nefarious forces to ultimately result in Globalism by this way.

Although I would agree with Razorfist that Nationalism didn't cause WWI:

But the result of the beginnings of Globalism. Nationalism was used as a tool to draw Patriots into a Meat Grinder.

Nationalism was thereby used to rouse various peoples of Europe into the Inhuman Mechanized Modern War. Thinking they are fighting for their country but actually just become Human Sacrifices for Globohomo.

And those Wars pitted Nationalist against Nationalist by Globalist forces and drained them of Patriotic Men and Women.

And then upon the ruins of those countries they became subsumed under Globohomo.

This has been done historical in conjunction with conquest via financial means.

Therefore for Nationalism to endure. A commitment to peaceful and diplomatic solutions must occur. And manipulation into Wars of Annihilation must be avoided.

Not allowing themselves to be pawns to die for lies.
 
Last edited:

Rob Banks

Pelican
True. On the other hand, Jesus also said (in answer to a trick question) to return to Ceasar what is his.
Indeed, but many interpret this (and St. Paul's words on the subject of political rule and how Christians should act towards it) as, at least, tacit approval of political rule and politics - and in some even more distasteful cases, subservience. This to me is making the reverse mistake of the pharisees: whereas they wanted Jesus to be a political revolutionary to overthrow the government and implement an earthly kingdom of God but by men, these interpreters want a political appeaser of existing and future political rulers. Jesus is neither, and Christians should follow this. A Christian is to submit to political rule in the sense of not overthrowing it, of abiding by the rules and accepting the consequences if not (when the rules are clearly against God). The Christian is not to be a revolutionary and abide, but not in the sense of swearing allegiance or making the mistake that, because he is not to overthrow, he is to respect. The martyrdoms are clear indications that the path of the Christian is the middle, not one of the extremes, for what is martyrdom but refusing to respect the political rule above you, while still accepting the consequences of that attitude?
Yeah, I remember arguing with people on Reddit (r/catholicism) who claimed that all laws need to be followed no matter what.

Somebody asked if it is sinful to smoke weed, and the consensus seemed to be that it is sinful to smoke it in states where it is illegal but not sinful to smoke it in states where it has been legalized.

There was even people recommending to the OP that if he really wants to smoke weed, he should up and move to a state where it has been legalized (leaving behind his friends and extended family, I presume).
 

Beaker

Robin
no king but Christ.

«And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time; And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them. If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answering said to him: It is written: Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve
I am not against leaders and authority, but I also don't confuse them with rulers and power. What strikes me in that passage from Luke is the fact that Jesus does not contradict satan, he doesn't tell him 'you're wrong', he doesn't say 'all this power and all these kingdoms belong to me, not you'. He concedes what satan said as fact and merely tells him to piss off. What this tells me is that political power is inherently of the devil. And seeing how utterly Jesus despises and ridicules political figures and power throughout the Gospels, it underlines this to me.

This of course does not mean there aren't worse and less worse evil rulers. Of course there are. But I think it important to always keep in mind that the choice is between, indeed, two evils. And to never, ever, ever swear loyalty to them.

If I am to say something positive about monarchy, is that it doesn't guarantee that the monarch will be a ruler - half the time they are just moochers and don't interfere too much in the lives of people, especially those who are living outside the city walls. This is the best we can expect, though not in our time unfortunately, as power reaches every inch of the earth.
People cannot govern themselves, most will destroy themselves if there isn’t a system to protect them from their own sin; enforceable moral law with an ordered hierarchy (for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.)

The majority will never be as Jesus Christ tells them to be, to give them power is to give Satan power. Democracy is showing us right now how evil it is.
An aristocracy with a king at its head that’s capable of leading a virtuous existence is who should impose order.
 
Last edited:

ilostabet

Pelican
People cannot govern themselves, most will destroy themselves if there isn’t a system to protect them from their own sin; enforceable moral law with an ordered hierarchy (for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.)

The majority will never be as Jesus Christ tells them to be, to give them power is to give Satan power. Democracy is showing us right now how evil it is.
An aristocracy with a king at its head that’s capable of leading a virtuous existence is who should impose order.

What gives men power today (and always) is not any kind of politics, it's technological progress. Remove this, let men live according to the natural world created by God, subject to its laws instead of human laws and human constructs, and the problem ceases to be. And while some may destroy themselves, since that is unavoidable, they will not do so bringing the people around them to destruction as well. This is the reason why the countryside is always on the side of God, and the city always on the side of the enemies of God. And the city is where political power, invention and culture, but also immorality, degeneracy and sin thrive. One thing cannot be separated from the other. So one must choose.

Choose wisely.
 
Top