What I founded particularly interesting that Traditional Kings were also High Priests. And hence the Royal and Priestly Office was one.
You think the so called dichotomy of Priest and King ever truly existed in the Theocracy of the Mosaic Covenant?
Monarchy vs Democracy
- Thread starter infowarrior1
- Start date
You think the so called dichotomy of Priest and King ever truly existed in the Theocracy of the Mosaic Covenant?
Compared to a theocracy under the One True God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), all forms of government are bad.
Read 1 Samuel 8: 10-18.
God clearly warns the Israelites of the dangers of monarchy.
Democracy, of course, caters to man's baser instincts, but so does monarchy.
Read 1 Samuel 8: 10-18.
God clearly warns the Israelites of the dangers of monarchy.
Democracy, of course, caters to man's baser instincts, but so does monarchy.
Warrior Nobility
Sparrow
European warrior aristocracy lasted for 1000 years and created the greatest civilization in history that subdued the world.
I find it ridiculous when people say medieval concept of society failed when it lasted for a milenium and then you see those same guys supporting things like fascism, modern nationalism, socialism etc. that couldn't even last a century and lead to eternal turmoil and a bunch of mediocre people in charge who never personally lead armies to battles.
Every civilization is bound to fail when it becomes too successful for its own good. Civilization itself is not necessarily good. European civilization is the only one I have respect for because it preserved a certain barbarian warrior element. This is the same reason why leftists and marxists hate it so much, they want a peaceful pampered civilization where people live in some castrated matriarchal communities. The opposite of that is society ruled by warrior nobility, young athletic men with ambitions of eternal conquest. This is the idea that Charlemagne embodied.
100% Agreed.
The thing is though I think a Fascistic Imperium is more likely to emerge as the main opponent to Globalism and it's allies rather than a Christian Monarchy movement. We live in a secular age. Fascism is a secular ideology, which yes makes things problematic for us and we Christian Tradionalists view secularism to be the main problem of the modern world.
A Christian Monarchy does not work unless most of the peoples are Orthodox or Catholic Or Protestant and it has to be a specific denomination as well. Fascism in the early 20th century was extremely kind to us Christians. A reconversion needs to take place again in order for a Christian Monarchy to even be possible. And a specific reconversion, Orthodox and Catholic. This will take time.
Warrior Nobility
Sparrow
This is not true. Study history, many examples of Christian monarchies ruling peoples of various denominations.
The last true Christian monarchy was Austria-Hungary which was Catholic but inluced a large number of Protestants and Orthodox Christians and many non-Catholic subjects were extremely loyal to it. One of the last finest generals of A-H was Svetozar Boroević von Bojna who was an Orthodox Christian.
Also Holy Roman Empire continued to function even after large parts became Protestant.
Hungary between WW1 and WW2 had a Calvinist regent Miklós Horthy ruling over majority Catholic country as a regent of a monarch, and Catholics and Protestants were united in their support of him.
Warrior Nobility
Sparrow
People who self-declare as Fascists in 21st century are extremely degenerate attention seekers who are almost always openly pagan and inspired by the likes of Nietzsche.
While I had some sympathies to some Catholic regimes that get lumped up as 'fascist' (Austria 1934-1938 for example), I quickly discovered that fascism is just a cover for paganism and just leads to trouble.
I don't see why a Catholic should flirt with any modern ideology when we have 1000 years of Catholic imperial tradition.
I'll admit I didn't have much of a clue of what went on in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Thank you for sharing.
Do you have any literature you can recommend on the subject that has to do with pre world war I Austro-Hungary? Interested in learning more about Austro-Hungary.
It's because the wars in Europe were more limited compared to Asia.
chronologicaldot
Pigeon
Yeah, and that's the sad part. Satan has made people "freedom"-loving pro-democracy extremists. A good Christian monarchy is balanced (opposed to extremism), limiting on freedom, and obviously anti-democratic. Plato was correct in saying that the best government is a philosopher king. He very much did not trust the mob.
In regards to fascism, I think we find allies in weird places. Fascism is a male-centric mentality. It's easier to establish a mentality of a monarchy (rule by a KING, a dude no less) among guys yelling for a return of patriarchy than it is among gals yelling for women's rights.
I don't want to appear patronising, but in economics there's a term known as 'perfect information' - when the consumer knows everything he needs to make the best decision. So if he goes to a garage to buy a car, and knows everything about the vehicle's condition, he'll pay based on that information. But naturally, there's like to be a salesman there who'll try to exaggerate its worth in order to get him to pay more, and pressure the customer, to make him believe someone else is interested in a car that's taken his fancy.
In a democracy, the salesman is the media. It's the media that disseminates the information upon which the electorate (or the consumer, in the above analogy) depends when he makes his choice. The media might lie about the state of the economy, immigration. It might lie about big things, like an imminent ecological threat to the planet, or a terrorist attack, or some other historical event in order to distort the electorate's perception of the world.
In a democracy, whoever controls the media controls the narrative and determines the election. This is why the internet is such a threat, and why net censorship is so important. A democracy cannot function when the electorate depends on information controlled by a few oligarchs.
In a democracy, the salesman is the media. It's the media that disseminates the information upon which the electorate (or the consumer, in the above analogy) depends when he makes his choice. The media might lie about the state of the economy, immigration. It might lie about big things, like an imminent ecological threat to the planet, or a terrorist attack, or some other historical event in order to distort the electorate's perception of the world.
In a democracy, whoever controls the media controls the narrative and determines the election. This is why the internet is such a threat, and why net censorship is so important. A democracy cannot function when the electorate depends on information controlled by a few oligarchs.
chronologicaldot
Pigeon
But censorship by who? The government itself can be corrupt and censor good information. Anything man controls inevitably gets messed up. All governments and systems have corruption. That's just a natural part of having people run the show.
As I like to joke, God only ever made one mistake: He left people in charge.
Monarchy is dead folks. Main issue with monarchy is it inevitably results somewhere down the line (pun intended) with weak heirs. The only "perfect" (aka as close as we can get) human society is the compact, direct democracy (ethno)city-state. When the people are of the same stock, same tongue and same ethos it is much harder to impose the favorite tactics of are elites, divide and conquer.
Christianity is a monarchy. Christ is King. Monarchy will therefore never be dead as a concept. It may take a global collapse for people to realize the value of having strong patriarchs but the time will come when we live under a monarchy, either in this life or the next.
America once upon a time was an explicitly white ethno-state. Being monogamous is a good thing to be sure, but that doesn't prevent decadency.
There are so many different flavors of Fascism though.
I think the Third Position is inevitable the way we're going.
I think the Third Position is inevitable the way we're going.
chronologicaldot
Pigeon
Ideally, a smart king would pick a competent heir. I still think monarchy is better. Historically, even when they are terrible, they last for thousands of years. Republics last only a couple hundred at most. True "direct" democracies are even shorter, lasting until the inevitable war. Just ask Athens.
I think Monarchy is better too. But the chances of a Monarchy forming in the near future as a direct oppositional force to the global political order of today is idealistic and probably unlikely. There is no Church and State Monarch Imperium forming anytime soon. Though I would love to see this happen, it's just not, the atmosphere just won't allow it.
Our best option in hope of serious change outside of the church and via politics is The Third Position.
chronologicaldot
Pigeon
I think a monarchy could evolve under the right conditions, but I see only happening sooner than later if the fascists win. Fascism leads to dictatorship, which is simply rule by a man. As population and technology decline (which they inevitably will esp. given current loss of truth in our education system), the dictatorship will lose its necessary military grip on society (because tyrannies need advanced tech), and states will decay into more stable, controllable systems, thus resulting in an overall feudal state.
Sadly, the communists are winning. Again, population and tech will degrade, resulting in a loss of military power, so the eventual outcome is a feudal system anyways. However, communism is the more, shall we say, uncomfortable path.
Sadly, even if the fascists win, I still see persecution of Christians (as in Nazi Germany) unless somehow Christianity is shown to champion nazism in the US.
India is pretty democratic but I wouldn’t put it past them to develop a Hindu-based monarchy or at least oligarchy by the end of the century. The more democracy ends up looking like a Western mistake, the more likely it’ll be.
Also for anyone interested in this topic, check out T. S. Eliot’s political writings. He wrote some good stuff justifying monarchist thought.
Also for anyone interested in this topic, check out T. S. Eliot’s political writings. He wrote some good stuff justifying monarchist thought.