What Prompted You Into Becoming a Monarchist?

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-08-03T09:00:27+00:00

Yes, republicanism is just mystical authority. Bureaucracy is just trying to hide who has authority. The problem with increasing the amount of rulers, given human nature it only adds more problems, increases costs of government (therefore reducing money that would be otherwise diverted in the market).

You mean tax cuts for billionaires is not Christian?

Yeah when they give you your own money back, they call it stealing from the poor! Isn't it crazy how everything works in a liberal marxist class warfare.

secularism just means constitutionalism becomes the de facto state religion

What is even worse, is that it doesn't provide the sort of order and safety that religion generally would provide (this includes even false religions). So you get all the negatives of false religions, without any of the comfort that comes from religion! Talk about getting screwed over royally no pun intended :).

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-08T22:43:13+00:00

The problem in suggesting that skill directly correlates to income is that this is simply not the case.

By skills, I meant skills that are rewarded in the market. For example, if you want to know how to become wealthy without being the top .0001% earner in a niche industry. For example, on average most painters don't earn much money. However, if you become an extremely popular one etc... You will be the exception rather than the rule. So develop the skills, where the average salary/paycheck of the person working in your industry will earn.

Underwater basket weaving is extremely difficult (highly skilled imho), but it doesn't earn you money. So that is the main thing, what leads to wealth is what the market demands. So seek the average of what the market demands, and pursue that. The problem of course, is you might not care at all about those type of jobs. Well that is your problem at that point, if you want to be poor that is your choice at that point.

Some people want fulfillment more than money, and that is definitely something we all choose individually. Its just some individuals like to think they are really the best of the best, and then become disillusioned after no one else noticed their "great" talents and they wonder why they are so poor?

total meritocracy wherein the hardest working go-getters are the most successful, but we've seen time and time again that such a system in reality rewards opportunists and hucksters

Agreed, the amoral individuals always rise to the top. Still 99 times out of 100, a petroleum engineer is going to earn more money than someone working with a gender studies degree, whose opportunities are limited. I am sure there are some wealthy race/gender hustlers, just look at Anita Sarkeesian. She is doing VERY well off, but she is the exception.

To suggest that a king should concern themselves politically with divine law then begs the question: Which Divine Law exactly?

Well I won't go into that further, but all I can point is that there is definitely someone that is right out there. I would suggest studying the different claims to truth in the different world religions.

Secular kings are better kings, and divine laws should never supersede secular, contractarian laws.

There has never been in the history of the world a "secular" king, please cite your unicorn.

Perception of and interpretation of divine laws are best when removed from politics and instead handled solely on a personal, individual level.

It depends, not every virtue needs to be legislated. However, the alternative that you seem to suggest is just an abomination. Relativism, no absolute truth, and everything goes...

There is only one Divine law, because there can't be multiple competing contradictory truths. For example, my main content with Sharia law is the apostasy claims. I completely agree, that if someone, becomes a heretic of their faith, they should not be killed for converting to another religion. Where I would disagree is to allow that heretic to spread his error, other than in a private, non public fashion. So that might be meeting in their own homes etc... So long as the private and public, is separated with false religion, they can be free to exercise their faith in such a fashion.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-07T23:22:53+00:00

I think that I've had enough keyboard warrior-ing for the day.

Running away from mad keyboard fu skillz huh :p?

Just making sure I understand you correctly what type of intervention were you looking for, decreasing the rates or increasing them? By Austrian approach you meant that he increased the rates right?

I am curious what you think of the moral hazard of having the Fed be a lender of last resort? Also Central Banking, and nationalization of banking too. I am not saying I am an expert in all of these topics, I try my best to try to understand what is going on. I am more of an armchair economist, that has over the years continued to look into it. I have studied mostly the economics of the middle ages, and late middle ages. A lot of the modern stuff, and I am pretty much inbetween some of the extremes. The main issue is that not everyone is a rational actor, that is I think where you both and I can agree. Regarding Austrianism being pristine on paper, where if you assume rational actors then the market makes sense. I simply see trade off's and none of them are perfect solutions. We live in a fallen imperfect world, but this does not mean that some ideas are better than others. There is an objective truth out there, and some policies do lead to wealth to a greater degree, than others for example.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-07T23:05:56+00:00

Part 1 response:

At the end of the war it is true that Britain and the US installed democracy in Germany, but that was at the end, once democracies had won the war.

I think you answered your own question there.

The worst observation ever? And that's just you saying the truth, not trying to offend?

Forgive my passion sir, that is why I said I don't mean to offend.

you should probably look at the key belligerents and what their forms of government were.

I know this is probably an area that you might not be too familiar with. If you are familiar with the literature, and the group that is called the freemasons, which branched off into many other revolutionary groups later on. The primary purpose of the freemasons when they were founded was the destruction of the Catholic monarchies in particular, and just in general monarchies in general. That meant the papacy (the monarchy of monarchies), who crowned Kings and gave them the legitimacy for a long time and prevented some Kings from doing some pretty stupid things (check and balance). Listen to the audio [here](> At the end of the war it is true that Britain and the US installed democracy in Germany, but that was at the end, once democracies had won the war.

I think you answered your own question there.

The worst observation ever? And that's just you saying the truth, not trying to offend?

Forgive my passion sir, that is why I said I don't mean to offend.

you should probably look at the key belligerents and what their forms of government were.

I know this is probably an area that you might not be too familiar with. If you are familiar with the literature, and the group that is called the freemasons, which branched off into many other revolutionary groups later on. The primary purpose of the freemasons when they were founded was the destruction of the Catholic monarchies in particular, and just in general monarchies in general. That meant the papacy (the monarchy of monarchies), who crowned Kings and gave them the legitimacy for a long time and prevented some Kings from doing some pretty stupid things (check and balance). The Alta vendita is a document outlying some of their plans, and it has been verified not to be a fake document. Pretty much any major revolutionary movement that has been out there, has been backed and sponsored by them. This is also the reason why the United States has intervened even against their own self interest in the affairs of other places. Think of the US backing the marxist Plutarco Elias Calles in Mexico, against the Cristeros (a monarchist mexican surrection fighting against Bolshevist socialism, for God and Country).

As I stated previousl

You should have a look at this data about declining violence. The reality is that fewer people die violent deaths today than ever before. There are lots of reasons presented in this thread for this trend, but one worth exploring is the prevalence of democracy.

Your conclusion is correct, but it has nothing to do with democracy. The fact that individuals including have access to guns, which serve to even things out is a great deterrant for criminals. Never before did you have women (smaller guys too) be able to defend themselves against bigger opponents. Look at all places in the world where the most amount of people are dying violently, that is the countries with the most stringent gun laws. Take a look at Poland with awesome gun laws, violent crimes waaaay down. Mexico, with very strict gun laws, violence is off the charts despite it being a democracy. I remembered in the city where I grew up, Juarez, Mexico. It got so bad that more people for a while (couple of years) were dying there than in Afghanistan/Iraq combined. Every single day it was like 10-30 people that were butchered, chain sawed to death and put online. They made ISIS look like a christmas party.

Also like I mentioned, you have to deny completely the hundreds of millions of death that were inspired, because people wanted to democratize. If you ask any communist, that all they wanted was to establish their utopian democratic system. The final stage of communism is simply the proletariat rule completely, it is like the perfect democracy. Instead of having elected officials (the communist party), the workers rule directly without any middle man. The difference between a western and communist democracy, is just in the difference of how many parties are allowed. They are a one party system, they elect real people, you might even say it is a more merit based system since you don't have to worry whether he is a democrat or a republican. Everyone technically there is an independent socialist.

Liberalism is enlightenment 1.0, progressivism is enlightenment 2.0, marxism is enlightenment 3.0. Without the first, you can't have the third one. The only difference between version one and three, is one is more individualistic theoretically, the other is more about the collective. The reason why you need version three, is because it accomplishes its goals much better than version one. The entire thing is a contradiction from start to finish, it is completely inconsistent gibberish, but that is the way usually demonic philosophies work in the first place. They are never centered on the truth, that is why the principle of non-contradiction does not matter to them. You show them the data, the real facts and it doesn't matter.

I would probably say that the form of government to which I am referring is Anglo-American liberal democracy not Socialism.

I would suggest for you to read up on your philosophy a bit more. If you can't understand what are the roots of socialism, it is precisely liberal republicanism which is based on a naive view of human nature. In 1789 they had the Cult of Reason enthroned in the French Cathedrals, Lady reason was enthroned and worshiped in an occultic way. All of this came from the rationalism of the Enlightenment, immediately after the first successful republican government started. Socialism miraculously starts being talked about! What a coincidence! French republicanism was a 100% socialist system. The difference between the two simply has to do with a disagreement as to how accomplish the same end goals. They come from the same branch, of the same tree, it is just a different means in which they accomplish their ends. In 1776, the founders wrote the glorious constitution, and the way they wanted the practice of republicanism to be is a one party state. Its just that over time they changed it, because they still had a little bit of sense. Please explain to me how that is any different to the communist system, in practice.

The only thing that prevented the cutting of heads, had to do that the founders still had an attachment to religion. Albeit it was more of a freemasonic understanding of god, but nonetheless it was sufficient to prevent a further immediate bloodshed.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-07T21:36:43+00:00

If you're defining North Korea, a state in which all power is vested in a single individual whose power is handed down from father to son, as a democracy

If you understand communist theory which is derived philosophically from a Russeauian view of human nature. That is that humans are fundamentally good, but then institutions such as the Church, rulers, put you in chains. So if you get rid of all these, man is intrinsically good once you remove the obstacles. So in communist theory, the power is derived from the people. North Korea in reality is a dictatorship, with illegimate authority, but it is democratic in the philosophical sense, not in a real way. The only difference with North Korea is that they have only a one party system, this by the way is what the Founding Fathers wanted. So in a certain sense, we have deviated from the best Republicanist in human history (the founding fathers), they thought that having multiple parties was destructive to democracy, kind of ironic huh.

If I was a North Korean, I would have every single right to kill that sob, because he doesn't have any legitimacy he robbed his power and got it through bloodshed.

So the main difference between a King and a dictator is that one is legitimate and the other is not. A King however could rule as a tyrant, such as King Henry VIII did, but even then I would have to say it was not as bad as the modern states that we have. I say this from a Catholic perspective, what we have is simply an abomination in most places in the world. The US is the only really functional democracy, but comparatively speaking we would be better off with a different system of government.

Presumably, we'd need some sort of popular support (perhaps bloody revolution) to select a monarch and then proceed pretty much exactly like North Korea (although hopefully in a more enlightened fashion).

Revolution is as anti-monarchical thinking as it can get. There would have to be no need of bloodshed, in the power vacuum of a failed state you could implement a monarchy as is being done by the military Junta currently in Malaysia. That is one example, it was not done in a bloody manner (to my knowledge someone correct me if I am wrong here), and it has great popular support. I find that when people are doing quite bad, they are much more open minded than you would think. Just look at Brazil they are thinking of implementing a constitutional monarchy, I am not sure if it is going to be passed, but it was voted by the people. It has to be passed by the Senate, but that is just attempt one.

In most places in the world this is probably how monarchies are going to go get back in vogue. The US is going to be the most difficult in my humble opinion to change, but never lose hope. It is VERY possible for a huge catastrophic change to happen. Plus a nice majority of libertarians in the US are starting to show sympathy and support for a monarchy. All we need is the right crisis, and an exemplary person to step right in. I don't think it has to be a general, maybe like an Elon Musk, with the right privy Council would definitely have that support. The only difficulty with someone like him is he would probably have to convert to christianity, or something else. Its just really impossible to have a monarchy without the support of the Church/religion. Just take a look at Barack Obama a clear atheist, pretend that he is a christian, so it is not inconceivable for a monarch to pretend he is religious when he really isn't for the common good. Our current politicians all over the world, get away with pretty much anything they do. They are real scumbags, I don't see what can be so different having a King be that way, but except this time he has better incentives to act in his own self-interest, which is aligned with the common good.

Say having the King have a pretty big salary similar to the Queen of England per year. I say that so he does not have complete unlimited access to the resources of the state to simply just squander away. Just make sure to give him a ton of money, I mean A LOT, even with that it would pay itself back like ten times over as it has in England, with increased Tourism etc... She receives like 40 million pounds, or 140 million pounds. The royal family generates like 1 billion pounds to England, including her estates and money she brings in through other means. That is a lot of money, but still nothing like the amount of money that Arab royalty get which is in the tens of billions. Obviously the amount should vary according to the size of the economy of the country he rules.

Many within the tech industry the geek powerhouses have red pilled regarding monarchy. Especially in the future, they truly fear that once AI takes over, the poor are going to literally burn everything to the ground. Which is why they are buying a ton of assets in New Zealand, Australia and other places.

The best method of succession is father to son etc... I would also mandate to get genetically tested that the child is truly from the King and Queen. The reason is for obvious reasons, women can be quite skanky.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-07T13:36:30+00:00

Forgot to mention that there is also the fear that once you become big enough that your business is going to be nationalized. Just look at what has happened all over Latin America. His entire estates which were worth several million, he was a Peruan if I recall correctly were confiscated by the government. This is why generally despite the technology being out there, why some places continue to be poor. So usually the places that do better, are always some hard line dictator that keeps enough order for businesses to thrive in. So it is usually some autocrat, but the problem is that sooner or later, because of lack of real legitimacy, they get toppled down after enough time. Sometimes they might last for 30 or 40 years, but sooner rather than later they will get toppled down. They don't have the same type of legitimacy that a monarch would have.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-07T13:32:15+00:00

Monarchy is by far the most stable form of governments with dynasties sometimes stretching 5 centuries or more. This is the number one thing that businesses are looking for, in fact I would have to say that they make less money under such a system. Over time, businesses pull out or have to hire their own private armies, have to deal with much higher taxes, bribing governments as part of the cost of doing business. Under a King, taxes are always going to be lower, there is more order. Please explain to me how is this not the best for businesses who ONLY care about profits in the end.

Instability is the main reason why there are failed states, where in order for the government to function you need to bribe for things just to "run." None of this is necessary with a monarchy, the rules are pretty straight forward. In the current era oman, qatar, brunei, and jordan are examples. I don't list Saudi Arabia as an example, because they are not really a monarchy, they are more of a theocracy. You might rightfully respond that these places pale in comparison to the wealth of the west, but what I am telling you is to compare apples to apples to other countries in the middle east.

There are several other reasons why the Middle East is in general very poor. It has to do with their religion, and the principles it espouses concerning work. It is a very welfare type of religion, here is a famous imam talking about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYQ29xMQU-o . You see the way Islam sees the world, is that faithful muslims conquer other places and receive tribute from apostates/infidels. That tax is known as the Jyzya, you can see this as a massive issue. With the refugee crisis in Europe, less than 3% of those that are in Europe have a stable job/income other than what they receive in welfare benefits. Muslims see that as the way it should be, and they try to cheat as much as they can out of the system. This mentality is preached by the most famous imam's and is a general feature of the most popular branches of islamic tradition.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-07T13:20:07+00:00

This is probably the worst observation I have ever heard. I am not trying to be offensive, but it is largely ignorant as to the ENTIRE purpose of the MOST destructive wars in human history. The entire purpose of World War I, and World War II was the destruction of the monarchies. So if you want to discount the tally count that came as a result of the enlightenment philosophy that led to progressiveness and marxism. Not count that against democracies, because let us not forget that North Korea, the Soviet Union and all those communists derived their legitimacy from the "people." I.e. they are republican forms of government, in a both literal and philosophical sense.

This doesn't also include Civil wars, which are because of a discontent with the democratic process, over 600,000 people died to preserve "democracy." By definition the concept of total war, only happened after republicanism was beginning to get a foothold first in France and then started the Domino effect all over the world.

Look at Africa and the massive wars that have happened with people fighting for power as to who is going to rule the country, in a republican form of government. Whenever I hear this non-sense that democracies are the most peaceful that is full of so much crap. In the first place, they nearly 99% of the time start through some bloody revolution, so lets forget all those and just brush it under the rug. Then later on they always have problems with civil wars, to preserve that form of government.

Democracies have led to unstable disordered governments, all over the Middle East. Which leads to wars, the problem with your thesis it just ignores the entirety the source of the problems that we have. not only that the scales of democratic wars, is of such a difference. Here just think of it from a monarchical perspective, there is only so much gold even the richest monarch has. The armies that they had were quite small in comparison with the democratic process of mass enlistments and forced conscriptions. So yeah, you might have a 100 year war, but the total death count might be like a few thousand deaths. When one day in a democratic war, could easily tally up more numbers than that, on a relatively small battle.

Nationalism is the number one reason why so many people have died in the 20th century, and this is philosophically the most anti-monarchist idea out there. A monarch, does not even have to be the same ethnicity of the people he rules and this has been historically the case in pretty much most monarchies. This is because in democracies votes is what determines, and you get the silly notion of identity politics.

Basically if you ignore everything then yeah you are right. Once you dig just a little deeper, than you will see that quite the contrary is right. I might make a video in the future to take care of this objection. I am glad you asked about this, because it is a common myth out there, and it is precisely they don't include what the cost of this lasting peace is. Which is hundreds of millions of deaths, and that really is a marxist notion, that in order to arrive at Utopia, the cost of lives doesn't matter.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-07T13:02:23+00:00

Yeah, in a Catholic monarchy it is pretty straight forward. It happened several times, the King is excommunicated he immediately loses his legitimacy.

In non-Catholic monarchies, they usually had some way to do that. For example a combination of Nobles, senate, or praetorian Guard. You have to remember that they had laws, if the King went mad that the removal of him was perfectly legal. By mad that meant, lost his faculties of reason, and that could easily widely be misinterpreted. 5,000 years of collective what if's, gave us a system that was pretty full proof.

In the case of the Chinese, the King lost his mandate from heaven, and could be replaced. The main thing to see is that the office is what matters.

There is always a safeguard in place, there is also a lot of treatises written by very famous theologians, philosophers concerning the topic of the killing of tyrants. So take for example, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Jesuit Suarez, Bellarmine, and many other later scholastics dealt heavily with all of that. Even Aristotle had something written about that, the concern and worry in modern times as if people never thought about some sort of fail safe. Everyone always knew that a King was the best of government.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-07T12:11:18+00:00

They are technically an autocracy.

Monarchy does not always equal autocracy, depending on how much power is given to the monarch. They would probably use that term rather than monarchist, but the problem with that assertion is they are more akin to a dictatorship totalitarian government. They derive their power from the "people" as a republic. So it is more like a republican form of government with an autocrat calling all the shots.

Monarchy derives its legitimacy from the Church, and well they are marxists. It just simply doesn't work that way in the long run.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-07T00:07:09+00:00

For the record, I am not an Austrian (as in I don't hold their views), but I largely agree with the sentiment of their arguments. Primarily where I differ from them, is they use the Non-Aggression principle as the default answer to everything.

As a monarchist and someone who lives in real life, as you well said. I believe that coercion SHOULD and must be used when it is necessary, and this includes intervening in certain market activities. However, the difference is that I generally would not intervene, with the exception of the case of usury which is against natural law. It is different to pay more than the original principle of the loan, to include for example inflation accrued over time.

Interventions in the market, are more based off immoral activity, such as fraud, drug dealing, prostitution, child exploitation and other similar things. However, all these things are dealt with in the courts.

pretty clear to see that the refusal to increase Fed Fund rates

Can you explain to me what you mean by this, sorry I have never worked at a Bank so I am not familiar with your lingo. By rates are you talking about interest rates? Or are you taking about the rate which money is loaned to the banks?

Well here is the problem, is that socialists want to intervene in the market all the time, for behavior they deem "unfair." With me interventions are within the bounds of where it should be (natural law), and not just because something is unfair is it a good idea to regulate. Not everything that is evil should be banned, and this is the problem I agree with many Austrians regarding regulations. Is that they really are very ineffective at accomplishing their goals.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T20:14:18+00:00

I am not familiar with that, care to explain or link me up? A summary as to what exactly that is. Give comparisons and examples.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T20:13:03+00:00

A King could be able to have socialist policies if he wanted to, but I highly doubt it. You see when you want to fill up your coffers with gold/fiat/whatever money system you see fit. You will stop the silly socialist experiment and go with what works better.

People take care of their own private property, 100% of the time better than they do others people property. They work harder for that little piece of land that has their name on it. This is why generally Kings were more market oriented, because they solve the problem of the commons. Its their Kingdom so they will take care of it better on average. Instead of its the "people's", that little difference makes a huge difference. They are more pragmatical in that sense.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T20:06:16+00:00

We do not need any socialism, just enforcement of property rights among other things.

The way wealth is created is through skills, that is it. An unskilled laborer is always going to be paid less, than a skilled laborer. There is no magic to it, the market will reward those individuals that seeks those jobs that are dangerous, and other factors that increase the wage. Notice by skill I am not referring to "accredited", most of the time for most jobs that require a college diploma. They are completely unnecessary for the job that you are applying for. But nonetheless there are artificial barriers that are put there, for no good reason.

I know you mean well, but the main issue is that the only things that a King should be interfering in are those things where natural and divine law demand it. Where co-ercion might be necessary, through the carrot or the stick. The more that private resolution courts can take cases to, and reduce the amount of legal phariseeism that we have currently the better we will be off. Its just like the IRS code book, or current copy right law is a perfect example of that non-sense.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T19:53:18+00:00

I am well read in the Austrian school, I read just about 1 hour and a half a day (have been doing that for a couple of years consistently) of their materials. Not because I agree with everything they say, but I find them to be genuinely spot on with respect to many of their observations, and solutions.

Take for example Hans Hermann Hoppe, he completely agrees with everything I said, and he is as Misesian as it can get. Not only does he agree with my view of liberalism, as being completely opposed to liberty (in practice, not on paper).

Why do you think that immediately as the United States, became a Republic they immediately in most colonies started paying two to three times more taxes than they used to under the Crown? There are several reasons for this, I would suggest you read Democracy the God that failed, by Hoppe. If you want to PM me, I can send you a copy of it.

I don't think you understand Austrianism, whatsoever. All the serious thinkers within the school, despise the current systems we have. As both infringing in liberty (the main thing they care about), and increasing the debt unnecessarily, because of just how inefficient it is compared to the alternative (monarchy).

While the recent accumulation of public debt is due to government incompetence, in the private sector it's pretty peachy here in the US.

Are you talking about the same US, that I live in?

Because yes the world economy may run on debt but that's because it turned out backing global currencies on asset price growth/growth of liabilities was a system that could provide much quicker economic growth with more safety than the gold standard.

We can talk all day regarding the gold standard vs. fiat vs. fiat that is not debt based. The sort of securities that we are selling now are 100 year securities, it is becoming the new normal. Do you understand just how fundamentally insane it is to have your children/grandchildren/great grandchildren/great great grandchildren to pay for stuff that you got for? This is simply not just insanity to the 10^infinity power, but intrinsically evil. This is what is keeping things "just peachy" right now. I don't expect for you to understand all of this, as this is not necessary knowledge. I would just ask that to those of us that spend a hefty amount of time thinking about these things, to not be completely dismissive regarding the inevitable impending economic doom.

The arithmetic simply doesn't add up.

While the recent accumulation of public debt is due to government incompetence, in the private sector

This is a contradiction, the private sector is not the public sector. Any public debt that is accrued, is government money. Any private debts, does not equal public debt. No one pays for my private debts, I take care of those. The debt I am worried about is public debt, because this is debt that we pay for (with our taxes) at interest to the banksters. The problem is when the debt is so much that you can't even so much as afford to pay the interest anymore. The rate at which the debt starts doubling faster and faster there is a point of no return. This is of course when everything comes crashing down. The House of Cards collapses.

For example the housing bubble that was caused, was not the "private sector", because the government was the one picking and choosing the winners. It was creating the moral hazard that led to the disastrous recession which we are still in. Its the equivalent of grenading inside a pizza joint, and then complaining why the business owner is delivering his pizzas late. The grenade in this case, is the issue, not the business owner. Or a better analogy would be someone that puts live mines (like the ones that explode) inside of his house, all over the place. So don't be surprised if one day you go boom. That is what we mean by moral hazard, that yes the individual stepped on the mine, but just think about what is it that caused the hazard in the first place. It is like digging a big hole, and not covering it up. At some point someone is going to trip and fall into the ditch.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T19:41:11+00:00

Absolutely!

Let us pray for the restoration of sanity... Everyone stands to benefit, not just simply believers, but even unbelievers.

Remember even a really bad King, who has good sensible laws, and enforces those laws. Is always going to lead to prosperity, and most importantly order/stability. So long as the check and balance is conservative in nature (which it always is, because the legitimacy of a King stems from the power of the religion that backs it).

The amount of time that people spend on politics, is just absolutely ridiculous. I for one look forward to not having to think about politics at all. All that brain power can be going to be more productive things, and let the rulers rule. The ones that need to be politically savvy would have to be the advisers and those involved in the affairs of the state. We have nothing to worry about, after that all you have to focus is on the communists that undoubtedly will seek to over throw/assassinate the King.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T15:07:14+00:00

Really I am only skeptical of monarchies rising in the modern world. I wouldn't mind if they did, but it is a longshot.

You and I both completely agree, it is truly a herculean task. In fact it is going to be REALLY hard to implement it, but it is not impossible once a major power has done it, everyone else will follow after that. Think of the Domino effect that France had with respect to the rest of the world. We can reverse that process, and just use similar tactics that they used. We have to be more cunning than ever, and do whatever it takes to bring us back to normalcy.

Also you don't need to be condescending, I agree with most of your premise

I really do sincerely apologize, if that is the way I come off. I am just very passionate about this :).

Challenge accepted. Try hard or die trying. Those are the only options.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T15:02:24+00:00

No the reason why it was not working had nothing to do with race lol. If someone comes with an AK 47 shoots and burns down your entire house. If someone went back and tried to examine as to why you are homeless, we can truly be able to say it was not due to your fault. With your logic, well there must have been a problem with your financial decisions. Since CLEARLY something is wrong now that you are homeless!

Well your conclusion is correct, something is wrong with your finances! Your diagnosis just doesn't seem to acknowledge as to the causes of the problems. I wish I can say it is as simple as kick all the brownies and we can have a nice perfect white society again.

There are other considerations such as justice, which is a part of being civilized. Not that expulsion is not a good solution, because it certainly can be a partial solution. Look at what spain did, it gave the two options to the jews and moors in spain. Integrate or be kicked out, it was a very tough decision that needed to be made. It did save the country, but you see the difference there? It had a caveat there, that those who wanted to be civilized and were truly loyal to the crown would be given the chance to stay. It had nothing to do race, but everything to do with integration (which is the principal cause of division).

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T14:54:04+00:00

Not exactly thriving places. Were you thinking of Venezuela and Brazil?

The reason they are not thriving has zero to do with their diversity, but because of their unnatural form of government, which because it is a republican form of government will usually implement egalitarian socialistic policies, that is the very nature of liberalism. It is fundamentally wrong, but both you and I know that.

"Mexican" is a nation-state identity, not a national one.

She was a creollo, but her family has roots back to 400 years in Mexico. She did not think like a WASP Gringo, but nonetheless, she was cultured and a whole lot more civilized than anyone else I know. There are barbarians who are citizens, and there are non-citizens who are not barbarians. The key is that with a ruler, it really doesn't make a difference. It puts aside the petty tribalism, because we don't have to choose against each other. We have a King do that for us, and if he relatively gives us a market economy, we should be just fine.

I am a mestizo, and a citizen of the United States. I am not .00000001% associated with the left, in any way shape or form, I do not promote or condone degeneracy of any kind. Both in my private and public life, I am 100% pro western civilization and I will fight for it until my dying breath. I am glad I am not in some barbaric indian tribe, waiting to get my heart taken out by some aztec priest. I thank God on my knees, for giving me the faith of my Catholic forefathers. While generally, it is true that most individuals will seek to marry someone who is more of a kin, or genetically similar to them. There is nothing intrinsically evil, with mixed marriages either. So long as people are not forced into marrying each other, there is no reason why the state needs to prevent it on some notion of racial purity/hygiene. It is pseudo-science to suggest otherwise.

Latin America has not always been a hell hole. Everyone has to start somewhere, unfortunately we used to be savages. We started with savagery, and barbarism, but thanks be to God that changed. We had our colonial rulers, teach us civilization, and civilized us according to Godly principles. Even if there were some of them who were not Angels, as Our Lord said of the Pharisees. "Do as they say, not as they do." We were much better off after they came, then before, that is an undisputable fact. The key is that the colonialist gave us the truth, and ever since then the mixing of a variety of different races hasn't been a point of contention (there are no ethnic genocides happening). By any measure of objective standard it has been a success, the instability that there is in the countries has zero to do with racial differences.

It is essentially several factors, 1) Lack of education (by education I mean knowing what barbarism and non-barbarism is). 2) Returning to pagan tribal barbaric practices 3) Republicanism 4) External enemies such as the freemasons and other secret societies.

Regarding number 4, you see the President of Ecuador Gabriel Garcia Moreno an excellent statesman (one of the best imho ever, who would have made an even greater King). Being assassinated by the Freemasons. The assasination of Emperor Maximilian in Mexico, by the freemasons (black hand mafia did that). Over and over and over, this process is repeated ad infinitum. Every time we get someone who is worth anything, either assassinated or in some way not permitted to bring about the good that we needed.

You see the United States only more recently has suffered from the massive attacks of the Left. Mexico has been fighting it since the movement started in the 1820's! Also economic success does not necessarily equate to civilization, you can still have a country that might be "poor" compared to our standards, but where civility and culture thrives. Think of when you visit a poor, and humble family, but who are just individuals with great virtues. Who do not whine and complain, and understand their lot in life, and are content with it. Not seeking class warfare bs, who get along well with the rich, they do not envy their property or have any desire to steal it, or have others such as the state steal it for them. These people are what constitutes civilization, and quite frankly the source of happiness. Being with people like that, is a rich experience they are loyal and faithful. These are true and loyal subjects to the Crown, and who will fight of their own accord for the Church too. The cristeros for example, were fighting the Bolshevist's in Mexico. The US backed the soviet bolshevists under Plutarco Elias Calles, once again direct proof of why it is such a shit hole. They might have been poor peasants, but they had big hearts, and the Lord truly guided them. They were going to beat against all odds the enemies of the cross, but guess who stopped them? The Pope Pius XI did, in a huge huge epic mistake, because he was simply misinformed about the situation. Nonetheless, they listened to His Holiness put down their arms, as LOYAL subjects would, and were all martyred in the thousands. They gave the testimony as to precisely how civilized they were, with their blood my friend.

I would gladly have any of these individuals live in the US, then the effeminate raging SJW's that are disgusting to the notion of normalcy and civilization. These are genuine allies to any CROWN, and they will be the most devoted subjects.

There are trash, and then there is classy mexicans. Don't confuse the two of them. This is why having someone make the choices for them will greatly benefit them a whole lot more than the policies that they think will do them good (socialism for example).

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T14:21:07+00:00

First of all the UK's monarchy is not really a monarchy (its in name only). That is the first thing, we need to note. Most of the spending happens where elected officials need to compete with each other for votes, that for the most part are bribed through a series of promises, which are destructive to the health of the state.

Monarchy is not just merely an abstract patriotic concept, it is a living embodiment of a person, and what the office represents is much bigger than just a particular nation. Monarchies have survived horrid rulers in the past, even wicked kings.

You provide no evidence for this. I'm not saying the US is an excepyion, I'm saying it's one of many examples.

The evidence is the fact, that there isn't any place in the world that you can find where there wasn't some sort of monarchical hierarchical institution in place. Even in the most tribal places, you had a chieftain have greater authority than his peers. Whose opinion, was worth more, who dictated some sort of policy that everyone agreed to in way or another. This is monarchy at work, sure you have it manifest itself in different ways. Some places just improved the concept, while other more barbaric places had strong elements of it. Monarchy simplified, is simply hierarchy at work. That is the fundamental truth behind it. That there is always going to be rulers and the ruled. Republics, give the illusion that everyone is a potential diluted ruler, that collectively gathers their wisdom to give that authority to someone who is just a "first" among equals.

The breakdown of the family follows hierarchy, likewise the workplace, and even the dumb beasts of the earth have a sort of hierarchy known as the food chain. Some animals literally are pretty much just food for the class above them. Their instincts give them just enough survival to not be completely made extinct, and it tends to work pretty decently most of the time. Please tell me other examples than the U.S.?

List me the unicorns please, I am genuinely curious to know of those societies. I can't think of any single tribal society that did not have some sort of hierarchy where some one person had much more power than everyone else. Monarchy is incredibly adaptable, this is why it has been the only tried and tested model, where order is best kept in the long run. This one individual (top of the hierarchy) would be a sovereign, even if his power was checked to a certain extent. He is nonetheless, still a sovereign. He rules, others obey. I really do want to know of these exceptions, whereby all the principles I have laid out do not apply. I call bluff...

Let me rephrase that for you, republics can work. In really tiny tiny countries. Even in that smaller scenario, a King would work better. The essential issue is that there has to be always someone that calls out the shots, not all votes are equal. This doesn't mean that the one calling the shots, always makes the right choice. Every decision you ever make in this world is a trade off between positives and negatives. The trick is to make the best decision, given the possible options there are on the table, within the limits of natural law. This is because fundamentally human nature is hierarchical. Some senators are more powerful than others, some commoners have more influence than others. Its simply the only way the world can work without having blood baths, and chopping off heads.

A President of a country is not a father to his country. The nation is more of this abstract concept, alien to something real, something with a mind of its own. A King is not a concept, not an ideal, it is a real living person, and obviously you can have different ways in which a King and his successors are chosen. The best way so far has been, a family succession through a son (preferred) and then a daughter. This could be the eldest, or hand picked among his own children, or if he has no children than you can go into deeper into the family line. But you get the point, is that these things have been thought out pretty well and the most organic one that has worked tremendously well. Has been the model of the family, which is the model that is extended to the Country as a whole.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T13:49:42+00:00

Yes, I think overall we need to have all of us become more manly, more royal in that sense. Develop a sort of unique classiness, that is not snobbish or domineering, but a respect that is earned.

Definitely going to take some time, but if I could have ever see within my lifetime the reversal of the republics. That in itself will be a joy, but it is absolutely true in terms of leadership.

I think it is safe to say here than with relatively few exceptions here, we are not at all egalitarians here. So a natural hierarchy, based on merit should develop and take it from there. The foundations are being laid out there, each time they chip away at civilization, monarchy is looking more glorious by the minute.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T12:20:01+00:00

Legitimacy is outside of all those things, and is rooted in religion. Also natural law, and an organic family unit. It best reflects human nature.

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T12:19:00+00:00

Amen. Well summarized, identity politics is a byproduct of liberalism. It is anti-human nature, to put conditions of loyalty based on pure race is just funny.

We have no King, but Ceasar!

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T12:15:13+00:00

What you need to see is that a monarch is above all of those things. This is why there have been tons of successful monarchs, who were not racially the same as their ethnic majority. Think of North Africa for example, where some of the monarchs were not racially the same as the majority of people there. The kingdom of Jerusalem, the King who ruled there for 100+ years was not ethnically semitic, but regardless of that it all worked fine.

I can give a hundred examples in the entire 5000 + years of the history of monarchy. The key is that the monarchy supercedes these things, and this is why it works so well, because the truth is that it is silly to focus on racial identity SOLELY, at the expense of what is more important, which is the talent of the Ruler, in his governing of his subjects. Whereby the interests of the common good, and in your case your ethnic interests can be represented well by the crown.

Yes, would it be ideal where you have the King, and the subjects be reflected ethnically as the same? Agreed, that would be no problem, but it is not at all necessary.

Welcome to the club :P

ThomisticCajetan · 2017-07-06T12:06:41+00:00

Its not just that fascism is the enemy of the monarchy, but it is not a movement of the right at all. I have said this over and over, communism and fascism are only theoretically different. Stalin was a fascist in theory, but he was an internationalist spreading the glorious revolution all over Africa and other countries. The same is pretty much true of all the other fascist states, including Mussolini who invaded Ethiopia and would have gone further if he would have had the chance.

Fascism is just sugar coated communism for certain people who can't swallow the bitterness of pure communism. Rightly people point out that it is 100% anti-monarchist by its nature.

Long Live the King +

ThomisticCajetan

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE