Monarchy vs. Republicanism

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 RedskinsCamp 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.”

This entry was posted in Hispanics, Immigration, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to Monarchy vs. Republicanism

  1. Silver says:

    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.

  2. Rudel says:

    “As under a globally united ‘Christendom’ fully submitted to Rome there would be no more barriers to protect Christians.”

    Off topic.

  3. As far back as Aristotle, it was known that “the people” shouldn’t be voters because they don’t have the time to take an interest in public affairs and that the inevitable result of universal suffrage (much like a debased currency) was misrule. Plato also identified the leveling tendencies of democracy.

  4. Whites Unite says:

    Can you name a currently living member of any European royal family whose position on even one issue is sounder than the position of the average of White man from Alabama?

  5. I don’t know of any real monarchies left in Europe – parliaments, presidents, bureaucrats, and judges wield all the power over there, even if symbolic monarchies officially exist in several countries.

  6. JohntheSecond says:

    The primary destructive characteristic of democracy is that it allows people to pretend they have a peaceful say in what is really and inevitably a dictatorship of the oligarchs. People in monarchies understand that they are slaves and that the threat of violence is the only real voice they have.

  7. Mosin Nagant says:

    ‘I don’t know of any real monarchies left’:

    Does this ‘REAL’ imply that you want not just a symbolic, mixed constitutional-parliamentarian ‘monarchy’ but a hereditary absolute monarchy, for the future Dixie and its Golden Circle empire?

  8. Long Live Dixie says:

    How about a philosopher king? There are a lot more safeguards against getting a bad apple.

  9. Mosin Nagant says:

    ‘How about a philosopher king?’:

    Instead it will be a Talmudic or at least-one-drop-Talmudic king, advised/directed by a Talmudic chief advisor and de facto king.

    ‘There are a lot more safeguards against getting a bad apple’:

    What safeguards? The WORST corrupt apples of your future royalty in an absolute hereditary monarchy will inevitably float to the top.

  10. Isn’t there a “Talmudic” Congress that exists now?

  11. Mosin Nagant says:

    ‘Isn’t there a “Talmudic” Congress’:

    It’s PARTLY Talmudic, but mostly ‘one-drop’ Talmudic — but ‘behind’ them all are even MORE solidly Talmudic elites who would continue to advise/direct your future king, and provide the key genetic ingredient (at least one drop) to the future royal blood.

  12. Rudel says:

    None of these so-called “Talmudic” elites studies the Talmud.

    When you mean Jew or Judaic say Jew or Judaic.

  13. Anon says:

    My thinking is that power should be decentralized as it was originally designed to be. the unfortunate problem there is that those in power did everything they could to centralize power eventually leading to this. I think the problems that made the original Articles of Confederation unworkable at the time should be revisited.

    “Face it, most people like most of the changes that have been wrought.” – and yet everyone is more unhappy and more dissatisfied with our governance than at any point we’ve recorded such things.

  14. Divine Right says:

    I’m glad everyone seems to be discussing this topic. However, it has already been beaten to death over the centuries. Virtually every great political reform movement – Socialism, Communism, Democracy – has attempted to create a better government for the people. It always ends the same way, however. Regardless of what new concept of government is invented, it eventually fails, leaving people to propose another. The reason is simple, human nature (i.e. genetics).

    Instead of proposing a system worthy of the people, why not simply create a people worth of the system? With recent advances in genome editing and genetic engineering, it may already be possible to create designer children with preformed political biases (several gene variants have already been correlated with religiosity, conservatism, intelligence, leadership, altruism, aggressiveness, criminal activity, etc.).

    In such a system where people have been designed – where European social pathologies have been eliminated – for superior conservative/nationalistic tendencies and intelligence, it would be impossible for an elite to trick the masses out of their countries. You’d never have to worry about the problems Wallace mentioned in his post; the form of government would be irrelevant, they’d all work. People are the key, not creating a new system to rule an imperfect people, which has been done endless over the past four centuries.

  15. Rudel says:

    “People are the key, not creating a new system to rule an imperfect people, which has been done endless over the past four centuries.”

    “Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m really awfuly glad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They’re too stupid to be able …”

    http://www.huxley.net/bnw/two.html

  16. RG_Miller says:

    Excellent. The rule of the natural and God-ordained leaders, not the masses, is the biblical and effective way. Even if it was merely an aristocracy, not a full fledged monarchy, I would be satisfied.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>