Without democracy, you get ruled by mystery meat elites (pic related). With democracy, you get ruled by politicians who must find a compromise between the masses (who have the votes) and the elites (who have the money, own mass media, newspapers, social networks, etc.) It's an improvement.If you can come up with a better system, I'm all ears.In before>I don't want to compromise with the elites, I want to be ruled by uncompromising elites
>>519788938Democracy is rule by money. The rich always get what they want. The rich don't have to find a compromise with the masses. They just have to divide them into gay teams and propagandize them.The only benefit of monarchy is that monarchies are less likely to be bought off by foreign governments since they don't need the money.
>>519788938Intelligence-based segregated societies.
>>519789228>The only benefit of monarchy is that monarchies are less likely to be bought off by foreign governments since they don't need the money.except that the rothschilds have been doing exactly that for 500+ years, because it turns out the kings do not, in fact, have all the money they historically need.
>>519788938>If you can come up with a better systemPretty much every system is superior to democracy. The only reason we think democracy is good is because democracies are currently the richest countries. If they were poor, they'd be the most loathed.Thus the real question is, why are democracies rich? What is democracy really?
>>519789361Kinda. But what I mean to say is, their position isn't necessarily dependent on money. Politicians on the other hand are COMPLETELY beholden to money.But I agree that money influences monarchies, just less so. Lysander Spooner talked about monarchies and the Rothschild is his essay "No Treason"(pic-related).I circled the part you're talking about.https://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm
>...
>>519788938Monarchy that gets executed if 66% of the population disapproves of themThey'll actually build a country worth leaving to their children and they'll try to maintain public relations so they don't get guillotined as is tradition
>>519789361The Rothschilds were and of course are 100% dependent on being loyal servants to the royals. This tiny family from the jewish ghetto in Frankfurt did not take over the British Empire. It is a childish belief. They have 0 physical security and could be, at any given point in time, be removed from their positions of relative power with a simple snap of a finger by the royals.
>>519788938>>519789361>>519789697>Let me add...One of my favorite discussions about monarchy and rights come from a letter between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1788 during the debates on ratifying the US Constitution.https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-thomas-jefferson-9
>>519789845Who'll count the approval ratings? Who'll actually enforce the law, removing and killing the rulers if their approval rating dips too low? Do you think North Korea will ever register a sub-33% approval rating for its ruler?
>>519788938The opposite is true.With democracy you don't know who rules over you, anonymous bureaucrats and government employees (CIA, NSA) and outside interests (bankers, investment funds, media, high value companies) hold the real power but you will be fed the illusion of being ruled over whomever the people supposedly voted to power.Even things such as what is debated before elections is set by media. Your supposed leaders have almost no stake in the welfare of country and the system is rife with corruption.At least with a monarch you know who to blame when things are bad and the monarch benefits directly from a strong nation.When at first Trump started sanctioning China I saw an MSM interview where some expert analyst said that Xi Jinping had to be careful because the people in China expected things to get better and they it would be dangerous for him if they didn't. Do our politicians have the same fears?
>>519790401>Who'll count the approval ratings?The people, if too many disapprove a violent revolution happens. Such events have happened countless times in history. This keeps the elite on their toes and forces them to give concessions all the time, or they know what will happen to them.Now they feed you coca cola and yell you to vote better next time.It's an insult to life itself.
>>519788938me as your king and your god
>>519788938>>519789228>>519789361>>519789526It also reminds me of what Lord Acton said to Robert E. Lee
>>519790673So, regular civil wars?! (The one in Russia took more lives than WW1, which caused the revolution in the first place).
>>519790401Monarchs are constantly in fear of the people. Politicians are not. Worst-case scenario their party loses a couple seats in the next election, just to get them back a few years later.
>>519791998The threat of civil wars you fucking retard, and that is obviously not the only implicit threat. The elite have to think that their actions might have consequences, democracy almost completely decouples the elite from consequences, and it's through several mechanisms. First by obfuscation, you don't even know who rules over you, so your rage will be misplaced by default. Secondly by making divide and conquer easier, even if you can identify who rules over you, your rage will be directed towards the other plebs who didn't vote hard enough and not on the elite.
>>519788938Democracy is the worst.
>>519788938>>519790447I argue that the 'method' of election should be changed from a 'contest' to a "Tournament".Election day should be a 'season' where local communities choose a representative in an ascending bracket. >Everyone across the country is broken into 10 person groups based on residence proximity.>You and your 10 closest NEIGHBORS sit down and you choose 1 person to represent you.>Results are publicized>In 2 weeks, you do the same with the winners>You and your closest streets / towns>results publicized.>Fill in the whole government this way up to governors of states>They choose or compete with each other for president.Benefits;1. Eliminates money waste in campaigns2. Eliminates rigging of elections, you can't infiltrate every 10 person group!3. Promotes GOOD people based on who knows you closely4. Promotes community cohesion, say you want to run in government, you'd want your neighbor to like you, maybe if you clean up the street that old guy 2 houses over would want you to run...5. Two homeless people have more voting power than a professor. But under this system, 10 homeless would pick the 'best' among them, maybe that homeless person knows their problems best and has better ideas.TOURNAMENT! NOT Contests!
>>519792510Absolutely, let's bring on more bureaucracy.
>>519792303Yes. Democracy is just a form of subversion. Both internally and externally.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H37JIKFVp7Mhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KymI01mbdEE
>>519791998>>519792303Do you not realize that the implicit threat of violence is the foundation of society?Any law that has any form of punishment is enforced through the implicit force of violence, but violence is generally not used for apprehension, sentencing or the actual punishment.The implicit threat of violence is mainly directed at the plebs, democracy almost completely removes any remaining implicit threat for the elite.
>>519792608this, but unironicallydemocracy is the best we have explicitly because it is inherently inefficient, so it slows the arrival of the inevitable boot on our collective necks and at least lets you change the color of the boot every so oftenthere is no such thing as a good system in a global world, all roads lead to government overreach and the slow erosion of basic freedoms for the fewer and fewer people left that actually carethe real blackpill is that most people really are the dumb animals the so-called elites say they are
>>519790673>just let the people fight it out>(GW entered chat)>no, not him
>>519789273that's just india
>>519790401>Do you think North Korea will ever register a sub-33% approval rating for its ruler?The Swede kind of misunderstands how the world works.The people don't really matter in any country. The only thing that matters are the elites. As long as you keep the elites on your side, you can always retain power.A Civil War is not actually a war between the people, or between the people and the elites. A civil War is a war between one faction of elites and another faction of elites. Since no one fights a war they know they'll lose, a civil war is necessarily a weaker faction who either believes he can get the people on his side, and thus defeat a stronger faction, or it is a weaker faction supported by foreign elites to seize power.In almost every case it is the latter. From Venezuela to Ukraine to Iran to Taiwan to Afghanistan. Foreign powers are constantly trying to overthrow hostile governments and install friendly governments.As it relates to North Korea. Kim Jong Un is only in power through the support of the North Korean elite. The elite in North Korea are mostly associated with the military. Basically, a bunch of generals and their families in Pyongyang. Kind of like the Tokugawa Shogunate. If you wanted to depose the Kim family, you would basically have to buy off the North Korean elite. Convince them to switch sides.In most cases where the US government has installed a government, that government(its elites) can only maintain power so long as America provides them economic and military aid. If this aid was cut off, all of those governments would collapse. And that would include European governments which are really just US dependencies.The main benefit of democracy is actually that it is harder to overthrow and easier to control. The problem with democracy is that it only works as long as you can maintain control of global media. If China controlled the global media(TikTok, Youtube, Google, etc), they'd control democracy.
>>519793430>so it slows the arrival of the inevitable boot on our collective necksMaybe, but once the boot is firmly placed on our necks there is no way out.
>>519793430We were much more free under King George than King Trump. Our taxes were much lower as well.
>>519793662Actually I agree with you and think elite theory holds a lot of truth.
>>519793670the alternative is for it to happen quickly, and with the same level of firmnessif the system is encumbered, there's more opportunity to maneuver >>519793772and how's the UK looking today?the world was completely different back then, in too many ways to countthe current state of affairs is the natural result of technological advances and demographic change, we would end up in the same place no matter what the system is or how inbred its leaders arethe sole difference is how quickly we get there
>>519788938Its an perfect working historic system amongst with the religion infected society believing those monarchs are close to Jesus himself. Monarch have some constitutional and mostly ceremonical functions and they do all the charity-cuckery and forming the Bilderberg group. Thats abt it. Go cry abt it
>>519794051>and how's the UK looking today?The King has no power. I can't even remember the last King that had any power. Which is why it has been ostensibly ruled by feckless women and their ballless princes ever since Victoria.
