Monarchy isn't a Bad Thing
🤔💭 Theory 😲💡
I feel like this is an extremely unpopular opinion but I really don't think republicanism was a step forward for humanity.
Monarchy is the most intuitive form of government. People tend to take care of what they own, and politicians have no incentive to leave anything better for the next generation because they really have no stake in their country. Their legacy dies with them.
A monarchy with constitutional (and familial) checks and balances is vastly preferable to a republic where the foreign interests run free and loot the taxpayers. It's pure and much simpler. No Congress, no Supreme Court, no ridiculous sham elections. Everyone knows who's in charge and what the rules are.
Seriously?
The only reason America exists, is because they left the monarchy. Also, I’m not sure if you’re aware, but just about everyone who’s part of a royal family, is part of the satanic Cabal and are pedophiles. So no, I don’t support the monarchy. These people are evil through and through. They could care less about the plebs.
More and more, I dis agree with so many of the things that you post. Most of them I just don’t engage with though. But today… I’m just saying.
Username checks out 😂😂😂
Have a great day though. 👍
Me thinks he’d be much happier in Canada or UK or perhaps Australia— this isn’t the country to fulfill his/her needs— then report back after YEARS in said countries - How DO YOU LIKE ME NOW! cringe— I’m sorry you feel so hopeless and victimized by your birth into your generation but you know every human in earth was an accident of birth and most dealt with the cards dealt or they perished— like l told my kids “life’s a bitch and then you die” that doesn’t mean find enjoyment in everyday - I just means life is difficult and you need to deal with it and still be happy and enjoy as many moments as possible— animals do — be like a cardinal or a coyote
Let me start a discussion here. The point I will be making is that the issue of monarchy is not exactly a cut and dry black and white issue.
If you see the current world and trace back how the Satanists took control of everything, you can trace this iteration back to the establishment of the Bank of England (incidentally in the area burnt to ground in 1666).
And that could only happen after a rebellion was fomented against the monarchy and Oliver Cromwell took control and allowed Jews to return back to England 10 years before the Great Fire of London. Jews had been expelled by King Edward in 1200's
So for the very first step towards Satanic takeover, they had to wait 400 years before they could finally disrupt the monarchy enough to get a foothold.
But that was just the beginning. They had a whole bunch of monarchies to subvert before they could start on the their NWO. For this, next step was to create America outside the Monarchy and use it as a power base to bring down all the monarchies.
They needed two revolutions, establishment of a new American Democracy/Republic (they wanted a democracy, but they got a republic so they had extra wok cut out), a civil war, colonisation of the whole world and two world wars before they could take out all the monarchies and start on their final step.
Everything between 1600s to 1945 has been about getting rid of the last bastions for Human freedom - the Monarchies. Its not a coincidence that Israel was created in 1947 two years after that. Also not a coincidence that the Balfour declaration happened right after WW1 - which is the war that took out most of the European monarchies.
Fall of the monarchies and rise of the NWO - it goes hand in hand.
The next stage of this discussion is the creation of America and what its original goal was, and how the people of America proved their Greatness despite all the odds against them from the day one.
👏👏👏 And with all of this in play, I would not put it past the deep state, or the Cabal, or whatever you wanna call them… To subvert the monarchies, and turn them into Satanic pedophiles. So the ones that are left, are pure evil!
This, I agree.
BTW that reminds me, I am really curious to find out what Trump meant when he said, about Queen Elizabeth 2, that she never once made a mistake in her long reign.
I don’t know what that means either. But he wasn’t around her entire life and doesn’t know everything she’s ever done. So I’m not sure how he can speak to her entire life.
But I always have to keep in mind, there is that picture of Epstein in Gizlane in front of her cabin. Also, her nephew ? Prince Philip was accused of pedophilia and hung out quite a bit with Epstein. And there’s that pesky jimmy Saville, that was hanging out in the castle. So I’m not so sure how clean her hands are. Also, there’s her son, whoever the king is now - who had an affair with that wretched woman who is now queen entendre. 😂😂😂
BTW, you forgot the big one - Prince Andrew - who was the royal connection to the Ghislaine/Epstein ring.
Clearly, in the world of optics, the head of everything was the Queen. That means everything the Cabal was doing, was happening with her as a high level accomplice.
So for her to not have ever made a single mistake suggests to me that she was being a double agent, so to speak. Her hands are definitely not clean, and I am sure he was punished for her deeds, but what if that was the only way to be able to put this plan in motion, and she volunteered for this grisly job?
In this context, a single mistake would have outed her and the plan, and since that didn't happen, it would be natural for Trump to feel that she never made a single mistake.
🤔
Well... Not every monarchy was as bad as the English monarchy.
After all, they didn't last anywhere near as long.
Where a monarchy is successful, however, is getting things done promptly and when we look at our charade of a government I can see why OP would crave that.
The blood in my veins -- like yours, presumably -- compels my distaste towards monarchs, but I will recognize there were a few positive aspects in a monarchy that cares about its people.
Traditionally, they were easier to overthrow as well because they could only field armies of common folk who had families that were fed up.
Actually English monarchy, just like all other European monarchies, was perfectly good and was ensuring God's laws were being followed and their peoples lived prosperously.
It was when, after 400 years, the Khazarians finally managed to put their toes back into the country and then managed to establish a Central bank, that it slowly became what it became. The blood line thats on the throne right now is not even the same as the bloodline before all this happened.
Don't strike a match , cringerepublic is gas lighting the world where the trend away from Monarchy's has been steadily declining for a few hundred years.
Just likes sniffing it's own farts.
Cringe post - KeK!
We are supposed to be a government for the people by the people. Only land owners were allowed to vote - that was your vested interest in taking care of what you own.
You would serve your term and go back home when replaced by another of the people to server a term or two then go home. It has been systematically dismantled by those who want to be your kings, lords and governors and we the people have been replaced by those professional polititians and organizations (uniparty).
Nothing against you but A Hard No on your opinion. Thanks for the post :-)
I'm still not fully sure how I feel about only land owners voting.
It sounds like the better practice, but then wealthy entities could simply prevent land ownership entirely.
Wut? Monarchy be like: "I am your ruler, because I have a special entitlement gifted to me by my rich and powerful mommy and daddy. And, that is all the ability and merit I need."
If you really like the idea of those kinds of inbred spoiled brats making all the rules for you, there are a number of countries on the planet that may accept you to become their peasant.
{edit2} I forgot to add "inbred"
🙈 it's inbred
History bears witness
Republic of Venice - 1000 years of history, elected monarchy, very stable & prosperous
America - 250 years, already ruled by bankers & pedofiles
The Republic of Venice was considered to be a parliamentarian republic, not a monarchy.
Republic just means 'the public affairs' or the rule of law. Monarchies with constitutions, civil code, criminal code etc. are also Republics. The Republic of Venice was mixed regime and had a parliament or sorts (like England) but it was ruled by a Monarch, i.e. the Doge. This is to distinguish it from monarchs of the more absolute sort like in England. America is also somewhat mixed regime but the monarchical aspect is extremely toned down in a 4-year / 2-term Presidency and the Democratic aspect is more strongly expressed. The Doge's term was for life.
Venice was a religious police state. There were drop boxes all over the city where anyone could leave anonymous statements accusing anyone of anything illegal, and they would be clapped into prison on the basis of an anonymous note, across the Bridge of Sighs into an oubliette.
A stoolies paradise.
Not different from being disappeared by the CIA/FBI or the Clintons. Every form of government has their difficulties but elected monarchies as a form of government historically just do the best in looking out for the interests of their own people rather than bankers and pedopiles.
Another example is the Roman Empire during it's golden age, i.e. the reign of the good emperors. Although not an elected monarchy in terms of any voting, it was elected in that the current emperor would elect or choose the successor emperor.
So you have Nerva -> Trajan -> Hadrian -> Antoninus Pius -> Marcus Aurelius / Luicus Verus. And this was the absolute height of Roman power. Then when they switched to a hereditary monarchy and Commodus takes power, everything goes down the drain.
I'm not saying that Venice was PERFECT or even GREAT, I'm simply saying that it's the BEST form of government in a pool with some pretty shitty picks. We could do a lot worse than an elected monarchy. The American system is good in that it's mixed regime but it leans waaay too heavily on popular elections which assumes a competent and educated populace, a free press, strong Christian culture and morality and we're seeing the hard way what happens when those pillars get knocked out or corrupted by rich pedos.
ALso, look how the Roman Republic turned out, ruled by a secret cabal of very rich elites (first and second triumvirate). Then the elites fight amongst themselves who gets to rule it outright. History may not repeat but it sure does rhyme.
Actually, come to think of it, Augustus may have had a sort of personal epstein island setup where he would import in any young girl he wanted from within the empire. There is speculation that one of his poet friends (ovid?) was exiled far far away because he saw what Augustus was doing.
It is simply possible that government is impossible to get right.
Anything and any ideology can work for a time -- yes, including communism -- but something, somewhere will always start to fail. It's just about the amount of time it takes to fail that sets some (communism, socialism) apart.
The Founders could have written more strong words that were more protective and specific and it would have stopped these issues.
It also would have helped if we had more commonly available works from the Founders to smack down the notion of modern "interpretation" of the Constitution.
Ours may not be perfect, but I think where it is failing is not the type of government itself.
I mean types of governments are not perfect and all have strengths and weaknesses. Even monarchies are not perfect and will eventually succumb to corruption. Venice itself would become corrupt with the black nobility. But that is because the common people become irredeemable corrupt. However, in America that has happened much faster because there are no bulwarks like the Church, or the Christian King to nip such revolutions in the bud.
That's fine. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the old-world monarchists, and their old-world money isn't behind most of the problems that America has today. For example, IDGAF about Duke Ferdinand, and I know damn good and well that the British monarch sunk the Lusitania with a false-flag attack.
The British monarchy was NOT an elected monarchy but a hereditary one. Hereditary monarchies generally tended to suck because the son of the king was not guaranteed to be competent or have the best interests of his people at heart. Also their rulers and their spy chiefs (John Dee) just sat around conjuring evil spirits and doing seances so they became insanely corrupted and are part and parcel with the NWO.
Theirs a difference between a theory and reality.
You can't assume the best monarch and the worst republic
Communism works on paper
WThe FUCK did you say????
Did you even bother to READ that pile of shit you wrote???
Monarchy is the Sheer Enslavement of ALL PEOPLE, it is at best a Totalitarian Society, and Monarchs have NEVER really done one single fucking thing to HELP their people, no matter how Benign or popular they were or seemed to be....
At Worst, they turn their Armies against their own people and kill off an entire TWO THIRDS so that it is easier to ""RULE"" over the Scum they call PISSANTS....
If you really FEEL that a Monarchy is best, you really should move to some Nation that lives under a Monarchical Family, like Saud, or just take your pick....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gHdsF0eE1Y
Christ is the King of Kings, not the President of Presidents.
Getting rid of the King is similar to getting rid of a Father in a family. Now the wife and kids are exposed to danger from live-in boyfriends, gangs, being raised improperly without good masculine figures in their lives, and in doing so they family is less likely to have a good relationship with God who is a Father. Children from broken homes are much more likely to be sexually abused and exploited and we have seen an explosion of sexual violence, pornography, and child abuse under republics and democracies than was ever perpetrated by even the worst of Christian monarchs.
Now entire nations are exposed to thieves and destroyers like the rothschilds, rockefellers, and other outsiders that do not have the nations best interests in mind but just want to pillage the tax payers and workers.
Down with the patriarchy is really just liberals waging war against God, and getting rid of the father of a country, i.e. the King, is part of that war. That's why the communists during the French Revolution beheaded Louis XVI.
Nope, Louis XVI was beheaded mainly because he squandered Frances Resources on Massive Parties for himself and his high Status Friends, while the Common Folks slaved away and still had little food and nearly no Money for all the Work they did....
He Devalued the Money to the point that it took twice as much to buy Half as much, we know this due to Historical Records, and then he basically turned France into a Preview of the Weimar Repubic, with lots of Prostitution, Faggotry, etc., etc., etc.....
He was not in any possible way a ""Godly"" King, he was a Despot driven by his need to be Popular among his own Ranks, and to hell with the People, as long as he had a glass of Wine, and some hole(Male Preferred, but Female will suffice) to put his Dick, nothing else mattered to him....
I don't want to argue over the merits of Louis XVI, kings are humans like you and me, however a King in general is like God the Father, in that he is father of the nation, just as a husband is like God the Father, in that he is the father of a family. And the French revolution is 1000x worse than any bad king, just as the Bolshevik revolution was 10000000000x worse than a bad czar.
This is your First Mistake....
You don't see them as being Just another Man, you look up to them as being something special, You have a massive Flaw in your thought process when it comes to Monarchs....
ALL of them even the most Benign are despots on their very best day, and they only go downhill from there....
Now, the Bolshevik(J) ""Revolution"", wasn't a Revolution at all....
It was an Invasion by the Bolsheviks(J) and Mensheviks(J) with the express desire to destroy Russia, the Tzar Monarchy, and install Communism, and they did exactly that....
The Bolsheviks(J) Murdered off the Rightful Government of Russia, and installed Lenin(J) as the New Monarch, with a ""Committee"" as his ""wife"" so to speak, in turn they Murdered off some many Millions of Russians, and what was left were Tyrants(J) running everything....
Along came Stalin(J), who then added to the Pile of Dead Russians, all Christians, and did as any Monarch would do, once things started to run smoothly, he then Punished everyone by causing even more Death....
THOSE two are excellent examples of what a True Monarch looks like....
Those aren't monarchs, they are dictators. Dictators are not kings they are just self-serving politicians that won the game of politics through cunning and violence. The Christian Kings, not perfect, ideally should be conformed to God the Father, and were either elected or selected by accident of birth.
Christ is the King of Kings, not the President of Presidents or Secretary of Secretaries.
You obviously have no clue what ""King of Kings"" means....
It doesn't mean he VALIDATES the Kings of the Earth, he NEVER Validated any of them, in fact, his Kingdom is in the spiritual Realm, it isn't Earthly at all....
And there is Only God and Jesus who are Kings there....
Jesus and God absolutely Negate any and all Earthly Kingdoms and Powers, and I doubt that you can see or comprehend that....
In a Republic, as in Early America, the Man of the House, Married or not, was considered to be ""King of the Castle"", King in his own Home, and as a Christian, Jesus or God was His King....
In a Monarchy, there is the King, his immediate Family, his Military, His Power, and his SLAVES....
In American Republic, Everyone is Equal under the Law, but our Original Laws have been Perverted and Changed and Aberrated to such a point that they scarcely look like what they were Originally, a great loss to be sure....
Jesus King of Kings speaks to a Republic, where the Man of the House is King, and not at all to your shitty Monarchs....
America is not a Christian country (it's public governing documents), easy proof
What is the First Commandment?
What is the First Amendment?
I rest my case.
Republics and Democracies were known by Jesus and his contemporaries and well as the OT jews, but it's never mentioned in the Bible. Only Kings and Kingdoms. Even Rome is not referred to as a Republic but a Kingdom by the prophet Daniel.
Totalitarianism is what happens after you get rid of the monarchy. Russia, Germany, France etc were all way more free under the monarchy than the regimes that replaced it.
The only reason it looks that way is due to the direct Influence WE the Americans had on Europe in WW II....
Had we stayed out of it, Europe would have flourished, the Bolshevik Influence would not have spread its Communist tentacles across Europe and things would be much different....
Had we fought alongside the Germans, the entirety of Europe would have become Republics, in the same manner we had Republics in the Early 1800s, and Communism would have been Crushed in Russia, BEFORE it spread all over the World....
There is little difference between Monarchy and Communism, both become despotic, and Totalitarian, and neither is helpful to the Common Peoples, mainly due to the Oppressive Nature of each....
I do wonder if the push to eliminate the French and Russian monarchies wasn't cabal orchestrated.
Monarchy always has the risk that a son who fears God and is loyal to the people over Remphan is born. With "Our Democracy", they can ensure during "elections" that only heavily blackmailed pedophiles and pedovores are selected for the highest offices.
While checks and balances are good in theory, I do wonder if the reason bad people always praise the "checks and balances" isn't that they know they will use them to prevent a single hero like Joseph McCarthy or JFK from restoring justice to the land.
Mind vomit from a paid shill
Just remember that it the Cabal almost 1666 years after Jesus, to start their plans to whittle down the monarchies.
They had to create a whole new country that was outside of monarchy.
They had to create multiple revolutions
They had to create two world wars
All so they could wipe out the monarchies that stood against their plans.
A monarch who strictly follows the God's laws and cares only about doing right by God and for their people, and can instill these ideals to all their heirs is the best form of governance.
The thing about monarchy , though, is that it has to be absolutely with divine blessing. How will that happen? What will it look like? We can only theorize.
This is a correct assessment. Bukele made a profound observation in that power will ultimately rest in either a KING or MERCHANTS. In our case, we're at the mercy of billionaires and bankers.
I think it's even ridiculous that we have to rely on "good" billionaires (elon, trump) to somehow beat the "bad" billionaires. How is this any better than wars of succession between rival claims to the monarchy? How is this a "stable" situation? Theoretically it's supposed to be voters deciding on the best candidate.
IMO, elected monarchy is the best and most stable political system as far as history is concerned. Republics are simply too vulnerable to outside forces because they can easily be coopted by secret societies and the rich. That's why freemasons were busy overthrowing the old monarchies and installing Democratic Republics so that they could rule via money. The rewards for being in control of the Republic are far too great for even the most virtuous to resist being corrupted by. Politicians in a Republic are more likely to be bought out by the merchant class whereas a monarchy is more akin it a family where the King is like a father and there is less likelihood and more difficulty in buying out a lord or court official.
The French Revolution is really the first communist and freemasonic revolution and is patricide where the King (father of his country) was beheaded, and is what really kicked off the age of Republics.
If you want historical proof, look at the Republic of Venice. Over 1000 years of history and a very stable country. The Vatican is also an elected monarchy and is the oldest running institution in the world going back 2000 years to Augustus and the beginning of the Roman Empire. Yes, the current "Pope" is a usurper, anti-pope, and a douche, but America is only 250 years old and has already been nearly fully conquered by foreign powers and traitors. The Holy Roman Empire (Germany) at times in its history was an elected monarchy.
Please see my post above about Venice
There are recovery meetings all across the country 24/7. I would suggest you detox and then sober up. Then you could make some sense.
Feel free to pack your bags and take your obedient ass overseas.
I’d suggest checking out China’s history to see how “well” relying on the successful passing of generation to generation went. It too ends up being politics that turned into wars.
I do agree with the sentiment in one way though, it will be glorious to experience God’s kingdom.
good monarchy is appropriate for its time and place.
a republic is more suited for a more evolved society.
we're finding out the hard way that republics just get bought out by rich pedos.
this is along the similar lines of the Roman Republic, ruled by a secret cabal of elites (1st and 2nd triumvirates).
No, dummy. those are RINOs, not republicans. we haven't achieved or been able to keep a real republic.
when we achieve a real republic, we can look closer at what better forms of government might come next. but for now, it remains a good goal.
real republicanism hasn't been tried yet.
drink some water... only very dehydrated people conflate communism and republicanism
The communists and socialists during the spanish civil war were called "Republicans." Sure, strictly speaking communism and republicanism are different, but they are based on the same principles of liberalism. So same genus, but different species.
but you just gave another example of RINOs. do you also think antifa is anti fascist?
a liberal government is contrary to the principle of liberty. the more power a government uses to control, the less it can claim to be by and for the people.
Is our society really more evolved when people are killing babies and no one knows that gender they are?
You described dictatorship pretty well.
Anti-christ will come when there are no longer any Christian kings to punish heretics.
https://twitter.com/JoshuaTCharles/status/1677573687464312832
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FDoXoV_wVI
ST. BRUNO: THE RESTRAINER HOLDING BACK ANTICHRIST IS CHRISTENDOM—WHEN IT DISSOLVES, HE WILL COME
This is St. Bruno’s interpretation of the “restrainer” (katechon) in 2 Thessalonians 2 that is holding back the coming of Antichrist. He builds on a long line of thought in the Church Fathers that the “restrainer” is somehow Roman.
“I say that this Christian Empire will be dissolved because there will be no kings who will punish heretics and destroy those who lay waste to the church, nor will the world be subject in the unity of the faith to the Roman pontiff, who holds dominion (imperium) spiritually. Thus the world will fall away from both Christian empires, both secular (such as kings), and spiritual (that is, the pope)…
If he [Antichrist] would come into the world now [c. 11th century], when the majority of people obey the Roman pontiff, and when Christian kings thus far preserve the faith, he would have a beast to mount that was not ready, and he would not be able to proceed on his way. When there is such a discessio [“apostasy”], the faith will survive on the throne of Peter, even if only in a few. For the saints are said to have obtained that prayer of Christ when he said to Peter, ‘I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.’…
Just this restrains Antichrist, that who now holds the Christian empire and the unity of faith may hold this for so long, until iniquity, which is now secret, may be taken from among the midst, that is from among the community, that just as now faith is in public and iniquity in secret, so in the time of Antichrist faith may be in secret and iniquity in public, since his members will blush no more at acts of impurity than acts of purity, and those who have faith will be few.”
It is true an honest monarchy is better than anything and it does seem like america never escaped the the real monarchy which we have identified as a very powerful secret Mafia. It seems when we elect we only elect those to represent us to the monarchy and even that is alot of the time rigged.
You're out of your gourd. I have absolutely no desire to drive on the "king's road", camp in the "king's forest", lounge on the "king's beach", or swim in the "king's sea". I'm a free man, not a subject.
And if you haven't figured out yet that every king is and has been controlled by the bankers, much like our current republic with the ills you describe, then there's not much any of us here can do for you. Bankers rule this world, regardless of the type of government.
Not if it's Jesus Christ who is king. Otherwise it's fake.
Be careful what you wish for. Corrupt monarchs can't just be voted out every four years. You're stuck with them and their kids FOREVER. Do you really think the USA should be more subservient like Canada?
The monarchy isn’t the way to go. Even if you did have a good and just King, it would only be a matter of time before you got one that was neither. At that point you would have no rights or recourse.
For what it’s worth, the US is an occupied state that is operating as a capitalist republic in name only. It has been subverted and has devolved into a corrupt Marxist autocracy. If it can be recaptured and the rule of law put back into place it will probably be the best form of government on the planet.
A republic, madam, if you can keep it...