Why Monarchy is better than Democracy in many ways

[Aron]

@fschmidt

The point isn't that some people have laws against some kinds of free speech. But most people do not support some kind of Theocracy where you're not allowed to say anything but a state religion, or a totalitarian state where you must support the official government positions always, or etc. And just because you're probably not in favor of a Theocracy like that doesn't mean you aren't against free speech enough for me to have a problem with your views. Yes some European countries have much less free speech than America. But ultimately you still want Muslims to kill people for insulting Islam which i think is pretty crazy.

Cornfed is right, you are a troll.

How is that trolling? You have said directly here that you like it when Muslims kill people who insult Islam. Since to you insults are defamation and this justifies it. What was untrue about what I said?

Sigh. See the problem? Your genocidal thoughts trigger people which is not surprising. Maybe you should consider stop telling people you want them genocided or exterminated and then they'll be more likely to allow you to comment on their forums. Granted, they may be too restrictive on more reasonable types of free speech anyways, but still.

I was banned long before I reached this conclusion.

Never said that they won't restrict less extreme types of free speech and I covered that scenario in what you just quoted.

You as a Muslim

I am not Muslim, you idiot.

That's news to me although it just makes it more surprising that you say what you do. Also when the main link in your signature says Old Testament and the Quran it isn't odd that people make this conclusion about you when you say what you do about islam. Some of your posts seem to also have you say you are Muslim. In this thread you first mention being jewish early on and later on say that you prefer to talk about Islam with members of your mosque. Implying that you are Muslim. This was from only a few months ago, did you change religions since then? Or do you just go to a mosque while still not being a Muslim? Maybe you switched back to Judaism? You seem very easily offended to end the conversation instantly when someone makes an assumption about your religion.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=36894

You can go right on ahead and mention Genetics too even if you still want to argue about free speech but i'm fine with it whether you cover both topics at once, focus on Genetics, or focus on free speech.

This conversation is over but here are the relevant links about genetics.

viewtopic.php?t=20929
http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-tp17.html

That's unfortunate. It looks like you are too offended to talk more, or address the basic issues of Islam I brought up directly. You don't even admit what i am saying and ignore the argument by calling me a troll when I already showed you how killing people who insult is a violation of free speech, and the punishment for apostasy in Islam is a violent system. As for your Genetics argument it's basically just an argument for Monogamy. Yes, Western culture's promotion of sex with whoever as good is a problem and it's making way more people have unplanned relationships and be promiscuous rather than maintain any kind of commitment. Plenty of people realize this problem. But that doesn't prove me wrong at all about free speech.

[Winston]

Question to all of you who believe in democracy:

1. Can you name a successful corporation that was run like a true democracy? Even one? Probably not. Would you invest your money into a corporation that was run like a democracy? Why not? Who would?

2. If the military was run like a democracy, where everyone voted on everything, and there was no chain of command or hierarchy, do you think such a military would win any battles or function efficiently?

3. If a big ship was run like a democracy, do you think the ship would be run efficiently? If there was no captain, and everyone voted on everything, would the ship ever get anywhere? Would it always be wandering here and there?

4. If all the 40 trillion cells in your body were free and equal and didn't have to obey their function and duty to serve your body, what would happen to you? Wouldn't your body collapse and die and cease to function? Would that be a good thing?

Think about it. Can any of you think of a better system?

[Moretorque]

Didn't the militia win the war of independence for America which had a loose chain of command, I know America is supposed to be a republic and is called a democracy now which is a code name for a dictatorship by the British empire.

Dictatorships are for cattle and because most people are of a herd mentality it usually proves to be the best bet for the sheople.

[MrMan]

Most Americans abhor monarchy and think it is tyranny with no freedom. But that's not true. Monarchy has many benefits and advantages over the current system in America, which is not even a democracy, but an oligarchy ruled by shadow governments, and a democracy of corporations, not of the common people. But of course Americans are never told this and there is no open debate about this, only an assumption that "everyone" knows a democracy is better than a monarchy. And also, movies and TV shows make monarchs look tyrannical and give it a bad reputation, which is greatly exaggerated of course. Consider the following.

1. In a monarchy, there is accountability. The monarch knows that if he does something bad, he will be held accountable. The people will know who to blame. It's an open rulership. And if he goes crazy and loses it, he will be overthrown, like the Roman Emperors Nero and Caligula were. Furthermore, a monarch's position is for life, so knows he better make decisions that are best for the long term interest of the nation, because the monarch has long term accountability, unlike a politician who only serves for several years and thus is more concerned with short term interests.

In contrast, in the US, there is no accountability at all. The US is ruled by a shadow government consisting of cabals and secret societies, such as the Freemasons, Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Bilderberg Group, etc, and also the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and of course the evil parasitic central banking cabal that instated the Federal Reserve System. And there is the CIA and NSA as well, which we all know has no accountability at all to the American people.

I can't say I share your conspiracy theory perspective, not completely. I don't know that the Bilderberg Group or 'Illuminati' are ruling anything. I suspect the intelligence agencies can influence things behind the scenes in way us regular people do not understand.

Monarchs are accountable? The British monarchy had a set of codified things the monarch could do. His position rested on belief in tradition, and his powers were curtailed by tradition as well. Oliver Cromwell led an army that overthrew Charles II in the name of Parliament. Charles II had dissolved Parliament and done many things contrary to what Parliament wanted. Parliament named Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England. But he was able to act more like an absolute dictator because his role was not limited by the traditions of the monarchy.

It seems to me that democracy, or rather republics, only work in societies that have really strong institutions. English law with its well-defined case law and all its legal institutions and traditions that people believe in and follow allowed for American democracy and the constitutional monarchy that evolved in England. A lot of the successful republics were English colonies. Even looking back in time, the Roman Republic had a very strong legal system with clear legal rights for citizens. Athens had more of a democracy model, but they had some strong legal institutions as well. Democracies and Republics seem to work when at least the citizens have clear rights and the rules of the game are very clear, generally well followed, and the people believe in them. American children learn about civics. The Bill of Rights gets treated almost like religious pronouncements. These sorts of things keep the system going.

If you look at countries that have elections where the rule of law is weak, they tend toward having really strong national leaders, presidents that are more like dictators, etc.

Academic research shows the more democratic/republic type countries tend to have these other strong institutions and lower corruption, but I think the strong institutions and low corruption enable the more democratic/republic type nations to exist. Many of them evolved out of a British monarchy and legal system that gradually gave noblemen, then merchants, then everyone stronger human rights.

[TheLight954]

Question to all of you who believe in democracy:

1. Can you name a successful corporation that was run like a true democracy? Even one? Probably not. Would you invest your money into a corporation that was run like a democracy? Why not? Who would?

2. If the military was run like a democracy, where everyone voted on everything, and there was no chain of command or hierarchy, do you think such a military would win any battles or function efficiently?

3. If a big ship was run like a democracy, do you think the ship would be run efficiently? If there was no captain, and everyone voted on everything, would the ship ever get anywhere? Would it always be wandering here and there?

4. If all the 40 trillion cells in your body were free and equal and didn't have to obey their function and duty to serve your body, what would happen to you? Wouldn't your body collapse and die and cease to function? Would that be a good thing?

Think about it. Can any of you think of a better system?

I don't believe in a democracy-oligarchy (our system right now), for the reasons above. A large majority of the people are kept struggling paycheck to paycheck and have no time to actually think about the issues themselves. The media has successfully portrayed our system as X versus Y and never encourages anyone to think outside the system and come up with their own innovative solution Z. As Noam Chomsky said, the elites have done a good job at restricting the range of acceptable opinion and allowing lively debate within that spectrum.

I'm not sure about a monarchy either. But in practice, a monarch probably wouldn't do too much (as long as they are on the throne comfortably) and it'd mostly be smaller communities self-regulating and self-governing, which I think is an ideal system.

Another problem with a monarch is that if a corrupt government from the west decides to squeeze your economy, your country would go in chaos. An independent monarchy is simply impossible with corrupt governments controlling the rest of the world de facto (and going to war with you if you disobey them).

I guess it also depends on the nature of the monarch. Most people are good. However, if you have people like the ones in central banks keeping everyone in debt that's bad.

[Winston]

@momopi what's your take on this topic? I remember you said you believed in harsh dictatorships right? If so, why? Can you give some reasons why that is the ideal or best political system? And can you give examples of countries that operate under your ideal system? Would China be an example? How about North Korea?

[Winston]

Didn't the militia win the war of independence for America which had a loose chain of command, I know America is supposed to be a republic and is called a democracy now which is a code name for a dictatorship by the British empire.

Dictatorships are for cattle and because most people are of a herd mentality it usually proves to be the best bet for the sheople.

No. The American continental army may have started out being loosely knit militia. But they became organized and regimented as time went on. Eventually they became a fully uniformed army. There was more than one general commanding them too, such a George Washington and Horatio Gates.

They also had help from above too, on many occasions, when they should have lost. But that's another subject. George Washington even had a visitation from an angelic being when he was about to give up at Valley Forge, which inspired him to continue on and not quit.

A democracy yes is a stepping stone toward a communist dictatorship, under the guise of equality and social justice. Study how the Soviet Union began for a great example. Also the Cuban Communist Revolution too, which put Castro in power.

Yes the British Empire still had some control in America after the Revolution, through the Bank of England, Alexander Hamilton, and the Virginia Company. Thomas Jefferson never wanted the US government to be centralized in Washington DC. He wanted state and city governments to have all the power. Not a centralized federal government in DC, which was Alexander Hamilton's agenda, which he got with the help of the Bank of England which funded him. Hamilton also established the first private central bank too, which was dismantled by President Andrew Jackson later.

Btw, keep in mind that a monarchy and dictatorship are not the same thing and the two terms are not used interchangeably. A dictator is not from a royal bloodline and has unlimited unchecked power. A monarch does not.

Yes for some countries, monarchy works better, such as Dubai for instance, which became rich and prosperous under a monarchy and its decisive actions.

Also a monarch can end corruption whereas a politician cannot, but instead must cater to the corruption.

Also monarchies do not allow shadow governments such as the NSA, CIA, CFR, etc to run amok and operate in secrecy with no accountability to anyone, which is a formula for disaster and unchecked power.

Also monarchs are true patriots and love their country. They do not sell out their country to a NWO globalist agenda and international bankers and other such foreign parasites.

I'm not saying that monarchy is the best system or is ideal and perfect, but it certainly has some advantages over a democracy or oligarchy, especially the one we have in America now, which is off chart CORRUPT beyond all comprehension, and ruled by corporations, bankers and shadow governments. That's for sure.

[momopi]

@momopi what's your take on this topic? I remember you said you believed in harsh dictatorships right? If so, why? Can you give some reasons why that is the ideal or best political system? And can you give examples of countries that operate under your ideal system? Would China be an example? How about North Korea?

I will consider writing a reply after you reach Europe.

[Winston]

There's something I don't get.

Why do Americans say that it was right for the colonies in 1775 to refuse to pay taxes to King George III, but they would never dare say that it was ok to refuse to pay taxes to the IRS today? Isn't that an obvious double standard? Especially since taxes in America today are much higher and worse than under King George III? That logic doesn't make sense and is inconsistent.

Also, why do Americans say that the armed rebellion of the colonists against the British army in 1775 was justified and a good noble cause. However, they do not dare support any armed rebellion against the tyrants and oligarchs and bankers that run America today, for fear of being branded a terrorist and locked up. Even the leaders of the conspiracy/truth movement and patriot movement, such as Alex Jones and David Icke, do not advocate armed rebellion, only peaceful resistance and non-compliance, as if an armed rebellion is a taboo and totally forbidden and immoral? Isn't that a huge double standard? The logic makes no sense and is contradictory.

The thing is, if someone wants to change the system, it would logically seem that an armed rebellion is the only logical course of action, since no tyrant or oligarch would willingly give up their power or give the people much freedom. That's impossible and never happens. So force is the only way to change things, logically speaking.

In this case, in America today, corruption, tyranny, taxes, freedom, power of the people, economy, money system, banking system, debt, inflation, crime, etc are hundreds of times WORSE than under King George III in 1775. The average person has no power or control over his own life, not even in his local community. And corruption is off the chart, even worse than in the 1960's and 1970's. As Donald Trump said, "The swamp must be drained." There is no democracy of people, only of corporations, which are the only entities that have a voice in the political system. The private central bankers have enslaved the people into debt, destroyed the value of the dollar, caused inflation to make the cost of living ridiculously high, and issue currency via a private banking system known as the Federal Reserve with no accountability to the public. The politicians are corrupt with no morals, and no one has the power to change that. And the US Constitution is gradually being eroded while people are losing their rights and freedoms. Etc. The country is run by shadow governments - such as the CFR, NSA, CIA, Bilderberg, Freemasons, Illuminati, Bankers, etc - that have no accountability and can do whatever they want with no checks and balances. And the media is now totally controlled and have a uniform opinion and hive mind. And power is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands since the beginning of the 20th Century, and especially after WW2.

So you see, things are far worse now in America than under King George III. In fact the America of 1775 was thousands of times freer than today, in terms of personal liberties, rights and freedoms that is. Even under the British Constitution of that era, the average citizen had far more rights than he does today.

So in that sense, an armed rebellion today is 1000 times more justified than in 1775. There's simply no comparison, So why are Americans so gutless and cowardly to believe that armed rebellions are NEVER justified. Yet they claim that the one in 1775 was? That's a HUGE hypocrisy.

Obviously the reason is because they are chickenshit. They know they could go to jail and be branded a terrorist if they support an armed revolution in modern America. But it's ok to praise the one in 1775 because that was in the past and not relevant to the powers that be today. Plus people live for comfort and safety today. They live for consumerism now and are addicted to their smart phones. And they are conditioned by the media to be paranoid too, so they do not dare take risks or try to change things in this world. out of fear. Thus they are weak and divided and can never unite like people in the pre-industrial era could. They have a lot more to lose in an armed rebellion because it means giving up their material comforts and consumerism, compared to the farmers of the 1775 American Revolution, who had nothing to lose but their farms, and no consumerist lifestyle to live for.

Plus, today the government has tanks, machine guns, jet fighters, bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, military drones, lasers, energy weapons, EMF weapons, secret weapons you don't know about, etc which no militia or people's rebellion could ever overcome. Unless of course, such a people's rebellion could somehow convince a large portion of the US national army and military to join them in their overthrow of the system. If the US military participated in both sides of a civil war, then such a rebellion may have a chance, especially if a significant portion of US military forces ally with the rebel side. But of course, this is all totally taboo to even think about or discuss. Doing so could brand you a terrorist and throw you in jail.

But alas, it's taboo nowadays to advocate violence of any sort. So the elite have already won, by convincing everyone that pacifism is the only way to go, whereas violence is always wrong, even if it's a just cause. Of course, the elite and powers that be themselves are allowed to use violent measures if necessary, but not the common people and masses of sheeple of course. It's a double standard, but there's nothing you can do about it. So they've effectively won and covered all their bases to prevent any uprising from ever overthrowing the system. So they've already won and we've already lost. There's no point of any "resistance" by Alex Jones or Mark Dice or any patriots, because as long as the same cabals are in power, they will always be there and always win. No pacifist resistance will accomplish much or change anything. Game over. We've lost. They've won.

[Winston]

@momopi what's your take on this topic? I remember you said you believed in harsh dictatorships right? If so, why? Can you give some reasons why that is the ideal or best political system? And can you give examples of countries that operate under your ideal system? Would China be an example? How about North Korea?

I will consider writing a reply after you reach Europe.

Why is that all you ever talk about in this forum now? lol. You sound obsessive compulsive. lol. And one track minded. lol

[El_Caudillo]

@Winston

A democracy yes is a stepping stone toward a communist dictatorship, under the guise of equality and social justice. Study how the Soviet Union began for a great example. Also the Cuban Communist Revolution too, which put Castro in power.

Can you explain this one to us? They toppled the Czar, then didn't have a democracy (although I get the feeling you are going to define the Dumas under Kerensky as one) and then became the Soviet Union.

Cuba - the US helped it get independence from Spain in 1898 (most of the other Spanish colonies had become independent from 1810 to 1820). Before Castro there was an American backed dictator Batista. Again not democracy.

BTW if you want a better fit your model 'Monarch - Democracy - Communist Dictatorship' have a look at Nepal.

[Winston]

@Winston

A democracy yes is a stepping stone toward a communist dictatorship, under the guise of equality and social justice. Study how the Soviet Union began for a great example. Also the Cuban Communist Revolution too, which put Castro in power.

Can you explain this one to us? They toppled the Czar, then didn't have a democracy (although I get the feeling you are going to define the Dumas under Kerensky as one) and then became the Soviet Union.

Cuba - the US helped it get independence from Spain in 1898 (most of the other Spanish colonies had become independent from 1810 to 1820). Before Castro there was an American backed dictator Batista. Again not democracy.

BTW if you want a better fit your model 'Monarch - Democracy - Communist Dictatorship' have a look at Nepal.

Very simple. A democracy is a stepping stone toward dictatorship too, just from another side of the mountain that communism is one. So both democracy and communism are heading toward the same direction. They are just on different sides of the hill. Visualize it that way if you want.

For more detail on how that works, read the PDF book I gave you called "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" by Gary Allen. It's an eye opening book that many truthers and patriots said made them see the light. If you weren't so lazy and you read the book I gave you long ago, you'd understand it by now and wouldn't be asking this question again.

[El_Caudillo]

@Winston

No, I'm asking how the Soviet Union and Cuba back up your point of of democracy being a stepping stone to dictatorship? Neither were democracies.

And from their inceptions as communist states they were dictatorships respectively under Lenin and Castro - so where is the stepping stone? Arguably in both cases a monarchy was the stepping stone to dictatorship.

[Winston]

@Winston

No, I'm asking how the Soviet Union and Cuba back up your point of of democracy being a stepping stone to dictatorship? Neither were democracies.

And from their inceptions as communist states they were dictatorships respectively under Lenin and Castro - so where is the stepping stone? Arguably in both cases a monarchy was the stepping stone to dictatorship.

Use your head for a minute. If you wanted to introduce communism into America, would you call it by that name? Of course not, because communism is perceived negatively in the US. So you have to hide it under another name, like "democracy".

Both democracy and communism uses words like "human rights, social justice, equality, end the oppression of the rich" etc. I told you, they are stepping stones on different sides of the mountain and leading in the same direction. Can't you visualize that? If not then imagine you and me walking up the stairs. You are taking the stairs in front of the building and i am going up the stairs in the rear of the building. But we are both heading into the same building, even if we dont know it. See how that works now?

Both democracy and communism convince people that laws need to be enacted to make everyone equal so that there is no class system. These laws give the government more and more power and control until it becomes a monster and will never be willing to reduce their size again.

As government grows it needs to justify its size and expenditures. So they need to invent monsters to make themselves look good and look like they are needed. It creates a vicious cycle that only results in bigger and bigger government until one day, your freedoms are gone and everyone is brought down to the lowest denominator. What sounded good in concept turned into a nightmare and dictatorship.

You see, people want both liberty and equality. But they are mutually exclusive. Forced equality of all people takes away liberty and freedom. You see, people say they want freedom. But they also want laws enacted to prevent others from abusing their freedoms too. That's where the trojan horse comes in. The more laws passed to prevent abuse, the bigger government agencies grow and the more taxes and needed to fund it. Eventually liberty is eroded away and everyone is confused and wondering what happened.

You see how that works?

Please read the PDF book I gave you. "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" by Gary Allen. It explains it in detail and will open your eyes so you see the light.

Also listen to the 2 hour speech by Myron Fagan in 1967 on YouTube. He explains the whole communist/fascist plot under the guise of "democracy" and "liberalism" too. It's a MUST HEAR speech. I sent it to you on WhatsApp many times. You still never listened to it? Geez. Man you are missing out on knowledge and wisdom and history!

I told you: READ IT! LISTEN TO IT! READ IT! LISTEN TO IT! READ IT! LISTEN TO IT!

How many times do I have to repeat that? lol

If you do what I say, those materials will answer all your questions.

Btw, no Stalin and Castro were not monarchs. They were dictators who seized power. They did not inherit it by bloodline. Also their power was not balanced by a parliament body.

[Moretorque]

The genius of Mr. Wu, not only is he incredibly handsome but very smart as well.

Winston, Andrew Jackson did the second bank in in the 1830's. The first bank which was made possible by Hamilton was not renewed in 1811 and is said too be the reason for the 1812 war. I also wonder if Alexander was shot for being a British agent....