Why Monarchy is better than Democracy in many ways

[Winston]

"There will always be kings. Even if we don't call them that." - Napoleon Bonaparte

Americans generally abhor monarchy and consider it to be tyranny with no freedom. It goes against everything they stand for, they think. And in fact the nation was founded against the concept of the monarchical system. Buts that's not true. What Americans are never told is that 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 benefits and advantages of a monarchical system over American democracy.

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.

None of these groups have any accountability. In fact, they pretend to either not exist or are not running anything. So they can do anything they want and get away with it. All they do is elect a puppet they called the President every four years, to take the fall for whatever people complain about, and switch him every four years if necessary to pretend that things will "change or get better". But as we all know, the policies never change no matter who is "elected", which speaks volumes. So the whole political system is a charade with no accountability.

Furthermore, in American democracy, no one wants to publicly take the blame for anything. Everyone wants to blame others for any problems or issues. So everybody plays the blame game and no one takes responsibility for any mistakes or mishaps. And nothing gets done or fixed. Any progress is very slow or doesn't move at all.

2. A monarch cannot be bought and paid for, because after all, he already has everything so he can't be bribed. And his position is secure for a lifetime due to his royal lineage. He loves his people (usually) and views his country as if it were his own body. So his heart is with his people and his aim is to do what's best for them. So his loyalty is to his people, not to some special interest or lobby group or international globalist group. Thus he will not betray his country for foreign interests or to support some globalist agenda for world government. And he will not let a foreign country (e.g. such as Israel) to rule his country or buy it out, or some private banking cartel (e.g. such as the Rothschilds banking dynasty) to seize his country and hold it in debt. Also a monarch does not depend upon votes. His position is inherited and secure for a lifetime. So he can do what's right and act on his conscience, rather than play politics. Thus a monarch is not prone to corruption.

In addition, a monarch does not have to lie or make false promises like a politician does to get votes. He does not have to play such dirty deceptive politics. Thus he is free to be more honest and righteous, acting out of virtue and conscience rather than for bribery. And his position is more pure and clean, as long as he's a good leader with good character and wisdom and leadership skills that is.

In contrast, US politicians are usually bought and paid for, and serve the special interests that elected them and gave them campaign money. Thus they are notoriously corrupt. In a democracy, corruption runs rampant. In addition, they also serve the secret societies that they belong to too, such as the Freemasons or Skull and Bones, in which they've pledged and oath to serve above their own country even. And these networks and clubs they belong to tend to be globalist in nature, and have for a long time now. So they are serving a cabal that wants a NWO and world government, and they will betray their country and their Constitution in order to serve this globalist agenda. This is common knowledge by now, as the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution constantly get trampled under year by year, with the Patriot Act and the NSA spying, etc.

So as you can see, this is a huge difference and why monarchy is so much better for the people and their country. And far less corruptible too. Obviously, "democracy" is merely a back door for trojan horses such as communists, globalists, and shadow governments to seize power, albeit unofficially. It's not surprising then, that a country with a good monarch is proud of it. But in a "democracy" like the USA, all people do is complain about everything.

3. A monarch can act decisively without being gridlocked or stalled, as long as he has good leadership and decision making skills, which he has been groomed from birth to have. Thus a good monarch with good resources can act to make progress and development happen fast. Such as in the case of Dubai, which greatly prospered under a monarchy. In contrast, India has a democratic system, yet most of its people are very poor and there's no good progress or development. A monarch can also take quick action to end corruption, which a politician cannot, because a politician's power is limited by gridlock and competing interests. So a leader cannot be effective in a democracy.

Imagine a ship run as a democracy, where everyone was equal, and there was no chain of command or hierachy. It would never make up its mind and the crew would constantly change its mind like the wind, and be a form of mob rule, which would ruin the efficiency and direction of the ship. Or imagine a military army that was run like a democracy with no chain of command. The army would be ineffective and not win battles of course. Also imagine a corporation run like a democracy. It would never be successful and things would not get done. No one would invest in such a company. Can you name any corporation run like a democracy that is successful and thriving? Probably not.

Contrary to what people imagine, a monarch's job is not to be a dictator or tyrant. But to intercede between the classes in his society. For example, when the peasant class and noble class have a conflict or dispute, the monarch will interceded and try to find a solution. Preferably a win-win one of course. A monarch has the power to be more decisive and act to fix the problem. He does not have to be gridlocked by Congress or Parliament, like a US President is, in which case nothing ever gets done. He can act unhindered and use his good leadership skills. In contrast, under a democracy, progress is very slow and gridlocks and stalls are common, as politicians argue and debate.

4. Also, in a true democracy (not oligarchy like the US) no one has any real power. The people do not have any real power under a democracy. Although in theory a democracy allows the people to govern themselves, in practice it does not. You see, each person has only one vote. Thus their power is virtually zero if you divide each person by the whole population. For example, in the US, the average person is one out of 300 million or so, which means their vote has an influence of 1/300 million, which is virtually zero. This means in reality, individuals have no power at all, thus there is no such thing as "self-governance" by the people. It's just a theory and idea that sounds good in concept, but in practice doesn't work and has no effect. That's the deception of a democracy. It sounds good to the ear, but in reality it's a bad idea and totally ineffective and unrealistic.

That's why the founding fathers of America never said that America was a democracy. They said it was a republic, which is why the pledge of allegiance says "and to the republic for which it stands..." In fact the word "democracy" does not appear in the US constitution or Declaration of Independence. Because the founders knew that democracies don't work. A true democracy is nothing more than mob rule, which is unstable and unwise and unsustainable. No ship without a captain can run efficiently or get anywhere under a democracy of crew members. And no one would invest money in a corporation that was run like a true democracy either. Because it would be an unstable business that is likely to crash and burn, or go nowhere under mob rule, which can never replace good effective leadership. And no army run like a democracy would ever win battles effectively either.

5. A democracy also has false assumptions about reality and human nature. A democracy also falsely assumes that everyone is wise, prudent and intelligent. (which might be more true in Switzerland, but not the US) And that everyone's opinion is equal and has equal value and equal merit. But nothing can be further from the truth. There isn't a shred of evidence in science or nature or reality that everyone is equal in terms of their intelligence or wisdom or value. Equality is a concept that only appeals to low IQ and low class people with small minds. It has no existence in reality and no great liberated minds truly believe in it. We are all different and we must respect that, not try to make everyone the same and bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, which is insane, but that's exactly what liberals and communists are trying to do.

The concept of "democracy" was introduced to America by liberals and communists, working for a New World Order globalist agenda, to undermine the Republic and its Constitution, and to allow private cabals to come in and take over covertly. It was the only way a power elite could seize control of America, using deception and secrecy, and utilizing compassionate ideals like "equality", "social justice" and "compassion for the poor" to con the nation into letting them take control and make widespread changes. Changes that would increase the size of government and control, which in turn would lead to fewer rights and freedoms too. It was all a scam. For more details on this, listen to the 1967 three hour speech by Myron Fagan, which is on YouTube in many copies and explains this whole deception and hijacking of America in detail.

6. Contrary to what you might think, under a monarchy, the common people have a voice and can be heard. Because each commoner is under the lordship of a nobleman (or duke) in his precinct. And this nobleman interacts and meets with the peasants and commoners that live under his lordship. Thus the commoners can talk to him and influence him, and make their complaints and grievances known to him. Deep down, this is what people want, for their voices, issues and grievances to be heard by someone in a position of authority or governance. No one likes to be ignored and unheard.

Likewise, in a patriarchical traditional family, the father may be in charge, but his wife and children can talk to him and influence him. They have a voice in the family, and direct interaction with the father. So the point is, such traditional system allows DIRECT interaction between the governors and the governed. This is necessary and natural in any good society and relationship. It's what people want and prefer too.

In contrast, in the US, the average person has no one to voice their complaints or grievances to. No one in authority listens to him or cares. If he writes his Congressman, his letter will be ignored. And commoners do not have any access to talk to the US President of course. Or to any other politician or leader at all. He will even have a hard time getting hold of the mayor of his city or town too. And of course, the mainstream corporate media does not let average people speak out on TV. Thus the average person has no voice and is not heard in the system we have in America.

What a terrible system of course. No one likes that. Yet that's exactly what America and its great "democracy" provides - no voice and no power for commoners at all. It's no wonder than that Americans generally feel like they have no voice or say in any matter related to politics or government, and thus feel alienated from their government and politics. The reasons are a no brainer. The average person has no ability to influence government policy at all, and no say in the matter either. All they can do is cast a vote, but as we all know, that's a charade and does not change any government policy in any significant way. So much for "democracy".

Instead, all an average commoner can do in America is watch the news and listen to BS on TV from politicians, which only recycle the same lies over and over again. US politicians may occasionally feed them crumbs to give people a little hope and release their steam, but they will never change anything major. Because the US is a democracy of corporations (aka corporatocracy), not of people, which means only big corporations and institutions get a say in how things are run, but not the average person of course. It's all a SCAM and deception, plain and simple.

7. Political campaigns and elections cost a lot of money and are expensive. So a lot of money is wasted on them. Especially in America. And of course, all that money can only come through special interests and bribery. In such a system, whoever has the most money has the most influence, which undermines any form of democracy of course. And lies about it as well. A monarchy frees a society from such corruption and compromised politicians, and is thus cleaner and more efficient.

I will post more on this later. But for now, those are some big reasons for you to consider and think about, as to why monarchy is better than democracy and works better too. This should be talked about more and should be an open issue. But of course, the US media and culture will never allow it, because any praise of monarchy is taboo in America. The US propaganda and control system is based on deceit and secrecy, which smart aware people know by now, so obviously such things will not be discussed openly, especially under a system that is run by deception and a manufactured image of reality.

Here is an article about the benefits of Monarchy and why it is better than Democracy.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/25/t ... f-monarchy

@Tsar where are you? What do you think?

[Winston]

This is a good point in the article below. A monarchy provides a stable check and balance against the whims of the political system and its corruptions, not the other way around like Americans assume.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/25/t ... f-monarchy

While it might initially seem that the men and women who sit in the House of Commons and the House of Lords act as a check on the powers of the British monarchy the reality is that the British monarch actually provides more of a check on the U.K’s elected and unelected legislators. In the last hundred years many European nations have experienced fascism, communism, and military dictatorships. However, countries with constitutional monarchies have managed for the most part to avoid extreme politics in part because monarchies provide a check on the wills of populist politicians. European monarchies--such as the Danish, Belgian, Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, and British--have ruled over countries that are among the most stable, prosperous, and free in the world. Constitutional monarchs make it difficult for dramatic political changes to occur, oftentimes by representing traditions and customs that politicians cannot replace and few citizens would like to see overthrown.

Something else that can be said in favor of a constitutional monarchy is that it allows for the head of the state to not be a political figure. Whether Democrat or Republican, the American president represents the country as the head of state, meaning that regrettably American culture, traditions, or interests are never represented by anyone other than a politician. British interests have been represented for decades by the same person who embodies the non-political customs and traditions of the U.K. In the U.S., every four years America could be represented by someone who has a different sense of what it means to be an American than whoever previously lived in the White House.

[Winston]

More great articles on why Monarchy is a better system than a Democracy or Republic, for your consideration.

http://libertyhangout.org/2017/06/why-m ... democracy/

https://www.cram.com/essay/absolute-mon ... P3C8R59NSC

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/qu ... l-monarchy

https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/com ... d_anarchy/

http://www.debate.org/debates/Monarchy- ... racy-IV/1/

3 Reasons why the American Revolution was a mistake

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/8884885/am ... on-mistake

[Aron]

@Winston

Your post doesn't address any of the substance of serious claims that Monarchy is a tyrannical system, it just brushes them aside as propaganda. Your whole argument is basically 'oh but what about the good monarchs tho?' when the whole point is that monarchy's centralized power lets monarchs have total control over the society. "Just rise up against the monarch" isn't an argument, again the whole point of monarchy is to put the monarch in power and give them enough control over the military to suppress the people. And historically plenty of rebellions against monarchs have been crushed.

Basically your post says that just because American capitalist democracy is quite corrupt, and systemically flawed, we should all have Monarchs now when that's just centralizing power unnecessarily. Your argument that democracy takes the power away from the individual in countries like America due to the ineffectiveness of the vote is true, but think about why this is. It's because of the centralized power structures inherent to capitalism, IE the mega corporations, which dominate all the industries and also the public. You can't vote on issues you only get to vote on candidates pre-chosen for you who are going to be funded by the same people ultimately since power centralizes over time as monopolies take over more and more. If people really want freedom, they need independence with respect to their resource needs, not only from other countries but also independence from other parts of the country as much as is possible.However, capitalism encourages a big supply chain where countless locations and countries are interdependent and cannot satisfy their needs on their own.

The way to solve this is not as complicated as you might imagine, what's necessary is to localize production of necessary goods and utilities as much as possible so individual cities or in some cases, individual families, such as with solar power for homes, satisfy their own resource and energy needs independently as well as they can. For example some major steps towards this would be if every home had its own hydroponics system for growing food, and efficient solar panels for an independent energy supply. 3D printing technology is improving allowing more localized construction to be possible although many goods of course still require large factories which right now tend to be owned by the big corporations.

Issues like the mining of resources for producing goods are also more difficult to handle in an open source way sometimes, which is why it is very important to make important goods like cars/houses/TVs/furniture/beds/computers/etc as long lasting as possible so less resource extraction is required overall. The ultimate goal would be to make anyone's house have a hydroponics system which is designed to last for decades, enough renewable energy to satisfy your needs including transportation needs in your electric vehicle, through devices like solar panels and others which would naturally also be built to last as long as possible and be as easy to repair as possible,water re-use systems so it is much more efficient at retaining the usefulness of water it gets through the utilities, while that water utility system would be ultimately connected to some desalinization plants for the city that can handle all the water needs of the residents and probably more just to be safe, and you would have monitoring technology in place to continuously check on the status of all the goods and ensure it is not breaking down, so any issues are detected in advance, while ideally you would have daily medical automated checkups for any early signs of illness through automated technology designed to do this. Meanwhile, in an open source economy where your needs are met automatically you would not be subject to the issues of a mandatory work or starve state of civilization, instead being open to pursue whatever interests you wanted. At first most people would probably become less productive if their needs were met unconditionally but gradually they would get used to their freedom. In an open source society there would be plenty of time for self improvement and as technology improved it would only get easier to do so, naturally there would be far more research into improving education so information is not only made freely available for everyone to know but as time goes on the structuring of knowledge for better education would only get more efficient allowing for easier learning.Meanwhile the ever present looming background threat of death would probably also become obsolete in an open source post scarcity as there would be enough knowledge of genetics to figure out how to reverse aging. It's something that sex cells in all animals already do, they do not age over time and pass down damaged telomeres to their descendants, it's likely only a matter of time before scientists would figure out how to apply this to normal cells, or figure out an entirely different method of reversing the damage.

All these points should show that capitalism is extremely inefficient at handling things and a Monarchy certainly wouldn't be better. In fact, a monarchy would become impossible to enforce with these kinds of advances in science as it becomes easier and easier to localize production and allow individuals to handle their needs without an external support framework required. At times in history it could have happened that the occasional good monarch prevents foreign companies from dominating the resources and industry of their country, i'm not denying this is possible, but that doesn't mean monarchy is an actually good system.

Here is my source in general on the open source economy claims, I looked through what articles are on this site and found you have already watched the Zeitgeist films. Here is a link to TZM Moving Forward:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
It's a great general idea and i do not know why it seems like you have forgotten about it. Did you really decide monarchy is better than an open source post scarcity civilization? In the end i'm pretty sure everyone would want to have their own goods and energy needs handled locally, ideally under their personal control. The usual objection is that it's not scientifically possible or that transition would be unviable, a Post Scarcity world is generally seen as obviously good as an endpoint by a lot of people.

[Winston]

Wow check out how Dubai prospered under a monarchy, which wouldn't have been possible under a democracy.

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-d ... Chauhan-50

In contrast, India has a democracy yet they struggle to feed everyone.

Thus the US has no right to force the whole world to become a democracy against the will of the people.

This is a good argument:

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-d ... r-monarchy

I want to point out that absolute monarchies are not inherently bad at all. Dubai resides in an absolute monarchy. Brunei is an absolute monarchy, and is one of the few nations with zero debt and a prosperous, modern economy. Yes, these nations have oil. So does Venezuela, but do you hear the same thing about them? Monarchies are fiscally responsible for these reasons:

* Monarchies (despite what some may say) do inherently go against socialism and similar ideologies. Monarchism and socialism/communism are historical enemies.
* It is nearly impossible to bribe a monarch. How do you bribe a man that has everything? It’s difficult.
* There is no need for wasteful elections. Not only do elections cost money, but they *can* be manipulated, and the politicians (especially in say, the USA) have to pander to interest groups to have a chance of getting in.

Of course, if you put a monarchy in America tomorrow, America would never recover. The civil war that would ensue would topple the government at the very least. Not even the fringe groups who support monarchy in the USA would help, there’d be no chance. That is why I believe it should be based on region, as certain regions do reject the idea.

[Winston]

@Aron

You are speaking of an absolute monarchy. That is very rare today.

What about a hybrid system like a constitutional monarchy, the kind that Britain has had for many years? It has worked well for them. For example, in Victorian England, the Queen had an elected parliament. So it was a hybrid of monarchy and democracy. The people were happy with that system and it worked well and the English people loved their Queen too. Most British people today would prefer to keep their monarchy, not abolish it. That should tell you something.

http://www.governmentvs.com/en/what-is- ... model-42-0

Also keep in mind that Dubai has greatly prospered under a monarchy, and development and progress moved fast and decisively. See here:

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-d ... Chauhan-50

Also keep in mind that the corruption in America today, as well as its taxation and inflation is FAR FAR WORSE than in the time of King George III of England. The American colonies in the 1700's had it way better - more freedom, less taxes, no inflation, etc. They only lack the consumer goods and technology that we have today. But their freedom was far more than Americans have today. And back then, governments did not have the technology to spy on everyone either, nor could they watch everyone.

So a democracy turned oligarchy, like America, is far worse than the monarchy in Britain. No comparison.

Think about that.

Btw yes I've seen all the Zeitgeist films and they are interesting in theory. But that is a different system altogether called technocracy. And one without money too. That's way off the scope of what we're talking about here. We are comparing American democracy with monarchy.

[Aron]

@Winston

@Aron

You are speaking of an absolute monarchy. That is very rare today.

What about a hybrid system like a constitutional monarchy, the kind that Britain has had for many years? It has worked well for them. For example, in Victorian England, the Queen had an elected parliament. So it was a hybrid of monarchy and democracy. The people were happy with that system and it worked well and the English people loved their Queen too. Most British people today would prefer to keep their monarchy, not abolish it. That should tell you something.

It's not like the monarch has official power anymore. I get what a constitutional monarchy is and it is better than an absolute monarchy, but i don't think it is a great system.

http://www.governmentvs.com/en/what-is- ... model-42-0

Also keep in mind that Dubai has greatly prospered under a monarchy, and development and progress moved fast and decisively. See here:

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-d ... Chauhan-50

Also keep in mind that the corruption in America today, as well as its taxation and inflation is FAR FAR WORSE than in the time of King George III of England. The American colonies in the 1700's had it way better - more freedom, less taxes, no inflation, etc. They only lack the consumer goods and technology that we have today. But their freedom was far more than Americans have today. And back then, governments did not have the technology to spy on everyone either, nor could they watch everyone.

Back when the American colonies were still colonies the situation varied. But what really kicked off the revolution was when the colonies were banned from printing their own currency, this is not necessarily going to happen in a monarchical rule but it happened and it was a huge problem that ruined their level of independence they had back then.Removing monarchy helps lessen these structural weaknesses although if done right you need to remove any foreign controlling central banks too or else it's useless.

So a democracy turned oligarchy, like America, is far worse than the monarchy in Britain. No comparison.

Think about that.

Btw yes I've seen all the Zeitgeist films and they are interesting in theory. But that is a different system altogether called technocracy. And one without money too. That's way off the scope of what we're talking about here. We are comparing American democracy with monarchy.

The idea is more of an Anarcho Technocracy, from the bottom up, no top down authority and a goal of independence. Jacques Fresco of The Venus Project who used to work with TZM back when TZM was effectively their communications arm before they split off seems more like a traditional Technocracy thinker than a supporter of Anarcho Technocracy/Open Source Civilization as Peter Joseph and other TZM types are. It is not really beyond the scope since i was just talking about an ideal end goal, but it is not like you cannot take reasonable steps towards a more independent situation. For example a country seeks financial independence by removing foreign central banks, or nationalizes a resource that was being dominated by international corporations to instead use it for the good of the people who live there.That's a good step towards this ideal. Another one is if in a civilization mass numbers of people have their own renewable energy or more people grow their own food so they aren't dependent on big agriculture corporations like Monsanto. Every step helps and ultimately the idea of an end goal is nothing more than a compilation of these steps, which already have good effects on their own and synergize even when just a few of them are done together.

Anyway you cannot just say that because American democracy is bad that Monarchy or in your case Constitutional Monarchy must be good. It depends a lot on the individual monarch and even if they are held back by the checks and balances of the government, they're going to have more power than a president in general. It's a good point that a monarch has family wealth so maybe they aren't easily manipulated by their sponsors as a president can be. But it could just as easily allow a bad monarchy to get cemented in place and then the family continually is an issue at conflict with the democratic part of the constitutional monarchy. Issues like what is an ideal system are always going to be important when you're discussing what government type is good.

[aspiabc]

As for what's left of democracy in the U.S. , I just wish someday the voters will wise up and vote all the scum out of both parties and get some new outside party candidates in, audit or abolish the Fed, or push for term limits for congress and the senate.

[fschmidt]

I am not going to debate this. Others here are doing that well enough. And I would only debate history with someone who has read a reasonable number of primary sources.

But I would like to state my position clearly. I do not support pure democracy or liberalism. I support the Enlightenment and the system that was initially set up in America which was a limited democracy where only men with property could vote. Speaking of original sources, read this issue debated in the N.Y. Constitutional Convention of 1821 where Chancellor Kent presents a sound argument on pages 219-222.

https://ia800301.us.archive.org/5/items ... ewy_bw.pdf

And an excerpt:

By the report before us, we propose to annihilate, at one stroke, all those property distinctions and to bow before the idol of universal suffrage. That extreme democratic principle, when applied to the legislative and executive departments of government, has been regarded with terror, by the wise men of every age, because in every European republic, ancient and modern, in which it has been tried, it has terminated disastrously, and been productive of corruption, injustice, violence, and tyranny. And dare we flatter ourselves that we are a peculiar people, who can run the career of history, exempted from the passions which have disturbed and corrupted the rest of mankind? If we are like other races of men, with similar follies and vices, then I greatly fear that our posterity will have reason to deplore in sackcloth and ashes, the delusion of the day.

[Aron]

@fschmidt

Hopefully this disclaimer post will put all your statements in context for anyone else looking so they realize it's associated with these kinds of statements. But in other places on the forum you have said for example you think most westerners deserve to be slaughtered. Or that people who insult Islam should be killed. After first blaming Westerners for insulting Islam and not allowing free expression of ideas although this is a contradiction as you are OK with muslims killing people for their anti Islamic opinions. Hopefully you changed your views since then and are not going to now support said oppression.

I am completely in favor of free speech but I am bothered by people who say they want to kill anyone that doesn't like their religion.You specifically just say you like seeing other muslims do it but it's not really better, you still support that murderous aggressive behavior as good. It would be nice if I am mistaken to some degree or another about you, and you are going to turn around and say right now that you support free speech too and are against religious oppression or a Muslim theocracy, or anything of the sort. But from what I can see in your posts that does not look like it is your set of beliefs right now.

Since you said you aren't going to debate about Monarchy it would be pointless for me to bring up the points there that i've essentially already made, but it does seem important for me to ask if you still have those beliefs you have posted elsewhere on the forum.

[fschmidt]

Aron,

If you don't understand something I wrote, you should just ask. And you clearly don't understand my position. There is no conflict between the views of mine that you mentioned as I will explain.

I am the biggest defender of free speech that you will find on the internet today. For example, I am a mod here and I defend the right of people here to attack jews even though I am jewish.

I do believe that all members of modern culture should be slaughtered. How does this view conflict with free speech? I see no connection.

Free speech means freedom to express opinions. It does not mean the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, or to lie in court, or to defame someone. Blasphamy is nothing more than defamation of religion and was illegal (at the state level) for much of American history. People should be free to express opinions, not harmful insults.

As I said, I support limited democracy, not monarchy. In general, I am in complete agreement with the European Enlightenment.

[Aron]

@fschmidt

Free speech means freedom to express opinions. It does not mean the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, or to lie in court, or to defame someone. Blasphamy is nothing more than defamation of religion and was illegal (at the state level) for much of American history. People should be free to express opinions, not harmful insults

Saying you do not like Islam or any religion is not like yelling fire, it is not killing or hurting anyone. It often isn't a lie either. Should I be slaughtered because I don't like Islam and i'm willing to say so? Or because I don't like it when religions directly support violence, like circumcision in Judaism, or jihad in Islam? Both of those are aggression so how are they not wrong? I can disagree with any tenet of any religion without it being violence. If i say all Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Jews/buddhists or someone else must die for believing something, that's different.

[fschmidt]

Saying you do not like Islam or any religion is not like yelling fire, it is not killing or hurting anyone. It often isn't a lie either. Should I be slaughtered because I don't like Islam and i'm willing to say so? Or because I don't like it when religions directly support violence, like circumcision in Judaism, or jihad in Islam?

No. You should be free to express these opinions. When did I ever say otherwise?

Both of those are aggression so how are they not wrong? I can disagree with any tenet of any religion without it being violence. If i say all Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Jews/buddhists or someone else must die for believing something, that's different.

People should be free to express any opinion and to believe whatever they want. It is actions that concern me. Modern culture is highly dysgenic and is causing serious genetic damage to humanity, so it must be wiped out. I support violence when it is needed to defend myself and my descendants.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Democracy is a catchword in US political culture. Our republican form of government (or a republic) is based on underpinnings of democracy but it is not on the federal level.

Our President is elected by individual State elections not by individual people. Individuals DO vote directly for state and local officials, but they elect them as their REPRESENTATIVES only.

Monarchies and "Democracies" are not mutually exclusive as was mentioned above.

I personally am of the mindset that the West will drift towards temporary dictatorships again. China gets it right! Representative democracies like the US are now unable to sufficiently govern the issues of the day and it is leading to implosion. Trump and Obama were exposed as weak executives, not because of their abilities, but because of the weak powers our Constitution grants the Presidency.

I am favor of the strong executive model which is again, quasi dictatorship. When the American republic fails, be on the lookout for this inevitability.

[Moretorque]

FSchmidt.

Are your descendants the Jewish bloodline ? because they are the ones who are pushing degrading the worlds more intelligent bloodlines overall.