Monarchism

I have received very many messages asking me about my opinion on Monarchy. I did answer them because I honestly could not express it very accurately through words. So instead decided to do my best through video. Check out this link
http://monarchistcrusade.webs.com/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Monarchist
• Monarchy
• Monarchism

[Maetel22]

Also, how could Mr. King possibly represent all the people in the country, especially with populations as they are? Can a Christian monarch who is at war with another country represent a Buddhist in the kingdom who doesn't support war at all? If the monarch is only answerable to "God and his commandments", then how are the people's rights to be protected? The Judeo-Christian God spends the first five flattering himself anyway! He says nothing about the rights of human beings.

[ImperialRussianGuard]

Unlike an elected official, a monarch is a political and social leader. A monarch can rule not only through the mechanism of the law, but also through his prestige. An unelected head of state is almost always a representative of a single political faction. With the exception of democratic monarchies, monarchs are naturally disassociated with divisive party rule. So it is easier for a monarch to work for the welfare of his subjects, because he is not tied to factions which represent ....

[ImperialRussianGuard]

a sizable group in the nation's population. It would be against his best interest to play nationalities and religious groups against one another, since it would bring him no political gain, on the contrary. An elected official on the other hand, could gain political advantages by playing various groups against another.

[ImperialRussianGuard]

From a classical liberal standpoint, a despotic monarch is better for liberty than mob rule. As Lord Acton once noted, "It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist."

[Maetel22]

government will be neccesary to propogate humanity to the stars, and to end the practice of war. If we can all just get over our pettiness and look up to the sky, we can pool our resources and create amazing things (also, don't even get me started on sedition and censorship in monarchical societies).

[ImperialRussianGuard]

Pacifism will remain an ideal and war a reality. Pacifism means letting the non-pacifists have control. If the Western people were to swear to never fight another war, the Eastern people would act differently and would soon become rulers of the world. It is naive and over simplistic to think that humanity can achieve utopia just by wanting it enough.

[ImperialRussianGuard]

@DrDeso1 I can't help but be amused by pseudo-intellectuals who ramble on how monarchy is a product of the "dark ages". Let us begin with the fact that monarchy existed long before even antiquity. The ancient Mesopotamian civilization is perhaps one of the earliest examples of monarchy. Also it is very interesting to note that during the "dark ages" monarch generally had very little power. It was local nobility that was the predominant political force during the early Middle ages.

[ImperialRussianGuard]

@DrDeso1 Civilization does not eliminate human instincts, it merely tames them.

[idahobuckeye]

@Maetel22

Never forget that the worst atrocities in human history were committed in the name of some high-minded ideal of equality. Of all the genocidal tendencies exhibited by nations, it's usually republics and Communist states that happily murder millions that do not "fit" in their ideal society. Ask any Cossack about the USSR and you're likely to get a long history filled with blood. They were prominent under the Czar, they were liquidated under Communism.

[idahobuckeye]

@Maetel22

What he means is that monarchies don't impose a monarchical system of government on anyone. Usually, they're just incorporated as local rulers. The Prussians allowed many German kingdoms to keep their heads of state and their own armies.

Republics, on the other hand, ALWAYS impose their system of government on defeated nations. The Allies did so in WWI and WWII, the Communists do so everywhere they go (usually murdering millions in their wake)

[Atridij]

Meritocratic republicanism trumps all other lesser forms of goverment (including monarchism).

And in these days who has the right to take the crown? When just in my country (Bosnia) over 50 000 people trace their line to Kotromanić family and nearly every third family of Bosniaks trace them selves to medieval noble houses :/

Monarchisim is a thing of the past, but don't get me wrong I am not for rule of majority or some rampaging liberal democrat, I am a meritocrat I stand for rule of the best.

[GermanConquistador08]

Kings are accountible to their people and their monarchy. Bad monarch CAN and ARE ousted successfully without bloodshed. The Glorious Revolution proves that it is possible to oust a bad monarch and put in a good one when the majority of the people disapprove of the monarch. The world has been fighting for a democratic ideal, while ignoring the tried and tested forumla of monarchy. Modern economics, politics and society isnt fit for democracy anymore.

[GermanConquistador08]

@ImperialRussianGuard "It was local nobility that was the predominant political force during the early Middle ages" - A multitute of rulers ruling based off of family ties, economic and political influence and backed by armies of supporters often paid by that ruler....could have sworn you were talking about a republic huh?

[ImperialRussianGuard]

If one commoner rules over all, then there is an even greater chance of him "a bit of an asshole." After all, rapid rises from obscurity to the prominence, often have negative effects on people. All one needs to do is to look at some popular musicians or actors to see this. While it is not pleasant to be under the tyranny of the few, the tyranny of the many can often be far worse, for it is considerably more difficult to restrain a million tyrants rather than one.