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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre- or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy.” Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy....
Up until the 1920s, every single Christian denomination outlawed contraception / birthcontrol. The Anglicans were the first to fold and pretty much every Christian denomination folded afterwards paving the way for the sexual revolution / abortion / gay / trans. America will never be great again unless it becomes chaste again.
Traditionally it is prayer, fasting, suffering, almsgiving, growing in virtue, offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, mental prayer / meditation amongst other things. I come from a Catholic background so we have a very rich tradition of spiritual warfare.
The bread and butter for a Catholic is the daily Rosary, weekly fasting, and offering up your suffering / mortification (i.e. denying yourself) as penances. This past Lent I've been doing a more rigorous fast (1 meal) + abstaining (no meat) for 40 days with Sundays excepted.
If you're not of that tradition, then I think offering up a weekly fast + abstaining, for example on Fridays having only a single meal with no flesh meat. You can reverently meditate on the Bible for an hour daily. Recite a Psalm a day as an offering of your time to God. You can mortify your senses by eliminating sugar from your diet. Little ways where you can conquer yourself and withdraw from the pleasures of the world so the Kingdom of God has a stronger foothold in your soul.
I would say a fast / abstaining routine + scripture meditation and offering that up for your friends / family would be a good start. If you're not too wary of Mary, then look into getting a Rosary and start praying that.
Some devotions to St. Joseph
https://www.knightsoftheholyeucharist.com/saint-joseph-holy-cloak-prayer-download/
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/devotions/st-joseph-full-novena-13879
https://www.amazon.com/Consecration-St-Joseph-Wonders-Spiritual-ebook/dp/B083BFGDYS/ref=sr_1_2
https://www.divinumofficium.com/ - Divine Office / Breviary which Priests/Monks/Nuns are required to pray daily. This would be really advanced and not what laity would typically dive into.
Well are they more of the liberal Christians? The kind that think it's okay to use porn, masturbate, use birth control, abort, condone gay marriage, fornicate / sex before marriage? Because if that's the case, they are dead in their sin though they profess to know Christ. The brainwashing is strong but sin makes that susceptibility even stronger.
2 Corinthians 4:4. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
They are intellectually blind (the 3 acts of the intellect are to understand (what), judge (whether), and reason (why)). You ask them what is a woman they just stare blankly at you like a dumb cow. They have completely lost the use of their reason because by their sins they have handed themselves over not to the God of all Truth but to the god of lies and now they live in the lies. Only prayer, fasting, and penances on their behalf will be able to break through their blindness, no amount of reasoning or evidence can convince them. Brute force spiritual warfare is the only option.
Saint Paul exhorts us, Do not let yourself be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Act with freedom within the bounds of what is good, and the Lord will bless your commitment, as he has always done throughout history for those who love Him and obey His commandments. If you yield on this, you will expose your flank to the Enemy, and all your effort will have been in vain. And remember the words of the Lord: “Do not be afraid, I have overcome the world.”
Chemical warfare inflicted on Western Civilization to destroy it from within. Our own children are being turned against us at an epigenetic level. Hordes of trans/gay foot soldiers for their NWO masters.
Revelation 8:23. For thy merchants were the great men of the earth, and all nations were deceived by thy sorcery (i.e. pharmakeia i.e. DRUGS).
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.