Argument For Monarchy
Argument For Monarchy
Authoritharian democracy
In a centralized democracy, self-rule is an illusion. In Roman Empire or feudal states, cities had
high degree of autonomy. Even in Byzantine Empire, cities could determine much if not most of
their own internal matters.
In democracy, only minority of populace are ever represented. Typical is two-party system (US,
Croatia, UK, France), which in reality rapidly becomes one-party system when (nonexistent)
ideological and practical differences between ruling parties are observed. Ruling parties legislate so
as to prevent third parties from disrupting the system. Usually 1/3 of population do not vote, which
means that winning party always has less than 50% support. This is because average voter
recognizes that he is powerless against the state, and indeed nowhere is person as insignificant as in
democracy. And even this formal representation of minority does not really happen: politicians need
money for their campaigns, and this comes from wealthy donors. Since voting is merely a one-time
affair, politicians actually represent the interests of those who finance their campaigns.
This question of backers is significant. Modern capitalists – especially those from finance industry
and/or international magnates – share much the same psychopathic pathology of elected politicians.
Yet politicians require their support to win the elections, and this support needs to be paid back
during said politicians' term in the office. And since modern large capital is in cahoots with large
state, end result is that there is only one political option available: Marxist-statist power centralizers.
This means that Western "democratic" countries are on an inoxerable march towards absolutist
totalitarianism. Power structures in mass democracy belong to media, bankers, big business, interest
groups, corporations and bureocrats; there is no room left for the people, and elections do not
matter. There is no way to opt out of the system, or to change it; the whole system is akin to giving
person a choice of the means of an already predetermined execution. No matter the vote, outcome is
the same.
System itself is designed to divide the people into groups. This is why democratic politicians
support immigration, as it allows them to create even more division and conflict within the society
which then can be exploited for their own purposes. Democracy as a system is built to create and
promote conflict – but it does so within the society itself, destroying it in the process.
While democracy is a certain road towards tyranny, democratic system cannot be removed as easily
as a tyrannical ruler. A monarch could not hope to turn against his people and survive, whether in a
feudal or a Byzantine system. Democratic governments do so regularly.
Monarchy is at significant advantage here. A King only benefits from uniting his people, and is not
required to serve particular interests of his financial backers. Kings do not need social engineering
to steal money, nor do they have the pressure to get rich before their term runs out.
Average voter
Democracy requires informed voters, but voters nowadays are anything but informed. Most people
are so concerned with basic survival that they do not have time or energy to spend on crucial task of
following and understanding politics. Vast majority of voters merely parrot what mainstream media
serve them, with no thought or understanding.
Because ruling class has media and education under its thumb, voters do not get basis necessary to
form proper decisions. Public opinion is manufactured and strictly regulated. Yet they serve purpose
in providing legitimacy for decisions made by said ruling class, allowing it to act more freely than it
would be able to in a non-democratic system.
In order to fill hole that lack of tradition and God have left, government will provide tasks such as
fighting racism and promoting diversity – thus leading people towards destroying their own
civilization for the sake of feeling well. Democracy is only possible in a system where government
is absolutely minimal, where there are traditions, morality and law higher than that of the state –
which is to say, in a traditional, ethnically and culturally homogenous society. But democratic
government takes over education and other social tasks, and in the process destroys the very basis
of democracy itself.
Centralization
Centralization of government has led to greatest evils in history. Going by demicides, it is exactly
strong governments which caused greatest mass murders in history. Communism killed 107 million
people, Nazism 21 million and right-wing militarism 22 million. As R.J.Rummel stated, four times
as many people were killed by their own governments as had been killed in all the wars ever fought.
Greatest threat to human life were not wars, but massive centralization of power. This means that
the exact systems promoted to increase safety by reducing chance of war – that is, supranational
institutions (e.g. EU) – are far greater threat to human life than the wars they are ostensibly trying to
prevent. Among forms of centralized power, democracy is the least lethal, because – compared to
Nazism/Communism/etc. - democracy is least centralized. However, democracy merely
decentralizes political process; what is also necessary is decentralization of power, and this can only
be achieved by moving decision-making power to the lowest level possible (which, again, is the
exact opposite of what EU is trying to achieve).
Democracy has also had impact on war. War, ever since French Revolution (and even earlier: Thirty
Years War), was no longer a war between rulers: rather, it was a war between nations, between
peoples. And thus peoples became a legitimate target, something that was rare outside the Ottoman
front. Combined with greater centralization and cohesion of democratic states, wars became more
frequent as well as more destructive as military became stronger and more effective. Rulers also,
having an excuse that they are executors of public will, could fight more freely. In contrast,
monarchical wars are wars between monarchs themselves, which significantly reduced their impact
on the populace. Combined with more stable foreign policy, this made wars much less destructive.
Further, in a feudal society, lords and kings were expected to lead armies themselves – there was
thus a personal cost to war, unlike modern democratic warfare where politicians oftentimes even
benefit from war. While wars were more frequent, this was a consequence of political
fragmentation, and said wars were less destructive than civil disturbances so frequent in modern
Western multicultural democracies.
Greatest decentralization was achieved under medieval feudalism, when Europe consisted of
thousands of de-facto independent political entities. Nearly everything was done by local (city,
village) government, with central government only demanding taxes – if that. Customs and
traditions were above the laws and could not be altered by rulers, thus preventing the government
(king, lord) from sliding into tyranny, as modern-day political entities are prone to do. And said
customs were local, not even national and let alone supranational. Medieval kings did not create
laws or legislate; laws were traditional and local, given and fixed by tradition and custom. Thus
King could easily be tried for violating the laws – this was the case even in Byzantine Empire. But
in feudal monarchy, unlike Byzantine Empire, vast majority of people lived beyond the reach of
royal influence or power. Kings depended on their vassals, even in war, and said vassals depended
on their own vassals – all the way down to knight and his peasants. As a result, any ruler who
wanted to remain in power could not be tyrannical, as that would mean risking swift removal from
either above or below. "Divine right of kings" was never accepted by the Catholic Church; in fact,
rebellion against tyrannical ruler was considered a duty. "Right of kings" was only proclaimed by
James I of England, a Protestant. Thus, despite often-repeated opinion, removing a king in a feudal
monarchy was both legal and legitimate – resistance to tyranny was a duty. As Thomas Aquinas
writes: "If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that
the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he
abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in
deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he
himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the
multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands.".
Local government is closer to the people and more accountable. Rule by a local lord is in essence
more democratic than that of a supranational (or even national) parliament. Decentralization avoids
tyranny by offering a diversity in government which centralized society cannot achieve. This is
highly beneficial, as there would be no need to subject entire society to experiments: rather, a single
province could live out, say, "progressive paradise" – or any other novelty – and those who do not
want it would be able to see how said experiment turns out. And people who do not like politics in
one province could easily move to another province within the state. Result would be a much more
efficient and effective system, better able to experiment and adapt to new circumstances. It would
also stop much of infighting as there would be no need for various groups to force themselves on
each other, as modern centralized democracy mandates.
In contrast, power structure of a centralized country – especially a democracy – cannot be removed
easily. Democratic power structure is especially dangerous as power is spread out to many people,
and thus becomes systematic. Consequently, once criminals and psychopaths establish themselves
in a democracy removing them becomes almost impossible, whereas a psychopathic local lord – or
even a psychopathic king – can be removed fairly easily. This again can be illustrated by various
"democratic" duopols: Republicans and Democrats in USA or HDZ and SDP (that is, KOS and
UDBA) in Croatia. In both cases, there is no appreciable difference between two parties and people
suffer under them, yet same two parties are always being elected. A single ruler is easily removed,
whereas removal of ruling structures of democratic (or even pseudo-democratic: e.g. Communist)
society would cause massive social disruption. And democratic government oftentimes has much
more extensive systems of oppression than a feudal (or even Byzantine) ruler would have, thus
making it much more dangerous to remove violently. Elections are no answer to these issues, as
they are easily "tweaked": in last Croatian parliamentary elections (July 2020.) 352 voting papers
were declared invalid. Željko Glasnović required only 8 votes for a seat in Parliament, yet he lost 11
votes just in Livno. Of course, HDZ refused to repeat the elections despite significant irregularities
noticed at various voting places. Even without such tweaking, voters are typically uninformed and
even outright idiotic: Croatian Communist Party (HDZ – SDP (Restart) – Pametno – Narodna –
Reformisti – HNS) in the end received 119 seats out of 151, or 79%, proving that people love the
most those who do them evil. And elections themselves were placed into middle of Corona
epidemic for two reasons: 1) to limit willingness of voters to go to elections (HDZ's clients were
certainly going to vote) and 2) to exploit tendency of people to avoid "rocking the boat" during a
crisis.
Overall, centralization of power means that formal democracy is, in practice, less democratic than a
monarchy (of feudal or Middle Byzantine style – absolutist monarchy of 17th and 18th century is
another matter, though still debatable). Central government forces people to accept changes it wants
to make, whether people want those changes or not. Tax in absolute monarchies never rose above 5-
8%, there was no property tax (nobody thought their private property was on rent from state), and
medieval peasants had right to defend their property even against the kings.
Modern democratic government places itself above the law – no law is higher than the lawmaker –
and is thus not accountable to the very laws it holds average person to, whereas a king in a feudal
monarchy was still subject to the law which was derived from custom and tradition. Precisely this
subordination to law was difference between a king and a tyrant: a tyrant refused to be subordinated
to the law. A king subordinated himself to the law, and administers republic under guidance of the
law. Thus modern democratic government can call for legalization of gay marriage, pedophilia,
necrophilia and drug usage. People who disagree with politically correct beliefs are forcibly
removed. In democratic Germany, dr. Heinrich Flechtner was ejected from Stuttgart Germany's state
parliament after he accused Communist parties running Germany of having "blood on their hands".
At the same time, globalist corporations use centralized government to dictate politics.
Cult of democracy
Democracy today – much like other modern things (progressivism, multiculturalism etc.) - is a cult.
Democracy is perfect, and cannot be damaged by evidence. When society does well, it must be a
result of democracy; but when democratic system does not work, blame is always shifted elsewhere,
and true believer asks for more democracy. But historically, democracy and similar system have
always produced decline of faith and morality and their replacement with materialism and laws –
both of which are characteristics of totalitarian systems. Socialism believes humans can be
improved, contrary to all the evidence (general trend has been, since the end of Middle Ages,
downwards). Utopia can be achieved by governmental action – and when that fails, solution is
invariably more government and more control over individual. Bonds of blood, culture, history,
morality and so on are replaced by external control (totalitarianism).
Lawmakers are given mandate by the people and thus believe themselves the highest authority:
above the law, not subject to the law, and able to change the law at will. They thus aim to control all
modes of behaviour and set their own standards, as seen from modern politically correct culture.
French Revolution, from which "mandate of the people" originates, killed tens of thousands of
people. Communists killed tens of millions, as noted earlier. French Revolutionary government,
Communist government and modern democracies all hold to claims of diversity and acceptance, yet
they all condone mass murder of undesireables. At least 20 million were killed in Russia for their
religion and monarchist opinions. In Spain, Republicans killed 55 000 people while Nationalists
killed 75 000 according to some figures, though estimates for both vary wildly (40 000 – 110 000
victims of Republican terror vs 60 000 – 200 000 victims of Nationalist terror).