/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>6615

>Are democratically elected leaders still considered to be anointed by God?

Democracies pride themselves being "Of the People" – the bottom-up approach ascending – rather than the descending top-down of "By the Grace of God". However, there have been dictators like Franco who were declared so 'dei gratia'. There is no coronation or sacramental kingship in democracies, so they don't bother to show their gratitude for what power comes to them or responsibility.

Generally speaking, it is good to be respectful and not a rebellious revolutionary. Becoming a revolutionary is a new fad for the 21st century. A revolutionary disturbs the peace and tips the boat, so to speak.

>And are we not within our right to fight democracy?

Nobody here wants to violently overthrow any governments, FBI. Fighting usually happens in a civil war or when powers clash. It must be understood that power is a responsibility. Having power is such a responsibility that power in itself could be a punishment. Seeing as how most revolutionary regimes greatly cause suffering towards their people after seizing power, it is no surprise these things correlate.

>Rendering monarchism obsolete in the religion department?

Kings are not presidents. There are things a king does that no president shares in wisdom.

<Proverbs 24:21 - "Fear the LORD and the king, my son, and do not join with rebellious officials"

Does it not say king there?

“A priest who is not a monarchist is not worthy to stand at the altar table. The priest who is a republican is always a man of poor faith. God himself anoints the monarch to be head of the kingdom, while the president is elected by the pride of the people. The king stays in power by implementing God’s commandments, while the president does so by pleasing those who rule. The king brings his faithful subjects to God, while the president takes them away from God.”

– Metropolitan Neomartyr Vladimir of Kiev

Revolution brought us here in the first place.

Counter-revolution is not a counter protest or revolution, but the reverse of a revolution. Follow the principle of counter-revolution first.

The French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolution have both lead to blood, chaos, and wars. The Napoleonic Wars and Russian Civil War. Regicide deconstructs sovereignty, the boat all float on, and when sovereigns are dismantled, the boat tips with a crashing wave where people drown in the aftermath. Revolutions disturb order, peace, and solidarity. Every revolution will start and return to where it ended eventually.

>>6625

Here is a Franco coin that says it.

The US Presidents take an Oath of Office. Very much like a coronation for their temporary and public office. Then there is the influence of British common law and the Puritans who took covenants with God directly before establishing their communities in the New World – John Winthrop's On Christian Charity. Then the work of Nehemias Americanus. The idea of divine providence in taking people – in an exodus-like fashion to their leaders – is not unknown to these Americans. Then there is the influence of other colonials, like the ones loyal to the king (English Civil War happened in the American colonies too in small encounters).

Remember the Motto.

"In God we Trust"

>>6638

>No, if they have undisputed authority, we are not in our right to disturb the peace.

Can you define "undisputed" so that it isn't arbitrary and vague, please?

>Ends do not justify means

In the same way that vulgarity is sometimes justified if used righteously, disturbing the peace to bring about morally righteous change is also acceptable. Particularly to stop the organized infanticide of millions of unborn children.