District of Corruption
While I was at the beach in Florida, I watched a lot of television and followed the news, but the poor internet service there prevented me from commenting on current events like the fall of Iraq to jihadists, the federal government’s PC war against the Washington Redskins, Camp of the Saints unfolding on the Mexican border, and Eric Cantor’s surprise defeat in Virginia followed by his swift replacement by Kevin McCarthy who is an even worse pro-amnesty establishment Republican.
In reaction to Cantor’s defeat, Sheldon Adelson in Politico, Richard Trumka in The Hill, and Rupert Murdoch in the Wall Street Journal have written editorials demanding amnesty for illegal aliens. There’s also the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) announcing that “gay marriage” is Christian. A recent poll that found that 54 percent of Americans believe that Obama is incapable of leading the country. The approval rating of the U.S. Congress has reached “historic lows” at least 12 times since 2010.
All of this was the backdrop of an epic debate at our hotel room about the merits of monarchy vs. republicanism as a form of government. My position was that republics naturally degenerate over time, there are no limits on “liberty” and “equality” which crowd out all other values, republics are plagued by perpetual social revolution, power in republics is ultimately based on sheer numbers which means there is always a built in incentive in the system to expand the electorate, and that there isn’t a single historical example of a republic that has stayed or become a more stable, conservative society in the long run through the electoral process.
Roll the tape in any country where the republican form of government has been tried and you will always find a culture on the way down whether it is European folk songs degenerating into American pop music or, even in the absence of Jews, the Japanese samurai and kamikaze degenerating into the hikikomori of modern Japan since the emperor lost power following the Second World War.
Even if there was a “White Republic” or a “Southern Republic,” could we have any confidence that it would not follow the same downward trajectory, slowly as in the case of American Republic, or very fast like Revolutionary France, into the course of all the liberal democracies that have proceeded it?
Would our descendants have to struggle to overthrow another wild democracy where in Plato’s words, “the horses and asses are wont to hold on their way with the utmost freedom and dignity, bumping into everyone who meets them and who does not step aside. And so all things everywhere are just bursting with the spirit of liberty.”
I think Sweden and Greece have the greatest chance of ‘coming back,’ ie, leading the charge to liberate the eurosphere (or at least parts of it).
The greeks’ civilization pre-dated jewish invasion and the swedish one existed too far away for jews to become too integral to it (and too far north into the cold). They both have a strong sense of a tribe, a people, who are undiluted and polluted by judaism and jews.
The irish have what is basically a puppet government but it is the EJew that pulls it’s strings. This is not just my assessment but one made by an irish nationalist.
“My position is that anything is better than the system we have now which is moving us toward racial, cultural, and ethnic extinction. Anything is better than collective death.”
Agreed.
Actually, Golden Dawn is another illustration of how far you can get by trying to work within the system.
Given that you are a member of a political organization with specific goals (southern secession), I’m still interested in hearing how your pro-monarchy position would actually translate into the real world situation in the South. This question isn’t directed just at you, but at any pro-monarchy nationalists, especially those in America. What exactly are you promoting, from a practical perspective? How is monarchy going to be re-created? Are you actually promoting the creation of different classes within the white race, each with different inherited political rights? If you are not promoting this, then your monarchy wouldn’t look like anything seen in European history, which would lead me to ask what exactly you’re basing your proposed system on.
If you can’t even convince Americans that blacks should have an official subservient political status, how on earth are you going to convince Americans that the real problem with our country is that we formed it in the first place by ditching hereditary monarchy? If the LoS gains any steam, I guarantee that the pro-monarchy position of its members will be highlighted, much to its detriment.
Also, your view that republicanism inevitably leads to degeneracy would seem to undermine one of your other central claims, that the South would have remained morally and culturally healthy were it not for yankee interference. The Confederacy was based on republican principles, was it not? Would the Confederacy have become just as degenerate even if it had secured its independence in the 1860s?
And finally, what evidence is there that monarchies are actually any better equiped to combat marxism (cultural or otherwise) than republics? France, Russia and China certainly aren’t good examples, neither is the Kaiser’s Germany. The most effective counter to marxism in the 20th century was undoubtedly NS/Fascism. Also, the two white areas that held out against miscegination the longest (the American South and South Africa) weren’t they of republican, not monarchical, political heritage?
1.) I want to live in a stable, conservative society, one that is not embroiled in a permanent state of leftwing social revolution, in which my children and descendants will have a future.
The form of government under which this ideal can be realized is unimportant. It just so happens that conservative societies tend to flourish best under monarchy while they seem to universally decay under the republican form of government.
In the US, conservative victories in national elections only have the effect of stabilizing and consolidating the latest round of leftwing social revolution. The drift of the system is perpetually to the left as the logic of “equal rights” grinds down all social distinctions over time.
2.) Personally, I believe the republican form of government deteriorates into democracy, and under the democracy all types of social distinctions – racial or otherwise – tend to decay.
Again, this is just an observation. Like the existence of racial differences, I believe it is true regardless of whether a monarchy can be restored in the South, Germany, Russia or anywhere else.
3.) I believe that experience has shown that there are no limits to the concept of “equal rights” – after overthrowing kings and aristocrats, the logic of “equal rights” simply finds new types of hierarchies to undermine and abolish.
4.) I can’t think of any parallel in European history to the present death wish that thrives under the republican form of government.
5.) Americans already trace the expansion of “equal rights” to the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. In France, it is traced to the French Revolution.
6.) Perhaps.
What is lost though? The system we have now is incapable of being reformed because of 1.) federal judges, 2.) oligarchs who bribe politicians, and 3.) executives who refuse to enforce the law. Even if we tried to reform the system, these obstacles are insurmountable and always lead to the same dead end.
7.) The South would be far better off outside the Union. The decay would certainly be much slower. Still, the rest of the West is independent of Washington, but it has drifted in the same direction.
8.) Who knows? History didn’t unfold that way. We can only judge based upon what did happen.
9.) If every republic in the Occident has drifted toward the same conclusion, I would say it reflects on the system itself. Are there any examples of absolute monarchies in European history that have been bent on cultural suicide and race replacement?
10.) NS/Fascism discredited racialism, nationalism, and eugenics and inspired the swing toward the opposite extreme that prevails now.
11.) The American South and South Africa also inherited their racial consciousness from the monarchical era.
I will say this.
I think this debate over systems or form of government is ultimately pointless.
But I do think that we’re not going to be able to vote or rights or constitution or libertarian our way out of the mess we’re in.
The first ‘Americans’ wanted Geo. Washington to be their king.
All it takes is massive statist re-education. And coercion. Nothing the Left hasn’t done for four generations… why is it ‘so impossible’ to do that which the Marxist Maniacs have done, and do it honestly, objectively, and with a guarantee of immediate sentences of death for those who commit capital crimes? You want a milquetoast government? Vote in Obummer for a third term.
Otherwise, GTFO.
Seriously, the girlish kvetching and carping while O’Nigger sodomizes the USSA, and brings down the Wrath of God, is utterly faggy. To this we’ve come? That no one has the balls to say, ‘This is what we are doing, and go to hell, if you disagree?’
OMG.
Most monarchies aren’t any more stable or successful than successful Republics. This romantic view of monarchies is not really supported by history, the stable monarchies are the exception, not the rule. I’d also like to point out that in nearly every political question the opinions of the (white) masses have been far more conservative and commonsensical than those of the elite. That’s the value of democracy – on general questions the more people involved the more likely common sense will prevail, whereas if you get a dictator or king who is mad/bad/stupid you take what you get. Indeed a better case can be made that we suffer from a failure OF democracy rather than a failure BY democracy, that the elite have slowly strangled the people’s input by centralizing power, and the result has been an isolated elite, with a large contingent of hate-filled minorities, disconnected from the people whom they live off of, who have reeled from one disaster to another. The (white) people would never have condoned “free trade”, school busing, or open borders or any of a thousand malevolent policies imposed from the top. A fish rots from the head down and it’s big policy that causes our problems, not the failure of the ordinary people.
Despotism, enthroned at Rome, was arrayed in robes torn from the corpse of the Republic. – Ronald Syme.
“power in republics is ultimately based on sheer numbers”
The Roman Republic successfully lasted for hundreds of years. That’s because it was ruled by a Senate which was almost entirely composed of a hereditary aristocracy. When they required a king (usually during times of crises such as war) they named a citizen “dictator” for a fixed period of time, Cincinnatus being the prime example.
Also “ordered liberty” (there is no other kind) does not imply universal equality or unlimited freedom but a system where every “right” has a concomitant duty.
Are there any examples of monarchies in European history that imposed racial and cultural extinction on their subjects or is this peculiar condition found only under liberal democracy?
The Dutch had an explicit and prosperous republic for over 200 years and except for a brief period under French rule they have had a constitutional monarchy since 1848. The constitutional monarchies of Western Europe are essentially republics in all but name as the king is merely a figurehead of state, the real power lying with the parliament. This has certainly been the case with Great Britain since 1688.
“is this peculiar condition found only under liberal democracy?”
Only since the end of WWI although I suppose a case could be made that the inevitable outcome of the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte attempted and failed (except for the metric system) to force a universalism upon the rest of Europe.
As far as I’m concerned universal democracy and Bolshevism are simply two manifestations of the same impulse.
The Netherlands had a political party for pedophiles until recently.
We’ve discussed the madness of Revolutionary France and its outcome in the Caribbean here in detail.
Les Pays Bas (the Low Countries) were the estates of the Counts of Flanders whose leige was the French monarchy.
All of Europe was once a patchwork of estates, little kingdoms and principalities.
Les Pays Bas was carved away from the French monarchy in the Calvinist revolution of the 16th century – a revolution bought and paid for by the Jews because after that, they established the Amsterdamsee Wissel Bank to monetize the debt and the Bourse to speculate on it. The Dutch Netherlands has been afflicted by a usury debt system since that time and the textbook on derivatives was written in Amsterdam.
The nation became a corporate asset of the Dutch East India Co owned by the Wisselbank.
“We’ve discussed the madness of Revolutionary France and its outcome in the Caribbean here in detail.”
There is a straight line from the egalitarian peasant rebellions and antinomianism of the Reformation right through to the Puritan Roundheads, Rousseau, The French revolution, and finally Bolshevism. It all stems from assuming that if everyone is equal in the eyes of God then all should be equal under the law and now even in circumstance.
I blame monotheism itself for this sort of rot. Polytheism is more diverse in a good way. It celebrates that everything is particular and different rather than equal. It is more in tune with natural law i.e the way things really are not how they “ought” to be.
Making or persuading free men to become ‘commoners’ and submit to kings and popes makes our blood boil.
In Pennsylvania, “free men” elected Barack Obama as their president twice in 2008 and 2012. Enjoy.
There’s a passage in The Republic where Plato talks about how under democracy the slaves and slaveowners, men and women, parents and children, and even animals all become free and equal.
You think Plato was a better political scientist than Aristotle, Brad?
‘makes our blood boil’:
Exactly.
‘Polytheism is more diverse in a good way’:
Of course Romanism is polytheistic, but you’re probably referring to older paganism.
Conversion to Romanism, respect for ‘good southern Talmudism’, and submission to MONARCHY are actually being recommended here to Bible-Belt Christian, southern Whites?
We don’t have a monarchy.
All the stories above are the fruit of the republican form of government.
Well, at least we don’t have to deal with a full-blown monarchy too.
Satan was the first egalitarian:
Isaiah 14:12–14
12 “How you have afallen from heaven,
O 1bstar of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
13 “But you said in your heart,
‘I will aascend to heaven;
I will braise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
aI will make myself like the Most High.’
He was the second Prince.
Did God win a democratic election in Heaven?
‘and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles’.
‘they said, Give us a king (…) And the LORD said unto Samuel (…) they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them’.
‘Did God win a democratic election in Heaven?’:
Equating human monarchy with the Almighty, now?
This King of Dixie thing is either silly or dangerous.
They were better off under the Judges anyway.
“Equating human monarchy with the Almighty, now?”
All the kings of Europe certainly believed they ruled by Divine Right.
‘All the kings of Europe certainly believed they ruled by Divine Right’:
How can you be certain that they were certain? Since so many were overthrown by other kings or competed with other claimants for their thrones, did any really ‘know for certain’ that their thrones were Divinely assured?
Satan tells Eve she will be the equal of God:
Genesis 3:4-5
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
‘King of Dixie and Emperor of the Golden Circle’ is an important new slogan for southern secessionists, equally important as the slogan: ‘Slavery in the Golden Circle generated immense wealth’.
‘Satan tells Eve she will be the equal of God’:
That was a lie of the Prince of Darkness, so he could enslave them, and their children, under his cruel dictatorship. But OUR ONLY King came to set us free.
God does have something to say about authority:
Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings by Sir Robert Filmer
http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm
“This tenet was first hatched in the schools, and hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good divinity. The divines, also, of the Reformed Churches have entertained it, and the common people everywhere tenderly embrace it as being most plausible to flesh and blood, for that it prodigally distributes a portion of liberty to the meanest of the multitude, who magnify liberty as if the height of human felicity were only to be found in it, never remembering that the desire of liberty was the first cause of the fall of Adam. …
This lordship which Adam by command had over the whole world, and by right descending from him the patriarchs did enjoy, was as large and ample as the absolutest dominion of any monarch which hath been since the creation. For dominion of life and death we find that Judah, the father, pronounced sentence of death against Thamar, his daughter-in-law, for playing the harlot. “Bring her forth,” saith he, “that she may be burnt.” Touching war, we see that Abraham commanded an army of three hundred and eighteen soldiers of his own family. And Esau met his brother Jacob with four hundred men at arms. For matter of peace, Abraham made a league with Abimelech, and ratified the articles with an oath. These acts of judging in capital crimes, of making war, and concluding peace, are the chiefest marks of “sovereignty” that are found in any monarch.
5. Not only until the Flood, but after it, this patriarchal power did continue, as the very name patriarch doth in part prove. The three sons of Noah had the whole world divided amongst them by their father; for of them was the whole world overspread, according to the benediction given to him and his sons: “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Most of the civilest nations of the earth labour to fetch their original from some one of the sons or nephews of Noah, which were scattered abroad after the confusion of Babel. In this dispersion we must certainly find the establishment of regal power throughout the kingdoms of the world.”
‘God does have something to say about authority’:
Filmer did nothing but proof texting for heredity monarchism there. Back to Noah indeed.
‘heredity monarchism’: I meant hereditary monarchy.
Sophisms of ‘Succession’ (false histories and confusion of dictatorships with familial patriarchy) are used to delude the masses to accept and support both hereditary monarchies and Papism.
Power comes only from God:
Romans 13:1
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
John 19:11
“Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
Did God establish an elected legislature? No, authority was given to Adam:
Genesis 1:28
“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
“How can you be certain that they were certain?”
They certainly proclaimed their power came from above and even claimed it was the basis for rule by right of conquest much as our Anglo-Saxon adversarial trial system evolved from trial by combat. LOL!!!
I certainly wouldn’t complain if we restored the Stuarts. They were certainly a much easier going bunch than the Plantagenets who preceded them. Too easy in fact. They let the Puritan Cromwell commit the most treasonous of crimes: regicide. No wonder they exiled a bunch of Puritans to the wilds of New England. No dancing, no drinking, drowning “witches”; they were a most unsavory lot of murderous blue noses.
Under the republican system of government, we have no one to protect us from democratic politicians, federal judges, social engineers and the oligarchs who pull their strings.
The worst thing you could do for Christianity is to put them in charge of the government. It wouldn’t destroy the government, which is always vile, it would destroy Christianity. I’m for separation of church and state not for the governments sake but for the Churches.
Mosin said:
‘King of Dixie and Emperor of the Golden Circle’ is an important new slogan for southern secessionists, equally important as the slogan: ‘Slavery in the Golden Circle generated immense wealth’.
LMAO
“Under the republican system of government, we have no one to protect us from democratic politicians, federal judges, social engineers and the oligarchs who pull their strings.”
Under absolute monarchy we have no one to protect us from a bad king.
Hunter’s proof texting: ‘Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God’:
I counter with those who refuse to ‘be subject’: ‘Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men’.
Also: ‘That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed’. Et cetera, etc.
Hunter theologises again: ‘Did God establish an elected legislature? No, authority was given to Adam’:
The Devil is allowed immense power, so should we obey him? Many are submitted to his rule. But the Bible says ‘RESIST the Devil, and he will flee from you’ — just like a proud, strutting, bullying human emperor wearing the imaginary robes of Divine authority will run away when his stark nakedness is proclaimed by some courageous ‘outlaw’.
‘Under absolute monarchy we have no one to protect us from a bad king’.
As under a globally united ‘Christendom’ fully submitted to Rome there would be no more barriers to protect Christians.
Under the republican system of government, we have no one to protect us from democratic politicians, federal judges, social engineers and the oligarchs who pull their strings.
Face it, most people like most of the changes that have been wrought. The glaring exception is racial policy but even there most are willing to endure it (perhaps as a ‘necessary’ part of the bargain). So the real question you should be asking yourself is does being such a sore loser help your cause or hurt it.