Monarchy vs Democracy

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
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.

Absolute monarchy is an ideal, not a reality. In every monarchy and pseudo-monarchy in history, there are always elite factions struggling for control over the monarch, e.g. the military, clergy, nobility A, nobility B, ethnic groups, and the bankers. Saying that "absolute monarchy is my favorite government type" is as wishful as saying "enlightened democracy is my favorite government type". We all wish that monarchy is absolute, just like we wish all voters can be educated and literate.

Real example in history: you don't like the king, and therefore your faction supports the second son as being the heir, and you create a rebellion to instate him in power. Is this an absolute monarchy? Not really, since the "absolute" element of inheritance is sidestepped through factional support.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Broader point on historical psychology: when religious people say they want monarchy, what they really mean is they wish for a God-oriented central leadership with a strong grip on the country. They're expressing a sigh of disenchantment after being oppressed by godless factionalists. However, wishing for monarchy could be a false medicine, since we know that factionalists and internationalists have gained control over many great kings. On the other hand, getting rid of those factions is something that can be accomplished even in a democracy.
 
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.

To even make America to be even be a viable Kingdom the King would have to return to Nation in all ways back into health.

Its like putting a soul into a morbidly obese unhealthy body.

That means a better eating regime, exercise and plenty of self-discipline.

And an effective and systematic purge of sociopaths top to bottom everywhere. A total detox.

To accomplish this requires a greed for talent and excellent judge of character. To appoint the best to the best positions.

He must be extremely Wise and be able to pass his Wisdom onto his Sons and his Sons. Down through every generation of Kings through the generations to accomplish this.

He must be excellent in Strategy and the Big Picture. And the Complex ways Reality works on a large scale. The implications of all his decisions. The potential paths that would result for generations to come unto 1000 years.

Its going to be a Long-Term Project that spans generations. And will make lots of enemies that will have to be neutralized.

I'd say only God can do this perfectly and choose the best paths for all time. A Kingship is akin to taking on God's Job on a smaller scale.
 

Lunostrelki

Woodpecker
All political and legal authority must have the backing of divine morality in order to hold legitimacy. The divine right of kings, the constitutional republic, or mandate of heaven are all good examples. When you remove God or the Creator from the equation, as Western democracies are all scrambling to do, you no longer have rule of law but atheist rule of man.

The advantage of a monarchy is that you have a single bloodline that can serve as a sacred-secular symbol of the national polity, as is the case in Japan. This is not a replacement for God, but a link to the divine for the entire nation. In ancient China, the emperor being recognized as "the Son of Heaven" did not mean that the emperor was himself divine, but that he held the heavenly mandate and all the responsibilities that came with it.

The dynasty falls when the sovereign and his government ignore divine principles and try to play God. This happened with State Shinto in modern Japan when the militarists twisted the traditional role of the emperor and turned him into a divine figure so as to justify their rampage throughout Asia. The militarists basically believed in social Darwinism and self-worship instead of God-given morality despite maintaining some trappings of tradition and being highly patriotic. The result was that Japan fought fruitlessly and ate nukes in the end.

The wisdom of the constitutional republic is that it is representative rather than democratic. The constitution is backed by divine principles, and as such gives every person in the country regardless of who they are a fundamental guarantee of their basic human dignity. At the same time, it provides for orderly governance and political transition precisely because the government isn't chosen directly by the people, but rather through a legal system that contains sacred-secular fail-safes. These mechanisms do not work if the people and their officials abandon religious faith, because atheist populations cannot agree on basic moral facts and can only "resolve" their differences through class struggle.

For America to have a king or emperor would be fine in principle, but it goes against the tradition set out by the founding fathers and would in my opinion require a very good reason if it were to be implemented. For example, if many people's faith in the constitutional republic were shattered by a civil war, a monarchy that respects the divine right (and responsibility) of kings could be a good solution to keep the country together in the long term. The Creator will bless any people and ruler that honors divine commandments, regardless of their superficial form of government.
 
Last edited:
Ever since I’ve started to pay attention to politics, I’ve been cynical about democracy. People kept picking the same kleptocrats (some admitted they just bought their seats in their respective parties) mostly to gain some sort of favor, usually a job in the government, regardless if they’re qualified or not; or worse, selling their votes for cheap bucks or small food packages. Electing new people wasn’t better; they end up being incompetent, functionally illiterate, another kleptocrat, or worse. Barely anything could be done due to squabbling among them, the slow bureaucracy or the top stalling until they got a good share of the bids.

I remember in civics class how I was told the virtues of democracy, the age of Athens, how the correct answers were those for the benefit of the people, or the classic “democracy is good because you have a voice and your opinion matters”, they never mention the vices, the pitfalls or what it’s needed to have a working democracy, etc… In practice, the one that wins is the popular, the one promising huge stuff or the least hated candidate. It they don’t work properly, no worries, just vote for another candidate in the next elections. The Athenians could kick out any politician that screwed up; the idiots promoting this system centuries ago kept it out for their own benefit.

In a monarchy (or when a strongman is in charge) you get things done. There are vices and issues too. But the king and nobility are bound to their lands and the people living in it (in paper). If they don’t act for the benefit of their people, the latter can revolt instead of endlessly waiting and voting for someone to solve their problems.

Right now it would be difficult to prop up kings and nobles throughout the world, but eventually there will be a return to monarchy after a good part of the people stop playing the democracy game.
 
Ever since I’ve started to pay attention to politics, I’ve been cynical about democracy. People kept picking the same kleptocrats (some admitted they just bought their seats in their respective parties) mostly to gain some sort of favor, usually a job in the government, regardless if they’re qualified or not; or worse, selling their votes for cheap bucks or small food packages. Electing new people wasn’t better; they end up being incompetent, functionally illiterate, another kleptocrat, or worse. Barely anything could be done due to squabbling among them, the slow bureaucracy or the top stalling until they got a good share of the bids.

I remember in civics class how I was told the virtues of democracy, the age of Athens, how the correct answers were those for the benefit of the people, or the classic “democracy is good because you have a voice and your opinion matters”, they never mention the vices, the pitfalls or what it’s needed to have a working democracy, etc… In practice, the one that wins is the popular, the one promising huge stuff or the least hated candidate. It they don’t work properly, no worries, just vote for another candidate in the next elections. The Athenians could kick out any politician that screwed up; the idiots promoting this system centuries ago kept it out for their own benefit.

In a monarchy (or when a strongman is in charge) you get things done. There are vices and issues too. But the king and nobility are bound to their lands and the people living in it (in paper). If they don’t act for the benefit of their people, the latter can revolt instead of endlessly waiting and voting for someone to solve their problems.

Right now it would be difficult to prop up kings and nobles throughout the world, but eventually there will be a return to monarchy after a good part of the people stop playing the democracy game.

A Kingdom should be like the extended body of the King and Officials in question. He cherishes and nourishes it like he is supposed to do with his own body.

The problems of the Kingdom are his and his Officials problems. And the Prosperity of the Kingdom is his and his Officials prosperity. I believe that each Official and the King ought to have each of them have a salary that is counted in percentages of the Tax Revenue rather than a fixed sum of money.

Therefore as the people prosper so in Taxes and in their own incomes so it will increase. But as the people are less prosperous so their incomes decrease.

Therefore if taxes are 10% of revenue. Then depending on the peoples prosperity their own livelihoods either improve or become worse as a result.

The Kingdom must therefore be as an extension of their own bodies in a sense in order to incentivize the Royal Government to rule well.

Therefore the suffering of the people is their suffering and the health of the people is their health. And the happiness of the people is their happiness.

Therefore revolt should become unnecessary. Because they are unable to insulate themselves from the conditions of the Kingdom.
 
This is a false dilemma. The true Christian state is first foremost based on the three estates: the warriors, the priests and the workers. Monarch/emperor is merely one of the warrior caste, and not some despotic strongman. The main point of the Catholic ideal of a kingdom is that it's decentralized and ruled by warrior nobility that can easily replace the ruler if he becomes despotic. You had that through entire middle ages and beyond, and it lead to great prosperity. It could also be a monastic state ruled by an elected grandmaster like the historic Teutonic Order which had a very meritocratic system.

The warrior nobility has to have values of chivalry and devote an ascetic life to training in combat so that they form an elite force that can protect the workers and the priests from foreign adversaries as well as domestic swindlers and despots. The priests dedicate their lives to spiritual well being of society. Everyone else is a 'worker' which is a broad category and can include also wealthy people, but their wealth can't buy positions of power. The only way to progress socially is through valor on the battlefield.

Study the medieval kingdoms and you will see that Catholic social system is much more complex than just 'monarchy'. It was a warrior society first and foremost, rule by the bravest of the society who formed the elite force that could defend the people. If you don't have a warrior society, you end up being ruled by some despotic oligarchs and bureaucrats like we have now, because men become weak. Remember that when you receive communion, you become a warrior of Christ, and Christian society should reflect this warrior spirit.

Just having a monarch doesn't solve anything if he is from the merchant caste and represents the interests of an oligarchy, or if he is a cowardly slob.

The ideal Christian ruler is someone like Richard the Lionheart, a descendant of a lineage of mighty warriors who is a giant physically and compliments that with extreme courage and wise decisions. Someone who leads charges into much larger armies and is the first in battle. But such man can only come from a long established culture of renowned warriors.

This is why I can't respect any modern ruler post-Napoleon, they never personally lead their armies into battles and were just some bureaucrats. If you're a true warrior of Christ, you fight your battles yourself, or promote peace.

This is how it should be:

640px-St%C3%A4ndeordnung.jpg
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Absolute monarchy is an ideal, not a reality. In every monarchy and pseudo-monarchy in history, there are always elite factions struggling for control over the monarch, e.g. the military, clergy, nobility A, nobility B, ethnic groups, and the bankers. Saying that "absolute monarchy is my favorite government type" is as wishful as saying "enlightened democracy is my favorite government type". We all wish that monarchy is absolute, just like we wish all voters can be educated and literate.

Real example in history: you don't like the king, and therefore your faction supports the second son as being the heir, and you create a rebellion to instate him in power. Is this an absolute monarchy? Not really, since the "absolute" element of inheritance is sidestepped through factional support.
Broader point on historical psychology: when religious people say they want monarchy, what they really mean is they wish for a God-oriented central leadership with a strong grip on the country. They're expressing a sigh of disenchantment after being oppressed by godless factionalists. However, wishing for monarchy could be a false medicine, since we know that factionalists and internationalists have gained control over many great kings. On the other hand, getting rid of those factions is something that can be accomplished even in a democracy.
Jesus is King. He was not a democratically-elected president. The ancient Israelites did not get together and vote Jesus as their messiah.

On Earth, we should emulate Jesus and structure our societies in accordance to His will.

So no, monarchy and democracy are not equally bad. And there are good reasons why Christians might prefer the former.

Of course, true Christian monarchy cannot exist in an industrial technologically-advanced world disconnected from nature, but that is another topic.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Jesus is King. He was not a democratically-elected president. The ancient Israelites did not get together and vote Jesus as their messiah.

On Earth, we should emulate Jesus and structure our societies in accordance to His will.

Great, so have you joined the Latin Catholic Church and accepted the Pope as the earthly representative of Christ in the likeness of St. Peter?

So no, monarchy and democracy are not equally bad.

I did not say they are equally bad. I'm saying: what really matters is whose service and whose agenda is owning your monarchy and your democracy. It is better to be in a virtuous democracy than an ignoble monarchy.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Yeah, about that

Wow, you convinced me. Now that I know that democracy can never be virtuous, it is time for me to move to Saudi Arabia, which is ruled in the enlightened manner of monarchs.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Wow, you convinced me. Now that I know that democracy can never be virtuous, it is time for me to move to Saudi Arabia, which is ruled in the enlightened manner of monarchs.
Yeah, evil Saudi Arabia, where (gasp!) porn is banned women aren't allowed to drive!

If only they could be as enlightened as us and adopt democracy and liberalism...
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
If anyone wants to see what the Church has traditionally thought about this topic, Lactantius was the first "political theologian" to write about it. Eusebius then wrote a lot about it shortly afterward. The short version is that Monarchy reflects the structure of Heaven, but if you want to get deep into this topic then I recommend the book "The Making Of A Christian Empire" by Elizabeth Digeser.
 
Nice analysis. This situation reminds me a lot of the Ottoman and the Chinese system. I wonder if it was the same in the Byzantines?
The thing with rule by warrior nobility is that they are eventually replaced by mandarins as a result of more frequent wars.

China once had a warrior nobility:

But as war became larger scale and frequent. They fell out of existence and the state became more centralized. And bureaucrats took their place.

The warrior aristocracy didn't last.
 
What about The Third Position?

Nationalistic Fascism.

A-lot of men are adopting Fascistic ideology in response to the decline.

What do you guys think of this?
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
The thing with rule by warrior nobility is that they are eventually replaced by mandarins as a result of more frequent wars.

China once had a warrior nobility:

But as war became larger scale and frequent. They fell out of existence and the state became more centralized. And bureaucrats took their place.

The warrior aristocracy didn't last.

According to Evola, societies tend to go through four stages: they are ruled first by a spiritual elite or priestly class, then by warriors, then by merchants, then finally by the peasants. Needless to say he didn’t approve of rulership by the latter two groups.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
What about The Third Position?

Nationalistic Fascism.

A-lot of men are adopting Fascistic ideology in response to the decline.

What do you guys think of this?

There’s no need for Fascism if you’re a Christian Traditionalist. It’s all the good (authority, disdain for financial manipulators, concern for the lower classes) with none of the bad (biological determinism, adventurism, atheism, wanton violence). I’m vastly oversimplifying but that’s the general concept.
 
Top