democracy is a huge circlejerk

[jorb]

The true and good form of government is monarchy.

How you do come to this conclusion?

• Monarchy selects unwilling rulers. Democracy only those most lusting for power.
• Nearly all traditional societies were Monarchies. Monarchy is the universal heritage of mankind, the indicated form of government, and the completely dominant form of societal organization up until the very recent revolutionary era around the time of the great war.
• Monarchy is the natural form of government that people spontaneously adopt in political vaccuums. It is an extension of simple familial principles into the political domain. Monarchy is pre-, and thus a-, -political.
• A multitude of rulers is a bad thing, and an impossibility. A car does not benefit from having more than one driver (nor do they actually have more than one).
• Monarchy is private government. Monarchs have ownership stakes in their countries, whereas democratic oligarchs are mere tenants of power, with correspondingly short horizons of interest.
• Democracy is the political form of capitalism. Since no such thing as "the will of the people" exists, the functioning principle of authority in democracies tends toward plutocracy, the rule of moneyed interests. Nowhere is this more evident in the United States.
• Monarchy is in accord with the cosmic principle, reflecting in the social sphere the hierarchical organization of the divine.
• Democracy -- in its modern, illuminist and masonic sense -- is founded on the principles of revolution and nihilism.
• Under Monarchy, people recognize the distinction between themselves and the state. Democracy pretends that the distinction does not exist.

The list can be expanded upon to taste.

There have been bad monarchs -- mankind is fallen, and prone to sin, and no form of government changes that -- but there have also been kings listed in the lives of the saints.

No democratic politician was ever a saint.

[shubla]

The true and good form of government is monarchy.

How you do come to this conclusion?

• Monarchy selects unwilling rulers. Democracy only those most lusting for power.
• Nearly all traditional societies were Monarchies. Monarchy is the universal heritage of mankind, the indicated form of government, and the completely dominant form of societal organization up until the very recent revolutionary era around the time of the great war.
• Monarchy is the natural form of government that people spontaneously adopt in political vaccuums. It is an extension of simple familial principles into the political domain. Monarchy is pre-, and thus a-, -political.
• A multitude of rulers is a bad thing, and an impossibility. A car does not benefit from having more than one driver (nor do they actually have more than one).
• Monarchy is private government. Monarchs have ownership stakes in their countries, whereas democratic oligarchs are mere tenants of power, with correspondingly short horizons of interest.
• Democracy is the political form of capitalism. Since no such thing as "the will of the people" exists, the functioning principle of authority in democracies tends toward plutocracy, the rule of moneyed interests. Nowhere is this more evident in the United States.
• Monarchy is in accord with the cosmic principle, reflecting in the social sphere the hierarchical organization of the divine.
• Democracy -- in its modern, illuminist and masonic sense -- is founded on the principles of revolution and nihilism.
• Under Monarchy, people recognize the distinction between themselves and the state. Democracy pretends that the distinction does not exist.

The list can be expanded upon to taste.

There have been bad monarchs -- mankind is fallen, and prone to sin, and no form of government changes that -- but there have also been kings listed in the lives of the saints.

No democratic politician was ever a saint.

I think that its a good idea, any system is better than the current!
Hunting accidents take care of the bad rulers for sure.

[xdragonlord18]

• Monarchy selects unwilling rulers. Democracy only those most lusting for power.
• Nearly all traditional societies were Monarchies. Monarchy is the universal heritage of mankind, the indicated form of government, and the completely dominant form of societal organization up until the very recent revolutionary era around the time of the great war.
• Monarchy is the natural form of government that people spontaneously adopt in political vaccuums. It is an extension of simple familial principles into the political domain. Monarchy is pre-, and thus a-, -political.
• A multitude of rulers is a bad thing, and an impossibility. A car does not benefit from having more than one driver (nor do they actually have more than one).
• Monarchy is private government. Monarchs have ownership stakes in their countries, whereas democratic oligarchs are mere tenants of power, with correspondingly short horizons of interest.
• Democracy is the political form of capitalism. Since no such thing as "the will of the people" exists, the functioning principle of authority in democracies tends toward plutocracy, the rule of moneyed interests. Nowhere is this more evident in the United States.
• Monarchy is in accord with the cosmic principle, reflecting in the social sphere the hierarchical organization of the divine.
• Democracy -- in its modern, illuminist and masonic sense -- is founded on the principles of revolution and nihilism.
• Under Monarchy, people recognize the distinction between themselves and the state. Democracy pretends that the distinction does not exist.

The list can be expanded upon to taste.

There have been bad monarchs -- mankind is fallen, and prone to sin, and no form of government changes that -- but there have also been kings listed in the lives of the saints.

No democratic politician was ever a saint.

Consider these choice counter points:

• A monarchy is not accountable to its citizens
• We are citizens

[Potjeh]

Blood feuds are the natural form of conflict resolution, does that make them superior to courts of law?

Besides, it's kinda hard to speak about what's natural when the whole concept of living in large societies is unnatural. We still have hunter gatherer brains that evolved for living in small tightly knit groups. States are born out of violent subjugation of these natural groupings.

[Grog]

[*] Monarchy selects unwilling rulers. Democracy only those most lusting for power.

Those who were unwilling were oftentimes unprepared, but the majority of rulers were as much if not more lusting for power than democratic politicians.
For the simple reason that politicians are limited in power and regency time.
Seccession wars are blatant proof that the lust for power within monarchic structures was abundant.

[*] Nearly all traditional societies were Monarchies. Monarchy is the universal heritage of mankind, the indicated form of government, and the completely dominant form of societal organization up until the very recent revolutionary era around the time of the great war.

Also all traditional societies once were a tribe. That doesn't make tribes the ideal government form of today.

[*] Monarchy is the natural form of government that people spontaneously adopt in political vaccuums. It is an extension of simple familial principles into the political domain. Monarchy is pre-, and thus a-, -political.

If it was apolitical it would develope without any dependency of political vacuums. Declaring war and assinations over the birth and family of people is about as political as it gets. Maybe you mean a different word?

[*] A multitude of rulers is a bad thing, and an impossibility. A car does not benefit from having more than one driver (nor do they actually have more than one).

I will argue with that when you made up your mind if you declare familial principles as political domain or as an impossibility.
It seems you've not completely made up your mind about that.

[*] Monarchy is private government. Monarchs have ownership stakes in their countries, whereas democratic oligarchs are mere tenants of power, with correspondingly short horizons of interest.

Both politicians in an outside the monarchic system have been proven to follow their own interest. Monarchs included. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here.

[*] Democracy is the political form of capitalism. Since no such thing as "the will of the people" exists, the functioning principle of authority in democracies tends toward plutocracy, the rule of moneyed interests. Nowhere is this more evident in the United States.

I would argue that capitalism is the successor to the monarchies and directly opposing to democracy.
In Capitalism power survives death via family links, people believe in what they deem "natural" hirarchic structures and the wealthy are the old and new aristocrats, declaring themselves a) chose and b) best suited.
Power is doled out to the deserving. Monarchistic credos, just with a new paint.

[*] Monarchy is in accord with the cosmic principle, reflecting in the social sphere the hierarchical organization of the divine.

You need to declare that one. I highly doubt you're a pius religious person when it doesn't suit you.
Nice larping tho.

[*] Democracy -- in its modern, illuminist and masonic sense -- is founded on the principles of revolution and nihilism.

Are you just add political terms on top of another? Nihilism or revolution?

[*] Under Monarchy, people recognize the distinction between themselves and the state. Democracy pretends that the distinction does not exist.[/list]

And because of that recognition most monarchs aren't in power any more. I'm also curious where you get that second sentence from.

There have been bad monarchs -- mankind is fallen, and prone to sin, and no form of government changes that -- but there have also been kings listed in the lives of the saints.

There haven't been too many monarchs with a nobel prize for peace either.

[Potjeh]

Also, sainthood ain't what it's cracked up to be

St. Vladimir
Olga’s grandson Vladimir became prince of Kiev by murdering his older brother. Then he raped his sister-in-law and added her to his harem of several hundred women. To consecrate a new temple to all the gods, he sacrificed a father and his son.

[ricky]

It's a big club, and you aint in it

[Burinn]

Wow all of these insightful posts have made me reconsider what political ideology I subscribe to.

[MagicManICT]

There haven't been too many monarchs with a nobel prize for peace either.

Not a good example as this has only existed a relatively short while. The whole of the Prize has only existed less than 150 years (124 to be exact). There are more than a few Kings and Queens of yesteryear that would qualify for such. As a counter, and I'm not familiar with everyone on the list as I ddin't research them. It's not that they may or may not be great people, but I can easily pull examples from names I know.

As examples, 3 of the recipients have been sitting US presidents (T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Obama), a 4th a former president (Carter), and two others major roles in the President's Cabinet (Marshall, Kissinger). The basis for the awards for some of these were the negotiation of peace treaties to end a time of war, at least one of which were in their offices during a period of war (Kissinger--Secretary of State) and other involved in a war unrelated to the Prize (Obama--US-Iraq and US-Afghanistan wars). Marshall was a 5-star general (General of the United States Army) and was Chief of Staff to F. D. Roosevelt and Truman during WWII.

You don't have to have a peaceful life, or run a peaceful country, to win such a prize, just be a strong figure in the pursuit of peace and gain some of what would be called "media recognition" today. (I could pick out a couple of examples of leaders that ran things as "status quo" until it was time to face potential armed revolt or collapse of economy and changed their minds to work on a problem civilly rather than violently.)

It's a big club, and you aint in it

Ain't this this truth. Even those that stand up for changing the system get sucked into it.

[2d0x]

...but there have also been kings listed in the lives of the saints...

Yeah, Nicholas II. During his lifetime he was called "Bloody", after death called the "Holy Martyr" ;\