/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>8333

Well it's not like it would be wrong for them to be hypocrites, since right and morality is just the fictitious personal preferences of a bunch of cell clusters on a tiny rock in space.

Christians get killed in the Bible, no one who believes it would think that they're immuned from all earthly dangers and need not take any precautions, you genuine normalfag

>>8913

>Considering that the Church is responsible for more human atrocities

>This meme again

Even if that were true, and even if there wasn't more nuance to it then you make out, it wouldn't matter since those "atrocities" are just things you dislike.

You are a sad, empty, little loser.

Luckily for the rest of us, you are in the minority and your freaky little fantasies will never come to fruition. L O S E R.

>>8333

The powers of any legitimate monarch has to be justified somehow

I don't think you are right. Dictatorship is a republic with one authoritair leader, and monarchy is a very hierarchical system with an absolute leader or a "shallow state" which is limiting him/her. A king/queen can also not be a hypocrite, because then is the country going to collapse in max. few decades.

A good king doesn't also need any protection, because his always loyal and honest to his subjects, unless their is no other way out for the country's profit.

>>8899

Is this just an archive bunker?

>>8899

No

>>8899

That place became cancer real fast

come at me

>>2522

>implying politics are taught at school in any meaningful amount and aren't just literal propaganda

>implying the common pleb cares about politics enough to follow daily events and dig info

>implying he won't only have a very cursory knowledge given to him by the MSM

>>2506

This doesn't disprove the quote.

Democracy operates like any other despot or dictator might rule it. Your statement makes democracy look worse because the rule of an assembly or an anonymous group of people lacks visibility and responsibility. For example, everyone might know the name and appearance of Queen Elizabeth II, but does everyone memorize or remember all the members of parliament?

>not in favor of democracy

Eh, you get the point. Despite your post not favoring democracy, it still rings true that most governments will find a way to use their authority without the people's consent. The people's consent is often treated like an obstacle course in those governments.

>>2528

>>implying the common pleb cares about politics enough to follow daily events and dig info

Indeed, The vast majority of population's politics boil down to "I want things to be good, and not bad, have money and not be poor"

>>2543

The nature of politics is self-interest and conceit. It's why we need to separate the political animals from their thirst for authority and power, aka the seed of democracy we know as totalitarianism.

I think this classic video can sum it all up…

>>8240

This

As Ryan Faulk noted much of the killing was done by Negroes.

>>8758

> Virtually every top-level decision making body in the EU is filled with people who are multiple stages removed from the people. The reason I disagree with it being called democratic is because of its structure

Yeah, and I'm saying those kinds of structures aren't undemocratic, but an inevitable product of democracy. All democracies will quickly end up with entrenched, unelected bureaucracies wielding large amounts of power. If you adopt a very strict definition of democracy, in which any decision not taken by "the people" isn't democratic, then you might be able to say such things as "the EU is undemocratic," or "the Deep State is undemocratic." But if you continue down this path, you are forced to conclude that nearly every aspect of democracy is undemocratic. Since calling most of a democracy's apparatus undemocratic seems counter-intuitive to me, I'd rather be a little less denotative with the definition.

>>8759

>Yeah, and I'm saying those kinds of structures aren't undemocratic

Yes, they are, regarding how the average person uses the term.

>All democracies will quickly end up with entrenched, unelected bureaucracies wielding large amounts of power.

You're broadening the scope. All governments will inevitably have a lot of unelected personnel, but I specified that I'm talking about the top levels. I'm not talking about the equivalent of a government agency or bureau, I'm talking about the equivalent of a congress or parliament, whose members are democratically elected in basically every first world country today, so your claim that this is the rapid and inevitable fate of any system with democracy is silly.

To put it into context, the if the US worked the way the EU did, instead of a president we'd have a council made of state governors and a commission who's members are appointed by the council of governors. Meanwhile, all senators would be appointed by the state governments (which we did used to do, but we stopped because it wasn't a good way for the senate to work), and neither the senate nor the house of representatives would actually be able to propose any legislation, because instead only the commission would be able to do that. That doesn't even fully encapsulate it, though, because in the US all state governors are directly elected, while in Europe plenty of countries are parliamentary, meaning their executive is appointed by their legislature, resulting in the commission having two fucking political bodies between them and the body politic.

You can call that democratic if you want, but all that will mean is that the word has no value here, and a different one will be needed for the subject.

>>8760

Real democracy has never been tried.

>>8761

In Athens it has but elsewhere, no

there is no reason to halt technological advancement

tradition moves with the advancement of technology

>>8805

>greater good

It depends. Sometimes we have to submit ourselves to personal suffering for the sake of others; that is the greater good in my opinion. Or when Christ told his apostles to not put up a fight when the Jews had him arrested, he probably saved their lives.

>the state is above/apart from those issues

The state wants power, it will NEVER be apart from social issues. Look at Roe v Wade. We have a society where half of us think it’s murder and half think it’s a human right that others have to pay for. And the government has sided with the human right half. That’s insanity, that’s pluralism and secularism on drugs. The idea that we could build a functional society with a Muslim and a Protestant and a Orthodox Christian and a Jew is all under this banner of pluralism is madness. You cannot have secular pluralism and also argue for “rights” “truths” or anything. Secularism is the state blatantly abandoning any religious principles that may constrain it. It’s the creation of arbitrary modern power centers.

Religion traditionally played a role in governing most pre-modern societies.

>>8819

No.

>>the state is above/apart from those issues

Not what I said. The state is a poor tool to use for solving those issues. The state deals primarily with power and force, but you cannot forcibly change someone's mind.

>That’s insanity, that’s pluralism and secularism on drugs.

You don't need to be religious to believe an unborn human should be considered human and have human rights, including the right to life.

>The idea that we could build a functional society with a Muslim and a Protestant and a Orthodox Christian and a Jew is all under this banner of pluralism is madness.

I didn't say otherwise. A state must be built on values, and values are primarily derived from religion. I am not saying people with radically different values can peacefully coexist in a single society, and I'm not saying the state shouldn't take measures to protect itself from hostile value systems. There is, however, a line between that and literal religious endorsement. The SOCIETY should be religious, and the state should be built around the values of that society, which will inevitably mean the values of that religion. Issues of values, however, are usually better handled by means other than state power.

I can't see how a monarchy can function for an extended period of time without it being strictly religious.

>>1474

Religion would be preferable for a monarchy, yes. But you can't force a majoritarily atheist people to adhere to your religion, and it can be replaced by other things. For example, the Bonapartes put sovereignty and the will of the people above all and it worked pretty well for them. Hell, the Napoleon III's 1870 referundum had a vast majority of approvals.

monarchy is the symbol of absolute religious power

evil shit

>>8865

Flashman right?

Are non-conformists hanging out on 8kun/monarchy/ or have they not heard that monarchists moved to julay.world?

https://julay.world/monarchy/catalog.html

Board is semi-dead, but it's the most proactive /monarchy/.