What's wrong with monarchy?Republics have plenty of problems too.In fact, there is no system of government, and neither is there any system of government that can last forever. As Plato said, systems of government recur in cycles, as each system of government starts off fresh and does things to improve people's lives in the polity, but eventually it grows old and corrupt and gets replaced with a new system of government after enough pushback from both commoners and elites and the cycle begins anew.This life-peak-death cycle applies to every system of government and to every government. It is inescapable, like a law of nature concerning sociology or how human social institutions develop and then devolve. All our institutions have a lifespan.And what there is to recommend monarchy is its naturalness, meaning the fact that something like 99% or more of all the political systems to exist since civilization began have been monarchies.Yes, every monarchy has died. Every dynasty has died to be replaced by another, and then every chain of dynasties in a monarchical system has ended as well, to be replaced by a whole new system of government or even a new civilization. But republics and democracies or whatever systems we live under today that were inspired by the Enlightenment will grow old and die too. In fact they're already very old and decaying, as is obvious from how sclerotic and corrupt they are, clear signals that they're in their final period of life: senility or old age.At least with a monarchy, it feels natural. It's just written into human DNA to follow one ruling family regarded as royal and therefore a cut above the rest of humanity, even the nobles who, while noble, still aren't royal and are to the royals what peasants are to the nobles: a whole different order in the Chain of Being.I submit to you there is an existential comfort to living under a system of monarchy, a freedom of not having to deal with politics and knowing all major
>>520991683decisions will be made from on high with by leaders who have no obligation, nor any inclination, to make appeals to the masses to try to win public support. Fact is, those leaders need no public approval to act or make laws or execute policies. What the public thinks about anything is a nonissue and an irrelevance. And in that quietude of the masses, who are not being led around by the nose by demagogues or petty men of ambition, i.e. "politicians" or professional panderers to public opinion (who then, upon election, cease to concern themselves with mass opinion until the next election is approaching), but who instead of forming into enthused and wild-eyed mobs just go about their daily business as common people living their lives, there is a freedom -- a freedom from politics itself, with all its crazed stirring up of popular passions and leading one part of the social body against another -- that we who live in republics or democracies or constitutional monarchies -- whatever you wish to call them, these systems based on voting that purport to represent the will of the people as the basis of their powers and legitimacy -- simply do not know because we have not experienced it and the last people who lived in the old absolute monarchies have long since died and whatever memories they passed on in their family lines have by now faded to the point of disappearing.Living in a political system, i.e. a system run by politicians who make a living on politicking -- appealing to the masses, which means rankling the masses more and more until they become proper mobs with the insane mob mentality -- instead of in one the absolute monarchies that have been the world-historical norm, is just to trade one kind of freedom for another in what is either a zero-sum game or else even a losing game where the political life, or life under a representative government of politicians, turns out to be a comedown from the more natural lifeway found in a realm headed by a king.
As good as the ruler
>>520991683Real King takes care of his nation , crypto kikes not
The foundational question for modern political thought is legitimacy. Monarchists often confuse coercion (force) with right (justified authority). In short, monarchy is philosophically unsound because it substitutes the chance of birth for the principle of reason in defining the ultimate authority. The "What's wrong with monarchy?" question assumes that a king represents an alternative to the modern state, when in reality, monarchy simply provides a historical mask for the same, relentless structures of domination, while at least the modern state is driven in theory by a sense of reason and rationalism. The argument that since all systems have a lifespan, monarchy is equally valid, is cheap rhetoric designed to paralyze reform efforts. Your thesis relies on a shallow reading of classical cycles to justify the abdication of political responsibility.
>...
>
>>520991730The problem in the famous cover art for Thomas Hobbes' groundbreaking book "Leviathan" is that the monarch is made up of all the little people put together, which is meant to signal that ultimately, the monarch's right to rule, meaning his legitimacy, is derived from the people, for the monarchy is an institution of the people.Thomas Hobbes is often depicted and thus regarded as some ogre advocating for tyranny for his unwavering defense of absolute monarchy during the English Civil War when republican sentiments were ripping the country apart, but in fact, Thomas Hobbes is the founder of social contract theory (made much more famous and so now more associated with John Locke), which states that the government and the whole social order is like a contract between the elites who rule and the ordinary people who are ruled, where the rulers receive special powers and especial wealth in return for providing security to the common folk from dangers within, like criminals, and dangers without, like hostile armies of a foreign state.So even in the Hobbesian absolute monarchy, which was never put into effect because right after the English Civil War full-fledged constitutional monarchy was instituted, the king is only king in virtue of his contract with the people, and therefore a kind of "politics" is already assumed and must be involved in the sovereign-subject relationship, where the king may have to make appeals to the commoners, or make his case to the masses, like just another politician, in order to convince the public that he is upholding his end of the contract if ever his rule should be called into question broadly. But the overwhelming majority of monarchies throughout the world and down through history -- monarchy being the world-historical norm among political systems -- from the successive dynasties of China to the Tudors in England, never claimed legitimacy derives from any consent of or contract with the governed, i.e. their subjects.
>>520991768>democracies has dozens of corrupt morons ruling them in a row, with rare blessing of half-decent ruler to lead them for meager 4 years>that is considered normal>a monarch of average abilities takes reign>republicans loses their shit at start violently destroy their countryRepublicans are by definition corrupt morons that just want to ride a train on your country. The figure of monarch (that is above them) prevents them from full experience.
>>520992309Social contract theory is a strictly modern invention. The normal state of monarchy is to gain its legitimacy from the divine realm, whether that means God's anointment of the monarch or the idea that the emperor rules by heavenly mandate, meaning that the legitimacy of the sovereign has always rested upon the blessing given to the monarchy by the dominant religious establishment of the day in that realm where the monarch's power is felt and asserted, such that all monarchies have not been theorized to be contractual relationships between king and subject, but instead, the priestly class, who represent and uphold the religious beliefs of the society, recognize the sovereign as legitimate head of the state and therefrom springs the sovereign's legitimacy, his very right to rule the realm. Church and State have always had to cooperate, for the most part -- of course bickering always occurs between these two elite establishments, sometimes to the point of outright conflict leading to the de-legitimization of the king or, conversely, the destruction of temples or priests by the king -- in order for a monarch not just to function from day to day, but to get off the ground in the first place, meaning to rise and become a monarchy because the institution of kingship relies upon the religious orientation of the masses and then the blessing of that religion's top representatives in order for the kingship to be consecrated as a proper or legitimate monarchical order. When Church and State work together, which is the vast majority of the time, then the king's power is undisputed because it is said and believed to be divine in origin. And during these times, people enjoy the peace of nonpolitics, or such peace as exists when there is no politician roaming the land trying to gather a mob to do his bidding in an effort to elevate himself to some level equal to sovereignty. And that peace is the freedom of life under kingly rule -- a freedom from politics.
So how can young men be the problem then?If all your "adversaries" are over 40
>>520993008This is ultimately the reason or motive of republicanism and its proponents: to rise to the level of the sovereign and have no one who is considered to belong to a natural order outranking themselves, hence republicans' insistence on some kind of essential equality among people. They dislike the assertion that some people, meaning the royals, occupy an order of being, a station, above their own, that they can never attain to because they were not born to it, and instead of submitting to the world-historically normal system of government, which is absolute monarchy by divine right, the republican mind, in all its self-interested ambition bonded to hateful envy of the republican's social betters, foments trouble in the social body, like a cancer wanting to metastasize itself by breeding more of its kind to establish a harmful presence on one social organ after another, so that, ultimately, the monarch can be toppled, along with the idea that attends all monarchy and says one kind of person is uniquely above all others, and now the republican-minded individuals of petty ambition can reign as little sovereigns in their own right, as politicians claiming to represent the people who do anything but this and instead just represent themselves, while the people, meanwhile, must suffer one petty tyrant after another in the chain of venal republican political leaders that follows after the cancer of republican pseudo-freedom, a freedom of false promises, has metastasized far enough to kill its original host: that natural monarchy from which it sprang as an abominable and fatal mutation.
>>520993108I don't get your meaning.
>>520993008Putin is one of the most remarkable political leaders of the 21st century, quite likely the single most remarkable leader of this century so far, since he was the first leader of a major country to go against the trend of globalization, which always amounted to American imperialism through indirect means, just by ruling in the interests of Russia and ignoring pressure coming from the West to weaken Russia by opening the country up to exploitative, extractive Western corporations, most of whose wealth ends up at some point flowing through Wall St. where all the major players at that point in the process take their cut. Of course this century remains young, being only a quarter over with, but so far, no world leader has eclipsed Putin in influence, meaning that he gave rise to the new nationalist wave sweeping the world in the wake of globalization's downfall.Erdogan, Xi, Modi, Bolsonaro etc., who are the new nationalists who came to power upon promises to oppose the global order and govern in the national interest rather than in the interests of multinational corporations headquartered mainly in the United States, are just following, whether they know it or not, in Putin's footsteps, walking the very trail that he blazed. This century commenced at the peak of globalist fervor and Putin, immediately upon becoming Prime Minister in 1999 and then President in 2000, brooked the globalist trend by refusing to govern his country in the interests of multinational business cartels, as was the universal demand made upon all world leaders of the time (and still is today, but in different forms and with more urgency/desperation, like in Trump's transformation of tariffs into sanctions to use as means of coercion of other countries), and instead Putin just followed a general policy of governing in the interests or Russia.There was the famous White House barbecue bromance of George W. Bush around 2002 or 2003, when Putin visited and enjoyed the US President's
>>520995854barbecued meat offerings and then Bush proceeded to praise how nice and genuine of a man, and how manly of a man, President Putin is.That bromance, always a one-sided bromance of Bush loving on Putin, quickly faded when it became clear that Putin's agenda would not coincide with America's and was in fact bound up with a willingness to defy Washington when doing so served Russia, despite America's insistence on subservience from the rest of the world (it was still the "unipolar moment"). What happened is there was a diplomatic afterglow after 9.11.2001 when world leaders, no matter what they truly thought of America and its leaders, heaped lavish praise on America and its leaders. Of course this honeymoon of global sympathy for America was doomed to be short lived as America proceeded with its planned-since-the-90s (see PNAC) invasion of Iraq. In other words, from the beginning, Putin was fated to become a bogeyman to America and the West because he would not fall in line with Washington's agenda like a good puppet leader of a lesser state during the unipolar moment of what was expected to be unchallenged American dominance in the world, and sure enough, Putin's refusal to toe the line encouraged other national leaders to follow suit and begin rejecting Washington's demands in favor of their own national interests. Putin opened the door of defiance against unilateral American rule, and this is the cardinal he committed that the West, America and its British imperial advisor nation above all, can never forgive. But even Trump is a Putinist whether he knows it or not and, if he knows it, whether or not he ever admits it. He is just another one in the line of new nationalists in the 21st century who have broken with the dream of globalization that the world would be unified in a system of trade, even perhaps a homogenizing world culture, based on American interests. Putin is thus the most courageous of today's leaders.
>>520996480He has the courage of his convictions and his defiance of Washington has spilled over into a hundred new ways of telling America that other countries will not be governed according to Washington's requirements. Twenty years ago, it was normal for all the major countries to follow the republican model of replacing their heads of government at regular intervals, and even China was falling in line and selecting a new leader roughly every decade.Well, that global surge of republicanism is now dead, since not only Putin, but also Modi and Xi and Erdogan and a dozen lesser heads of government have declared their intention to rule for life. The era was major countries and minor ones replacing their top leaders at regular intervals, thus following the American model, did not last more than a couple decades, and really only during the height of the unipolar moment from about 1992, right after the Soviet Union dissolved itself and America had no peer rival in the world, until about 2008 when it became clear that America is a flailing empire that will end the way all previous empires have ended -- in imperial implosion upon losing one foreign territory after another -- because the 2008 collapse showed the world that America's new service economy was a house of cards and shot through with so much corruption that the federal government had to take on some $10 trillion in the few years after the financial crisis to stanch the bleed out of the bank panic, such as in the form of QE and then QE2, along with generous bailouts of the same corrupt financial and corporate institutions whose reckless behavior caused the crisis in the first place.Since 2008, America's financial position has never recovered, nor can it recover, because now this country is locked on a path in which each new recession threatens to become a financial implosion of the banking system and so requires trillions of dollars of liquidity be pumped into the banks and major corporations to prevent
>>520991683bump
waiting on your technology
>>520997148each new recession from turning into a Great Depression. America would have done better to let the banks and the financial system fail in 2008, accepted a 15-20 year Great Depression as the consequence of reckless speculation and gambling by banks and corporations, and then emerged financially healthy again some time around now (we'd just be getting past the Depression had we let the economic cycle run its course instead of holding off the inevitable with bailouts funded through new debt), without an unmanageable level of national debt. We are at a point now, with our near $40 trillion in debt owed by the federal government alone, and not even counting the states' individual debts and each city and municipalities' unfunded obligations like promises of generous decades' long pensions to retired civil servants and police officers, where America's finances are an insoluble problem and the longer we hold back the tidal wave of our economic reckoning, the greater the resulting devastation will be. Yes, had we let the 2008 crash run its course, America might have had to give up its role as lone superpower due simply to the inability to afford large military spending during a Depression, but we could have bargained a new "dispensation" of the world, as it were, with the other major powers where we all would have agreed how to carve up the world into separate spheres of influence and control like the countries of Europe did for the colonization of Africa during the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885. But now we find our country, owing to the shortsightedness of our elected leaders, facing a worse prospect than just a new division of the world where America is no longer preeminent. With the bailouts ensuing from the 2008 crash, the banks and the federal government married their fortunes together such that now, when the banks fall apart due to continue reckless behavior and the federal government can no longer afford to bail them out once again, then the federal
>>520997893government will collapse along with them, because the financial system and the government are now a single entity, hence Trump's travels around the world to encourage world leaders to invest in America, particularly in AI, which the leaders of America and Europe, both regions facing financial Armageddon unless some windfall appears in front of them, have placed all their bets on as the last possible hope for solving their debt crisis, imagining that AI will generate such profits as to make the hundreds of trillions of dollars of unfunded obligations and government debt across the West manageable. Putin has had the effect of leading the world away from American hegemony and control, whether he intended this or not. The next logical step he could take in renouncing the entire West and its ways would be to sign the death warrant of republicanism itself, whose most salient feature is national elections, which events are celebrated as the ultimate symbol of the triumph of popular freedom, the apotheosis of liberty, by being the first leader of a major country to bring back the age old and world-historically normal governmental system of monarchy in declaring himself Tsar of All the Russias in the tradition of the Romanovs of old (which proclamation would include the added insult of including the Kievan Rus, aka Ukraine, as one of his claimed dominion as Emperor of All the Russia, meaning all the Rus's: Kievan, Novgorodan, and of course Muscovite). Other world leaders would follow suit and, within just years, India would be the self-declared Maharaja of India, Erdogan the Sultan of Turkey, Xi the Emperor of China, etc. etc. Trump himself would love to make himself sovereign and monarch of the United States, and he even hinted, persistently, at seeking a third presidential term despite the Constitution, and although he walked back these statements recently, Trump always reserves the right to change his mind. If Trump witnessed one major leader after
>>520998741another ushering in a new modern world of kings and monarchies, thus ending our current world of politicians and republics, then he could not help but attempt to join in the fun and make himself the first King of the United States of America, thereby rendering the Constitution of 1789 defunct and, with it, the whole era of republicanism and anti-monarchy that first emerged in 1776 as a result of all the intellectual tumult of the Enlightenment and its laser focus on destroying the ancient rights of kings and priests, of monarchy and church.And so we'd be back in the age of absolute monarchy by divine right, which is the system which has characterized human existence since the dawn of agriculture more than ten thousand years ago up until around the 19th century, in Europe and the West, and then the 20th century in the rest of the world. The age of liberty and liberalism, which is the age of republicanism and elected governments and their nonstop deluge of corrupt politicians, would suddenly be placed in perspective as just an ephemeral and odd departure from normalcy and naturalness in the world's long history of kingships. Perhaps Trump could then declare Baron his heir, the next king of the United States, as Baron seems to be his most beloved (and perhaps most remarkable) son.
No sir you can't party here you look outside and pester the minorsI live next to a school you are sex predator in the legal predator registration you lost your license that you graduated and paid for
>>520999477The idea of returning to monarchy bothers you so deeply that it actually broke your brain?
>>520997649What technology am I supposed to provide?I would be interested to see how absolute monarchy by divine right, which is the only model of monarchy that ever worked (constitutional monarchy is not really monarchy, which word literally means "rule by one," since the constitutional supposed monarch is no ruler anymore, but rather a figurehead and pure symbol without governmental agency or power to act in government), would look in the modern high-tech world of internet, mobile phones, jet travel across oceans and between continents, orbiting satellites, nuclear weapons and power stations, so on and so forth. The monarch's face could even be projected onto the moon, so that when people look up in the night sky, they see their king above them looking down upon them as his subjects ("subject" literally means "thrown beneath"), and the king would, in some nearly literal sense of the phrase, be the man on the moon.Pepsi once wanted to project its logo on the face of the moon that always faces Earth due to tidal locking, as part of a marketing campaign that would have turned the moon itself into something like a billboard to place a worldwide ad, or an ad visible from around the world (or that portion of the world experiencing nighttime). Of course Pepsi was not given permission to project its logo onto the moon.But consider all the ways that the new monarchs of the planets countries could be made into virtual presences in our lives owing to the powers of modern technology. The possibilities are vast.
Would anyone like to join in creating a movement to push for a worldwide return of absolute monarchies by divine right and the end of the republican age and its decadence?
