A thread for the Civilized Discussion and Debate on Monarchy

[LordsFire]

It is not causal connection, but rather temporal one. Protestant reformation did not cause the French Revolution. But it did happen before the French Revolution, and both are a symptom of social degradation.

Try to understand something before you dismiss it.

So it's just a confusing graphic then?


Also, the Protestant Reformation and French Revolution were both reactions to social degradation. The corruption of the political and religious establishment of the time built up pressure until something gave, and those were two of the results when that something gave.

The Protestant Reformation has overall been a positive, though has had some negative effects, while the French Revolution was basically all bad in every single regard.

 

[ATP]

So it's just a confusing graphic then?


Also, the Protestant Reformation and French Revolution were both reactions to social degradation. The corruption of the political and religious establishment of the time built up pressure until something gave, and those were two of the results when that something gave.

The Protestant Reformation has overall been a positive, though has had some negative effects, while the French Revolution was basically all bad in every single regard.

If that ws true,then North Korea would be long ago felled by angry people.Which not happened - becouse revolutions ARE ALWAYS MADE BY SMALL GROUP OF RICH DUDES.Not opressed masses.
Just like german princes who stolen Church property after 1517.

Protestant revolution - made people less moral,which was seen by Luder himself.And ,by stoling from Church,destroyet charity and hospitals who helped poor.Protestants have for them only prisons of death from hunger.

 

[Yinko]

because revolutions ARE ALWAYS MADE BY SMALL GROUP OF RICH DUDES.Not oppressed masses.

Or funded by an outside power, or backed by a faction of the military. Usually some combination of the three. A grass-roots movement of peasants (the way these things are typically portrayed) is no threat, they have no funding, no weapons, no training, no command structure. They are like what most conservative movements are in the west, impotent. That's how we know that is not what those revolutions were.

 

[Aldarion]

So it's just a confusing graphic then?

Yes, though I didn't find it confusing.

Also, the Protestant Reformation and French Revolution were both reactions to social degradation. The corruption of the political and religious establishment of the time built up pressure until something gave, and those were two of the results when that something gave.

The Protestant Reformation has overall been a positive, though has had some negative effects, while the French Revolution was basically all bad in every single regard.

The Protestant Reformation has also been bad. Sure, the intent had been good, but... neither side would give in, and the split happened. And unlike the Catholic-Orthodox split, which had existed since essentially forever - even before it had been formalized - the Reformation fundamentally shook the moral and theological authority of the Church. It might even be considered one of causes of decline of Christianity, but the more direct consequence were various witch hunts, book burnings and so on... nearly everything bad that people attribute to Medieval Catholic Church was either a) also done by the Protestant Church(es), b) resulted from the Catholic-Protestant split, or c) both (only exceptions to this I can think of are the Inquisition - which wasn't actually all that bad, and was in fact a very logical response to the situation from which it originated - and the sale of indulgences, both of which were a consequence of expansion of Islam).

Also, as was already pointed out, all revolutions in history had been started by elements of the establishment. Either the domestic establishment (e.g. Communism was brought down by members of Communism's power structures), foreign establishment (which is also something that worked in bringing down of Communism), or some combination of those.

Well that is how their kind of decentralization worked.
Overall, feudalism worked reasonably well for the time and circumstances it was set up for, the aftermath Ancient's version of fall of civilization, the age of warrior kings and barbarians. But once things calmed down, and nobility became more of a self-aggrandizing ossified ruling class than regularly tested, militant "protectors of the land" in small and large scale, all the shortcomings of that system started to come ahead.

Agreed.

More like march into the unknown and forge whatever wonders and horrors you find there into something functional... before someone else does so first and proceeds to use this contraption against you while you don't even have an idea what are you dealing with.

Looking at history, every time humans believe they have created a better system, it turned out they majorly screwed it up and bred a Cthulhu instead.

 

[LordsFire]

Looking at history, every time humans believe they have created a better system, it turned out they majorly screwed it up and bred a Cthulhu instead.

The US, as founded, was unquestionably better than what it broke off from. It would not have been able to prosper so rapidly and effectively otherwise.

It's after the leadership started abandoning God in the late 1800's, which was also happening in Europe, that about 80% of what was good about the US started to mutate into something like a 'Cthulu.'

Something many people forget, and the atheist revisionists outright want to pretend was not the case, is that it was founded as a Christian nation, based on Christian ethics, and everything about our system of government was based on an understanding that all human institutions are subordinate to the divine.

The political left et al now are trying to turn that on its head, and have been at least since Woodrow Wilson, and that's why we have an increasing monstrosity of a government.

 

[Morphic Tide]

And unlike the Catholic-Orthodox split, which had existed since essentially forever - even before it had been formalized - the Reformation fundamentally shook the moral and theological authority of the Church.

Given that the Reformation was set off by formalized bribes to the clergy, this is rather unashamedly a good thing. Ossified institutions with totalitarian powers, as the Catholic Church defines itself with to this day, are only ever going to amount to an inevitable trend of corruption and dictatorial behaviors.

The bloody wars following the Reformation can be blamed on the Catholic Church being stubborn power-hungry assholes, unable to tolerate the idea of having anything less than absolute authority over morality and theology. And all the justifications for why this is a good thing come back to either circular logic, or return to relativism once the Ethiopians show up.

How many utterly abominable Popes and excommunications will I have to cite to get you to rethink the notion of it being at all sensible to provide "the Church" that much legitimacy? Because Catholicism has an extremely deep closet full of skeletons, even aside the usual shenanigans around what intellectualism was or wasn't suppressed or reasonable.

Looking at history, every time humans believe they have created a better system, it turned out they majorly screwed it up and bred a Cthulhu instead.

Can you prove this occuring within the lifetime of the Founding Fathers, or it not resting on the system being broken by bad actors defying the way it originally worked? As it pertains to the US, the first steps back in the 1800s involved removing the breaks by interpreting "Interstate Commerce" so broadly as to nullify any notion of reserving powers for the states or people.

 

[Aaron Fox]

To be honest, people who think the Catholic Church is good should read up on the POPE FIGHTS!(tm). Seriously...

Spoiler: Lots of Videos of POPE FIGHTS!(tm), brought to you by Blue of Overly Sarcastic Productions

Seriously, the pope fights get into some serious shenanigans. As in actual wars and genocides shenanigans.

 

[Aldarion]

Given that the Reformation was set off by formalized bribes to the clergy, this is rather unashamedly a good thing. Ossified institutions with totalitarian powers, as the Catholic Church defines itself with to this day, are only ever going to amount to an inevitable trend of corruption and dictatorial behaviors.

So a nearly constant stream of witch hunts and religious warfare is a good thing? I'm not saying that they didn't have a point, but I'm not convinced the good outweighted the evil. Also, the Church never had totalitarian powers. It always required cooperation of the rulers.

The bloody wars following the Reformation can be blamed on the Catholic Church being stubborn power-hungry assholes, unable to tolerate the idea of having anything less than absolute authority over morality and theology. And all the justifications for why this is a good thing come back to either circular logic, or return to relativism once the Ethiopians show up.

Yeah, no. French Wars of Religion were not started by the Church, they were started by the Placards basically invading chambers of the King, who up until that point had attempted to be concilliary. And an imminent trigger of the Thirty Years War were Prague Defenestrations, though the real causes were far more complex. But overall, wars were largely started by temporal rulers.

Also, those indulgences that Luther so railed against? Pope Leo X wanted to use them to fight the Ottomans.

How many utterly abominable Popes and excommunications will I have to cite to get you to rethink the notion of it being at all sensible to provide "the Church" that much legitimacy? Because Catholicism has an extremely deep closet full of skeletons, even aside the usual shenanigans around what intellectualism was or wasn't suppressed or reasonable.

And you really think Protestantism is any better? Fact is, every religion is political, which means that every religion is corrupt. Well, at least Abrahamic religion. But then again, Christianity being political helped save Europe from Islam, so even that was not a universally bad thing.

Can you prove this occuring within the lifetime of the Founding Fathers, or it not resting on the system being broken by bad actors defying the way it originally worked? As it pertains to the US, the first steps back in the 1800s involved removing the breaks by interpreting "Interstate Commerce" so broadly as to nullify any notion of reserving powers for the states or people.

And why the United States so quickly started centralizing? Any system has to take into account "bad actors defying the way it originally worked". I mean, that is basically an excuse for Communism: "good system broken by bad actors".

The US, as founded, was unquestionably better than what it broke off from. It would not have been able to prosper so rapidly and effectively otherwise.

Yeah, it had far more land and resources for exploitation. Which was actually one of the main reasons for the American Revolution: English King in 1763. decided to outlaw colonial settlement West of the Apallachians.

It's after the leadership started abandoning God in the late 1800's, which was also happening in Europe, that about 80% of what was good about the US started to mutate into something like a 'Cthulu.'

Something many people forget, and the atheist revisionists outright want to pretend was not the case, is that it was founded as a Christian nation, based on Christian ethics, and everything about our system of government was based on an understanding that all human institutions are subordinate to the divine.

The political left et al now are trying to turn that on its head, and have been at least since Woodrow Wilson, and that's why we have an increasing monstrosity of a government.

The reason why the abandonment of God started happening in Europe was the French Revolution... which itself was directly inspired by the American Revolution. And in both cases, one of main reasons for abandonment of God was modernism. No point in worshipping the God when every human considers himself a diety.

 

[ATP]

The US, as founded, was unquestionably better than what it broke off from. It would not have been able to prosper so rapidly and effectively otherwise.

It's after the leadership started abandoning God in the late 1800's, which was also happening in Europe, that about 80% of what was good about the US started to mutate into something like a 'Cthulu.'

Something many people forget, and the atheist revisionists outright want to pretend was not the case, is that it was founded as a Christian nation, based on Christian ethics, and everything about our system of government was based on an understanding that all human institutions are subordinate to the divine.

The political left et al now are trying to turn that on its head, and have been at least since Woodrow Wilson, and that's why we have an increasing monstrosity of a government.

Better from City - controlled England? sure thing.Christian? nope.They stealed land from indians and mostly genocided them.That is not what christians do.But - they followed OLd Testament,which lie that jews genocided caananities.And becouse protestants considered themselves "New Izrael" ,they mostly wiped out indians,as "caananities"

 

[LordsFire]

Better from City - controlled England? sure thing.Christian? nope.They stealed land from indians and mostly genocided them.That is not what christians do.But - they followed OLd Testament,which lie that jews genocided caananities.And becouse protestants considered themselves "New Izrael" ,they mostly wiped out indians,as "caananities"

Are you really bringing up this BS again? Did you learn nothing the last time the subject was raised here?

 

[ATP]

Are you really bringing up this BS again? Did you learn nothing the last time the subject was raised here?

What exactly? then in almost all countries taken by spaniards exist mostly mixed population,when in USA native indians practicely was wiped out?
Or that ,from 1415 when polish scholar Paweł Włodkowic proven to other christians that nobody have right to take lands and property from pagans,every christian knew that?
Protestants could genocide indians precisely becouse they do not thought like christians,but biblical jews/which,by the way,is bullshit - thanks to DNA we knew,that Palestine was occupied by roughly the same population from bronze age to 1948/

But,back to monarchy.There is no possible christian monarchy and revolution in one state - that is why protestant coud not have normal christian monarchs,becouse they represent first revolution against Christianity.

 

[LordsFire]

What exactly? then in almost all countries taken by spaniards exist mostly mixed population,when in USA native indians practicely was wiped out?
Or that ,from 1415 when polish scholar Paweł Włodkowic proven to other christians that nobody have right to take lands and property from pagans,every christian knew that?
Protestants could genocide indians precisely becouse they do not thought like christians,but biblical jews/which,by the way,is bullshit - thanks to DNA we knew,that Palestine was occupied by roughly the same population from bronze age to 1948/

But,back to monarchy.There is no possible christian monarchy and revolution in one state - that is why protestant coud not have normal christian monarchs,becouse they represent first revolution against Christianity.

So yes, you still believe the same pack of lies as before.

If you're not going to listen to anything that anyone tells you, why do you bother to post here?

 

[ATP]

So yes, you still believe the same pack of lies as before.

If you're not going to listen to anything that anyone tells you, why do you bother to post here?

What is pack of lies ? that countries once ruled by Spanish crown are mostly full of local indian descendents,and USA is not? it is fact.
Or that protestants belived to be "New Izrael" ? it is also fact.
Or that they taken almost all indian lands in USA? fact,too.
And discovery of polish scholar is fact,too.And that rest of christian nations akcowledget that.

And,if you want knew about proofs about protestants being first revolutionists who destroyed Christianitas,read Plinio Correa de Oliveira.He even farsee lgbt revolution 50 years ago.

 

[Marduk]

Or that ,from 1415 when polish scholar Paweł Włodkowic proven to other christians that nobody have right to take lands and property from pagans,every christian knew that?

And discovery of polish scholar is fact,too.And that rest of christian nations akcowledget that.

In what world? If they did that, the Teutonic Order would have a lot of explaining to do, but we all know that the only thing they have acknowledged was a sword.
And then there was very catholic Spanish Empire.

What is pack of lies ? that countries once ruled by Spanish crown are mostly full of local indian descendents,and USA is not? it is fact.

Different natives with different cultures (Aztec/Mayan empires with cities, farmlands, villages etc vs nomadic tribes) different conquest (Spanish did go out of their way to rule and convert them, in turn allowing wide intermarriage). The ratio of natives and colonists was also very different for this and other reasons, resulting in different ancestry proportions for assimilated descendants.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Any system has to take into account "bad actors defying the way it originally worked"

No system can survive the top authorities refusing to enforce the system. There is no way for a singular establishment to provide checks against the checks themselves being taken over by bad actors. The attempted check against this was separating the authorities of governance so that the interpretation of law, passage of it, and enforcement of it were not under a single body.

Which worked through at least one full turnover of individuals in power, mind you. Multiple generations, every last person involved in setting it up was dead, as far as man-made systems are concerned that is a fucking amazing performance, and it continued to improve the lot in life of the general public for nearly a hundred and fifty years.

The fundamental problem with your comprehension of the matter is that you wrongly see social pressures and tradition as far more resilient than actual laws, because you perceive formal rules as more fundamentally arbitrary than peer pressure. People can look back, read the Founding Father's writings, and know that the 2nd originally meant privately-owned warships.

Meanwhile, you have to make enormous backflips and extrapolations to have the remotest grounding in actual history for your position because the day-to-day operations of Monarchies you adore weren't written down. Your goals cannot be achieved, because you do not actually know what you want to go back to, because it was not written down.

You have to make enormous guesswork and engage in very complex and risky reconstruction efforts to recreate the "old ways" damned near from scratch, whereas US revivalists can crack open volumes of the Federalist Papers, comb over records of the debates, and read the Constitution to get an extremely detailed and accurate view of what the Founding Fathers intended.

This is the fundamental issue with relying on "tradition" or "social convention" or "Christian morality". Any change that occurs is obscenely difficult to reverse, because the previous state quickly becomes unknown. Meanwhile, the US almost routinely brings back fights older than the people doing it because we wrote the system down.

 

[Aldarion]

No system can survive the top authorities refusing to enforce the system. There is no way for a singular establishment to provide checks against the checks themselves being taken over by bad actors. The attempted check against this was separating the authorities of governance so that the interpretation of law, passage of it, and enforcement of it were not under a single body.

The only check against the checks themselves being taken over by bad actors is limiting the system itself. Which, true enough, is kinda what was attempted with the separation of powers... but that was never going to work, because these are still bodies of a single government. The only thing that could have - and for a time, did - save the United States from becoming a tyranny was resistance to the central rule by state governments.

Which worked through at least one full turnover of individuals in power, mind you. Multiple generations, every last person involved in setting it up was dead, as far as man-made systems are concerned that is a fucking amazing performance, and it continued to improve the lot in life of the general public for nearly a hundred and fifty years.

Hundred and fifty years is not that long. Croatia has had multiple dynasties that lasted longer than that, and we were never a shining example of political stability.

The fundamental problem with your comprehension of the matter is that you wrongly see social pressures and tradition as far more resilient than actual laws, because you perceive formal rules as more fundamentally arbitrary than peer pressure. People can look back, read the Founding Father's writings, and know that the 2nd originally meant privately-owned warships.

Actual laws are (in a modern democracy) decided arbitrarily by a bunch of sold-to-the-highest-bidder psychopaths. How is that in any way superior or more resillient than something that is intertwined with the fabric of society itself?

Originally, laws were nothing but formalization of tradition. That was precisely why they worked - as you pointed out with the 2nd amendment. But today? Tradition is seen as irrelevant, and every single country - even, or rather, especially, the United States - has a bunch of laws that go directly against not just social and legal traditions, but even the written constitution.

Yes, people can "look back, read the Founding Father's writings". Problem is: "people" rarely act as a political unit, and elected officials simply do not care about what the laws originally meant, but merely how to exploit them. Meaning that minimizing and decentralizing the government is the only answer. And if central government doesn't have much power to begin with, you can just as well leave it to a single person.

Meanwhile, you have to make enormous backflips and extrapolations to have the remotest grounding in actual history for your position because the day-to-day operations of Monarchies you adore weren't written down. Your goals cannot be achieved, because you do not actually know what you want to go back to, because it was not written down.

It was written down. It wasn't legislated, but rulers and other political actors left enough that we can know how they worked. Just read on history of the Kingdom of Hungary: even relatively short overviews provide a fairly detailed overview of political structures and mechanics of the kingdom and government.

And it is principles that matter more than anything. So long as you get basic principles right, details can be worked out logically.

This is the fundamental issue with relying on "tradition" or "social convention" or "Christian morality". Any change that occurs is obscenely difficult to reverse, because the previous state quickly becomes unknown. Meanwhile, the US almost routinely brings back fights older than the people doing it because we wrote the system down.

What does it matter when you almost never win it? Current United States are almost an exact 180 from what the Founders had intended, yet various parties are spending time mostly arguing over irrelevant details. And United States had been one of major sources of the modern decadence, along with France and Germany.

 

[ATP]

In what world? If they did that, the Teutonic Order would have a lot of explaining to do, but we all know that the only thing they have acknowledged was a sword.
And then there was very catholic Spanish Empire.

Different natives with different cultures (Aztec/Mayan empires with cities, farmlands, villages etc vs nomadic tribes) different conquest (Spanish did go out of their way to rule and convert them, in turn allowing wide intermarriage). The ratio of natives and colonists was also very different for this and other reasons, resulting in different ancestry proportions for assimilated descendants.

1.In our world.Teutonic order was condemned in Konstancja 1415 by pope and entire council.

2.Indians on East shore had villages.Pottohawan tribe who helped settlers was supposed to have 200 big ones.Where they are now ?
And nomadic tribes had property rights,too.It is myth about "common property" there.

And spanish did so ,becouse even worst one belived that indians are people which sould should be saved.Protestants who treated other as if they were old testament jews - not so.

 

[Marduk]

1.In our world.Teutonic order was condemned in Konstancja 1415 by pope and entire council.

So medieval equivalent of "sternly worded letter from the UN". Yes, medieval people knew political maneuvers like that too. If the pope wanted to he could have inflicted severe consequences on them.

2.Indians on East shore had villages.Pottohawan tribe who helped settlers was supposed to have 200 big ones.Where they are now ?

What happened to the Powhatan Indians? | JYF Museums

As English plantations expanded and Indian-controlled lands shrank, it became much harder for the Powhatan people to support themselves. There was less unclaimed land available for hunting and agriculture, and Powhatan participation in the fur trade declined. Other Indian groups beyond the...

jyfmuseums.org

Partially assimilated, partially migrated out and mixed with other groups.

And nomadic tribes had property rights,too.It is myth about "common property" there.

With a different understanding than settled civilizations that write down land deeds.
That i think is a historical norm, its never nice for nomadic and settled people to be neighbors and conflict about land ownership is inevitable.

And spanish did so ,becouse even worst one belived that indians are people which sould should be saved.Protestants who treated other as if they were old testament jews - not so.

No, the Spanish did so because there was no chance in hell they could get enough settlers from Spain for their business there, and they had the laws to make local settled Indians work for them.

Encomienda System Impact & Significance | What was the Encomienda System? - Lesson | Study.com

What was the encomienda system? How did the encomienda system work? Learn the encomienda definition, the conquistador definition, and the impact of...

study.com

The English at first tried to do the same with slavery, but between the native's vulnerability to disease and proximity to the frontier and free tribes that was not working out well usually so they didn't rely on it on a large scale.
Meanwhile the Spanish controlled their colonies as far as decent places to settle go, so the natives either had to live with them and work or try escape into the jungle, and that wasn't a good idea.

 

[ATP]

So medieval equivalent of "sternly worded letter from the UN". Yes, medieval people knew political maneuvers like that too. If the pope wanted to he could have inflicted severe consequences on them.

What happened to the Powhatan Indians? | JYF Museums

As English plantations expanded and Indian-controlled lands shrank, it became much harder for the Powhatan people to support themselves. There was less unclaimed land available for hunting and agriculture, and Powhatan participation in the fur trade declined. Other Indian groups beyond the...

jyfmuseums.org

Partially assimilated, partially migrated out and mixed with other groups.


With a different understanding than settled civilizations that write down land deeds.
That i think is a historical norm, its never nice for nomadic and settled people to be neighbors and conflict about land ownership is inevitable.

No, the Spanish did so because there was no chance in hell they could get enough settlers from Spain for their business there, and they had the laws to make local settled Indians work for them.

Encomienda System Impact & Significance | What was the Encomienda System? - Lesson | Study.com

What was the encomienda system? How did the encomienda system work? Learn the encomienda definition, the conquistador definition, and the impact of...

study.com

The English at first tried to do the same with slavery, but between the native's vulnerability to disease and proximity to the frontier and free tribes that was not working out well usually so they didn't rely on it on a large scale.
Meanwhile the Spanish controlled their colonies as far as decent places to settle go, so the natives either had to live with them and work or try escape into the jungle, and that wasn't a good idea.

1.Still,all christians knew what was right after that.It would be nice to disband them - but,it could provoke german revolution before 1517.It was german order after all.

2."Powhattan indians" which are white people plaing as one.and other tribes there ended the same way.

3.on those agree - but you still could not take nomad land,as long as you are christian.If you belong to another religion,there is no problem.

4.For work they always could use slaves - as spanish did on most Carribean islands where local indians was mostly killed.Nothing stopped them from doing the same elsywhere.Except being christian.

5.Encomienada was fucked /not as much as slavery,but still/- but those living on church land was free.You should go to Mexico and see old churches there - only architects were european,all painting and sculptures was made by local indians.How many indian paintners you would find in Virginia ? Exactly.

 

[Marduk]

1.Still,all christians knew what was right after that.It would be nice to disband them - but,it could provoke german revolution before 1517.It was german order after all.

"Knew". The authorities knew of his opinion and apparently didn't consider it important enough to act on it.

2."Powhattan indians" which are white people plaing as one.and other tribes there ended the same way.

So? Your point being? That they should have been kept as a separate nation by any means?

3.on those agree - but you still could not take nomad land,as long as you are christian.If you belong to another religion,there is no problem.

That's the problem here, nomadic and settled peoples tend to have a different definition of land belonging to someone. From these different definitions conflict is bound to arise, and before woke idiocy surrendering to foreigners was considered not cool by either side.

4.For work they always could use slaves - as spanish did on most Carribean islands where local indians was mostly killed.Nothing stopped them from doing the same elsywhere.Except being christian.

No, that didn't stop them either. Have you read up on encomienda? It was more like an extended serfdom than typical slavery, but the point stands.
Also unlike slaves from Africa, natives didn't need to be bought and shipped, so it certainly wasn't just an ideological preference.

5.Encomienada was fucked /not as much as slavery,but still/- but those living on church land was free.

Not free, they had to work for it
For the Church of course, but that is an obvious yet technical difference.

You should go to Mexico and see old churches there - only architects were european,all painting and sculptures was made by local indians.How many indian paintners you would find in Virginia ? Exactly.

How is making locals work for them supposed to make the Spanish look good?