Monarchy vs Democracy

[Stadtaffe]

This is a very interesting thread, some smart people here, probably old Return of Kings posters.. A few responses:

I think that venerating Constitution that holds unique rights and freedoms and past presidents that did great job in securing those freedoms, ending slavery and winning world wars makes much more sense then obsessing about queens new hat and discussing the fashions of the sluts that marry into English Royal family.

American civic religion is masculine and virtuous. British civic religion has become matriarchal and slutty. In my opinion it started to go downhill for the Brits from Henry VIII, who founded Anglicanism based on his petty reason of desire to divorce and remarry interdependently of Pope's blessing. Today the national English religion is the most cucked Christian denomination full of female and gay priests. And it's origins are obviously fake. It's such a shame.

Another factor is that all American presidents so far have been men (Bless Trump's victory). For English the Queens Victoria and Elizabeth rule extremely long and the image of a Queen is stronger then the image of a King for the Brits. I suspect this long tradition of matriarchy has it's share of blame for the high levels of feminism in anglosphere.

I had never thought of that, but it's interesting and possibly true. I believe Queen Elizabeth has been the monarch since WW2 and Winston Churchill, all the way till now with Boris Johnson, correct me if I'm wrong. Then there were too female leaders, Thatcher and May, although the former is a positive example of an exception to a rule on female leaders. Then Prince Charles and the other male members of the royal family are barely any kind of role models for men, like perhaps Putin or Trump might be. The Queen's husband neither. I don't think there are any positive male role models among the British royals at all, and all I can think of now is Elton John singing after Diana died in the tunnel. Again, it does not really offer anything for men (would not say that about all gay musicians though..)

- 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.

It is sad but true that democracy has been eroded. Perverted, subverted and now digitally and algorithmically manipulated. It is no longer wrong to perhaps begin to be a slight enemy of it overall, since it now just carries the virtuous name but only to a smaller extent in practice still attains the intended outcome.

I don't think anything short of a catastrophic natural disaster or a cascading collapse of the current order (due to overreach) will unseat the current rulers of the world so for now we're reduced to undermining that reach or praying for a black swan event.

If such a collapse occurs then I think the next evolution of government would be one with a merit based voting franchise where everyone has the right to earn citizenship or remain a second class citizen by birth.

I don't agree with systems like the original Constitution of the US which leaves itself open to oligarchical usurpation (make sure your tribe buys as much land as possible and you win) but the universal franchise is obviously even worse.

@Leonard D Neubache we can't give up. Trump actually got in, Brexit actually happened, Le Pen almost got in in France, Trump has gotten near to getting in a second time and still might make it. We have the truth on our side - our enemies have to constantly invest resources into maintaining their lies. To quote a song you probably know, you can fool some people some times, but you can't fool all the people all the time..

There probably will be some collapse of the current order started by an economic crash or severe and prolonged unrest

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

I'm seeing comments about how Monarchy is "outdated" and "in the past," as if "progressivism" is somehow inevitable (Leftist talking point) or liberal democratic societies have never become taken over by men who were sick of the degeneracy and lies. God raises His champions at the right time and right place, and as for "who will be King?" I think that's a misleading question. It's not about looking around and picking someone to be King; it's about the creation of the New Man, within each of us who is capable of doing so, until movements full of New Men become the natural consequence of individual spiritual labor. Those movements then push back against the tides of degeneracy and, generally speaking, have the overwhelming support of the people as they do so. These things move in cycles.

 

[Beaker]

I'm seeing comments about how Monarchy is "outdated" and "in the past," as if "progressivism" is somehow inevitable (Leftist talking point) or liberal democratic societies have never become taken over by men who were sick of the degeneracy and lies. God raises His champions at the right time and right place, and as for "who will be King?" I think that's a misleading question. It's not about looking around and picking someone to be King; it's about the creation of the New Man, within each of us who is capable of doing so, until movements full of New Men become the natural consequence of individual spiritual labor. Those movements then push back against the tides of degeneracy and, generally speaking, have the overwhelming support of the people as they do so. These things move in cycles.

They need to study history and political philosophy.

 

[Easy_C]

“Outdated” is a silly term sometimes. What matters is if it’s better than more recent ideas. One issue that a lot of monarchic system is the lack of any check on the monarch to ensure that they don’t violate the moral precepts laid out. To some extent church can fulfill that, but Democracy absent that guidance becomes bound to the passions.

 

[infowarrior1]

You have the same hierarchy in Christian teaching on marriage in Matthew 19, it shows that virginity, and becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven is the highest level, with a step down being a marriage between a man and a woman.

And this is what incels who are as much influenced by our modern decadence besides those who are successful in the worldly sense miss out on.

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

“Outdated” is a silly term sometimes. What matters is if it’s better than more recent ideas. One issue that a lot of monarchic system is the lack of any check on the monarch to ensure that they don’t violate the moral precepts laid out. To some extent church can fulfill that, but Democracy absent that guidance becomes bound to the passions.

St. Ambrose of Milan once excommunicated the Roman Emperor, St. Theodosius the Great, and made him stand outside the services wearing regular civilian clothing until he was satisfied with the penance.

 

[third_eldest]

It is sad but true that democracy has been eroded. Perverted, subverted and now digitally and algorithmically manipulated. It is no longer wrong to perhaps begin to be a slight enemy of it overall, since it now just carries the virtuous name but only to a smaller extent in practice still attains the intended outcome.

I think you missed the point. I was pointing out inherent flaws in democracy. These are problems that can't be fixed with any amount of technology and/or transparency. They are a product of the way its set up in addition to macro-human behavior. If you are comfortable with the inevitable consequences of democracy, then no need to change the system. However, if these are problems that are unacceptable, we need to find a new system. Democracy is by no means a natural good, so there's no reason to try so hard to attain "democracy."

 

[burncushlikewood]

the french vs the british..who wins? obviously france, this is why the french revolution lead to their greatness, getting rid of the monarchy and replacing it with a system of government which empowers much more people

 

[Labienus]

As flawed as monarchies are the two main benefits of monarchies compared to "democracies" are the following:

1. In absolute monarchies the king is above the financial sector and can crush it at will. Look at the history of the French monarchy with how many times the French king expulsed the (((moneylenders))) from France.

2. The king is the one who holds power, not a cryptocracy composed of international bankers, secret services, multinational corporations and arms dealers ruling behind the scenes with fungible puppet front men we call politicians. It is therefore much easier to hold the king accountable than politicians who have no actual power and can be replaced at will.

"Democracies" always end up being kleptocracies in favour of a cabal of rootless elites since they can so easily be rigged by money.

That being said the world has changed and it would be extremely difficult for an absolute monarchy independent of (((their))) power to emerge in Europe or North America nowadays.

 

[Sitting Bull]

Indeed the current system is one of, if not the most violent ever devised, all things considered.

However I would argue that none of the passages you quoted argue for violence, they either lack context or are toward something else other than violence. Of course, it is always down to definition

Yes, perhaps we should distinguish between "violence" and "force" ...

Coincidentally, I am now finding myself reading "Athens and Jerusalem : Christian Wimps" by Thomas J. Fleming on the subject we're currently discussing, and I find myself in complete agreement with him.

Here are a few quotes or paraphrases from this article :

In "Love your enemies" (Matth 5:38), the "enemy" (Greek echtros) is a personal enemy, a fellow Christian with whom we happen to have a life-long quarrel over a property line, or a family feud. It is emphatically not a foreign enemy who rides in to slay, rape and pillage.

"Augustine (...) did not (...) call for an unqualified defense of life for life's sake, unlike the modern theologians who, in attempting to weave a seamless garment of life, are really swaddling unborn babies in the uniform of the death-row convict. If all human life is equally precious, then none can be very valuable (...) in using the same language to defend the innocent unborn and the condemned murderer, they are equating innocence with guilt."

"When a Christian engages in homicide, either as executioner or soldier, it is the ruler and not he who is morally responsible for the killing. The soldier is merely the instrument of a (good or bad) ruler whose power comes from God"

The denial of this moral truth is the basis of today's monstruously totalitarian "International Law", as typically expressed in the Nuremberg trials and US neo-conservatism, with its retroactive law and where "I was following orders" is not considered a legitimate defense. Thus there are no real rules and no real responsability, there is just an obligation for everyone to continually keep oneself up to date about the continually evolving revolutionary Zeitgeist.

"Vengeance belongs to God, who then delegates that power to the ruler. Christians, then, must forswear the right to vengeance, though in exchange the ruler must protect the innocent from violence"

"[In the Roman Empire] Christians also obeyed the command to defend the empire. Jews were absolved from military service, because Sabbath observance conflicted with the duties of a soldier. Christians, as they came to be distinguished from Jews, were not absolved."

 

[The Resilient]

Society would be exponentially better under a theocratic monarchy. Republics never last more than 200-300 years

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

With the caveat that it all depends on the monarch's character, I agree with the principle of the above post.

 

[infowarrior1]

As flawed as monarchies are the two main benefits of monarchies compared to "democracies" are the following:

1. In absolute monarchies the king is above the financial sector and can crush it at will. Look at the history of the French monarchy with how many times the French king expulsed the (((moneylenders))) from France.

2. The king is the one who holds power, not a cryptocracy composed of international bankers, secret services, multinational corporations and arms dealers ruling behind the scenes with fungible puppet front men we call politicians. It is therefore much easier to hold the king accountable than politicians who have no actual power and can be replaced at will.

"Democracies" always end up being kleptocracies in favour of a cabal of rootless elites since they can so easily be rigged by money.

That being said the world has changed and it would be extremely difficult for an absolute monarchy independent of (((their))) power to emerge in Europe or North America nowadays.

A King could as much be a figurehead as one who holds power. Even if he has all the titles.

His true power isn't guaranteed.

Given how European Kings with real power were killed along with their royal families. Where all Heirs are dead putting an end to any Restoration. Or they became figureheads. Through the efforts of (((moneylenders))) and revolutionaries.

Future Kings if they arise may just be figureheads of those powers and not the true powers.

And a Man could be King without being called King. Caesar Augustus is a prime example. Even as he forgoes the Latin title "Rex" or King. As First Citizen He is King in all but name.

But if the current Figurehead Monarchies are also what you have in mind. We have plenty of them already nowadays.

Those Symbolic Heads of State stay above the fray of Politics. Because they aren't actually ruling. So I think it is a load of bullocks that Kings in the classic sense is above politics.

Right now in many European countries. Parliament or other arms of Democracy do the real task of ruling. While they act as the symbol of National Unity.

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

Look at the country around you: we have a Republican President, under whom entire states are being locked down with the worst restrictions ever imposed outside of a prison colony. Radical communists burn down entire city blocks and loot billions of dollars worth of property. But the President can't do anything, because "muh governors." If you really want to fight back, you can tolerate the abuse for a few years and then maybe, if you're extremely fortunate, get a chance to replace those governors with someone else - who may or may not do the same thing, or worse, depending on what they feel like doing once they're elected.

That's democracy. Do you like it?

 

[Aboulia]

A King could as much be a figurehead as one who holds power. Even if he has all the titles.

His true power isn't guaranteed.

Given how European Kings with real power were killed along with their royal families. Where all Heirs are dead putting an end to any Restoration. Or they became figureheads. Through the efforts of (((moneylenders))) and revolutionaries.

Future Kings if they arise may just be figureheads of those powers and not the true powers.

And a Man could be King without being called King. Caesar Augustus is a prime example. Even as he forgoes the Latin title "Rex" or King. As First Citizen He is King in all but name.

But if the current Figurehead Monarchies are also what you have in mind. We have plenty of them already nowadays.

Those Symbolic Heads of State stay above the fray of Politics. Because they aren't actually ruling. So I think it is a load of bullocks that Kings in the classic sense is above politics.

Right now in many European countries. Parliament or other arms of Democracy do the real task of ruling. While they act as the symbol of National Unity.

It's why he the poster you responded specifically mentioned "absolute monarchies" absolute refers to their level of control. It's the only real monarchical system, anything else really isn't a monarchy, it's a glorified welfare case, for the sole purpose of a king is to rule, and have authority over the realm, he's a person to take grievances to, if he doesn't have the power to do anything, why call him king? It's a mockery of kings, like the English monarchy is today.

Doesn't matter what you call a king, (caesar, emperor, dictator, ruler, leader), the primary aspect of a monarchal system is that it's a hierarchical system where one person has authority over others, and it is well known to the populace who that leader is, so they know who to turn to with their grievances, and who to blame if grievances aren't addressed.

In democracy, you have no idea who to turn to. You can turn to a bureaucracy, you can write to a governor, but at the end of the day, money ends up ruling, especially in the modern day when the technology exists to warp, and people will buy a false reality because autonomy is hard. You cannot deny this seeing the Common Cold-19 hysteria play out in the general populace.

 

[infowarrior1]

It's why he the poster you responded specifically mentioned "absolute monarchies" absolute refers to their level of control. It's the only real monarchical system, anything else really isn't a monarchy, it's a glorified welfare case, for the sole purpose of a king is to rule, and have authority over the realm, he's a person to take grievances to, if he doesn't have the power to do anything, why call him king? It's a mockery of kings, like the English monarchy is today.

Doesn't matter what you call a king, (caesar, emperor, dictator, ruler, leader), the primary aspect of a monarchal system is that it's a hierarchical system where one person has authority over others, and it is well known to the populace who that leader is, so they know who to turn to with their grievances, and who to blame if grievances aren't addressed.

In democracy, you have no idea who to turn to. You can turn to a bureaucracy, you can write to a governor, but at the end of the day, money ends up ruling, especially in the modern day when the technology exists to warp, and people will buy a false reality because autonomy is hard. You cannot deny this seeing the Common Cold-19 hysteria play out in the general populace.

Then the problem is how such a King can once again gain power and keep it. And not get overthrown or made figureheads like almost all of them were in the 20th Century.

They had a weakness to revolutionary movements. They lost culturally and their ends were bloody.

I'd say that after a revolution has captured the royal family. Any attempt at restoration will have them all killed.

 

[infowarrior1]

Look at the country around you: we have a Republican President, under whom entire states are being locked down with the worst restrictions ever imposed outside of a prison colony. Radical communists burn down entire city blocks and loot billions of dollars worth of property. But the President can't do anything, because "muh governors." If you really want to fight back, you can tolerate the abuse for a few years and then maybe, if you're extremely fortunate, get a chance to replace those governors with someone else - who may or may not do the same thing, or worse, depending on what they feel like doing once they're elected.

That's democracy. Do you like it?

No. I'd rather Jesus Christ take power now.

But even if a King takes power. I am pessimistic about him being an ultimate power in the country that isn't beholden to (((Financial Interests))).

 

[infowarrior1]

The real Divine Right is the Mandate of Heaven:

 

[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]

As flawed as monarchies are the two main benefits of monarchies compared to "democracies" are the following:

1. In absolute monarchies the king is above the financial sector and can crush it at will. Look at the history of the French monarchy with how many times the French king expulsed the (((moneylenders))) from France.

2. The king is the one who holds power, not a cryptocracy composed of international bankers, secret services, multinational corporations and arms dealers ruling behind the scenes with fungible puppet front men we call politicians. It is therefore much easier to hold the king accountable than politicians who have no actual power and can be replaced at will.

"Democracies" always end up being kleptocracies in favour of a cabal of rootless elites since they can so easily be rigged by money.

That being said the world has changed and it would be extremely difficult for an absolute monarchy independent of (((their))) power to emerge in Europe or North America nowadays.

One of the great points that my namesake, Hans Hoppe, makes in his book Democracy: the God that Failed is that monarchies have a stake in not engaging in massive debt financing (as the US Govt does). The monarch knows that they, and not the “people,” are on the hook for the debt.

Democratic regimes are only in control for a short time due to term limits, and so they run up debts without considering the long term implications. A monarch takes the longer view.

 

[Aizen]

Great idea for a thread. I’d say it’s the people that make the kingdom, and with a benevolent leader at the helm, blessings can happen to the land. Good people + good leader = good kingdom.

But what if you have some sour apples? Or perhaps, many sour apples? People too fat or lazy or stupid to care about improving their life. Fit energetic mentally ill leftists. Despondent folk in the middle. Now, how do you lead an uninspired populace like this? Millions of them, nontheless!

Democracy simply cannot work with a spectrum as broad as ours. We have a minority of good productive people, and then, sadly, a majority of sour apples. This system ironically works, but only through opportunistic sociopaths systematically dumbing down the sour apples. The dumber and fatter they are, the easier it is to control their labor, resources, and attention. And ultimately, that’s exactly what a corrupt sociopathic leader wants. Even better, spread all the government power over hundreds of civil servants that can all claim no responsibility for their antics! That’s democracy, at least in 21st century America.

Would monarchy work better in America? At this point, likely not. People accustomed to being fat or lazy or dumb would be loathe to change their ways, and a monarch would likely not want to have to poke and prod a blubbering mess of a populace. So the monarch would enable their destructive behavior to gain their support. Idiocracy, in other words.

Now, Democracy does work in some places: thinking of Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc. But you’ll notice that people in these countries have a culture that avoids getting fat, shuns being lazy, and values sharp intelligence.

It’s the people that make the kingdom, and a good leader just enables good people to act on their good intentions. Even better if the system is designed to guard against sociopathic invasion.