A thread for the Civilized Discussion and Debate on Monarchy

[ATP]

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

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

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.

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.

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


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

1.Considering that Teutonic order was supported after that only by germans,not entire Europe, it worked.

2.No - but even if only 20 big villages survived plagues,there still shoud be metiso looking people there.Which is not the case.

3.Foreigners were american here,not indians - so they should behave like local indian law dictate.Or come back to their homes.

4.Serfdoom not worst then polish gentry applied to white catholic peasants in Poland.Much better then tsar or protestant slavery.

5.Then you are not free too.They still have their own lands and rights.More then commoners in England,becouse they do not starved to death.Church,unless protestant,supported poor.

6.Becouse they worked not only as labourers,but also as elites - all as free people.They were treated better then commoners in protestant countries,who formally was free - to die from hunger.Something which not happen to indians on church lands in South America.

 

[Marduk]

1.Considering that Teutonic order was supported after that only by germans,not entire Europe, it worked.

It was an order recognized by the Church. The Pope could have disbanded them with one signature. Pope could have excommunicated its leaders. Or even all membership.
But didn't.

2.No - but even if only 20 big villages survived plagues,there still shoud be metiso looking people there.Which is not the case.

There were barely a couple million natives in whole USA at the time. Later on tens of millions of settlers from Europe arrived. Those who intermixed? Of course they aren't mestizo looking, how can a 1/64 or 1/32 native be mestizo looking? Genetics, please...

3.Foreigners were american here,not indians - so they should behave like local indian law dictate.Or come back to their homes.

What local law? Local law meant that native tribes, in cases of disagreement, fought over land and whoever won kept the land. Its not Disney Indians we are talking about here.
So did Americans. Being too good at these fights is not a crime.

4.Serfdoom not worst then polish gentry applied to white catholic peasants in Poland.Much better then tsar or protestant slavery.

That version was much more like Tsar's, if not worse.

5.Then you are not free too.They still have their own lands and rights.More then commoners in England,becouse they do not starved to death.Church,unless protestant,supported poor.

As if there were never famines in catholic countries.

6.Becouse they worked not only as labourers,but also as elites - all as free people.They were treated better then commoners in protestant countries,who formally was free - to die from hunger.Something which not happen to indians on church lands in South America.

People everywhere are free to die of hunger, the rest is a matter of prosperity and organization.

 

[ATP]

It was an order recognized by the Church. The Pope could have disbanded them with one signature. Pope could have excommunicated its leaders. Or even all membership.
But didn't.

There were barely a couple million natives in whole USA at the time. Later on tens of millions of settlers from Europe arrived. Those who intermixed? Of course they aren't mestizo looking, how can a 1/64 or 1/32 native be mestizo looking? Genetics, please...

What local law? Local law meant that native tribes, in cases of disagreement, fought over land and whoever won kept the land. Its not Disney Indians we are talking about here.
So did Americans. Being too good at these fights is not a crime.

That version was much more like Tsar's, if not worse.

As if there were never famines in catholic countries.


People everywhere are free to die of hunger, the rest is a matter of prosperity and organization.

1.And then germans would made their revolution in 1415,not 1517.

2.Becouse for long time there would be pure indian couples - if there still existed.Not all people choose other races partner - in fact,it is minority.

3.Americans was still not on their own land - and quests must listen to owner or go home.Otherwise,your home could be invaded,and you have to right to complain.Property exist for everybody,or nobody.

4.One of reason why tsarica agreed to crime of partition was that 300.000 russian sefrs run to Poland to be polish serfs.Less,but still many,run from prussians.Again,to be polish serfs.

5.Not famines - poor in catholic countries was supported by church charity,in protestants they die.During normal times.

6.And organization in church owned land in Mexico let live indians there as free people and helped those who need it,when in protestants those who need help died or was send to prisons.And we are taking about poor white protestants,becouse indians was mostly killed.

How it apply to monarchy - spanish crown coud act at last partially decent,becouse it was cathoic.If they listen to Salamanca school,they would rule world now.
England was protestant,and since protestants are just first stage of revolution,protestant monarchy could not last long.England could exist only with kings as puppets of City banksters.

 

[Marduk]

1.And then germans would made their revolution in 1415,not 1517.

Ah, so here we have it. Sure, the Catholic Church can talk a nice game, but when it comes to doing things politics are undisputed #1.

2.Becouse for long time there would be pure indian couples - if there still existed.Not all people choose other races partner - in fact,it is minority.

Well that's how some other tribes still exist. But once some become small enough or scattered enough, it becomes impossible, unless they would want to go full incest.

3.Americans was still not on their own land - and quests must listen to owner or go home.Otherwise,your home could be invaded,and you have to right to complain.Property exist for everybody,or nobody.

Property exists only for those who can and will defend it, or have someone else do it for them.

4.One of reason why tsarica agreed to crime of partition was that 300.000 russian sefrs run to Poland to be polish serfs.Less,but still many,run from prussians.Again,to be polish serfs.

Your point being? Serfdom was worse in some places than others.

5.Not famines - poor in catholic countries was supported by church charity,in protestants they die.During normal times.

Now its pure PR for Rome. Even today people in that region die from malnutrition.

Malnutrition among children in Latin America and the Caribbean | CEPAL

Descubre cómo trabajamos en torno a Malnutrition among children in Latin America and the Caribbean en la CEPAL. Accede a toda la información aquí.

www.cepal.org

6.And organization in church owned land in Mexico let live indians there as free people and helped those who need it,when in protestants those who need help died or was send to prisons.And we are taking about poor white protestants,becouse indians was mostly killed.

How did having to work for church make them more free than having to work for another landowner?

How it apply to monarchy - spanish crown coud act at last partially decent,becouse it was cathoic.If they listen to Salamanca school,they would rule world now.
England was protestant,and since protestants are just first stage of revolution,protestant monarchy could not last long.England could exist only with kings as puppets of City banksters.

Yet somehow that nice PR is ruined by the reality where the former Spanish colonies are noted as shitholes, from which millions of people want to run to former English colonies.

 

[LordsFire]

Yet somehow that nice PR is ruined by the reality where the former Spanish colonies are noted as shitholes, from which millions of people want to run to former English colonies.

British commonwealth nations and the US have the highest standards of living and most freedoms in the world. It's almost like ATP is just regurgitating propaganda uncritically, isn't it?

 

[ATP]

British commonwealth nations and the US have the highest standards of living and most freedoms in the world. It's almost like ATP is just regurgitating propaganda uncritically, isn't it?

Former colonies.Ruled by masons,not catholics.ho

Ah, so here we have it. Sure, the Catholic Church can talk a nice game, but when it comes to doing things politics are undisputed #1.

Well that's how some other tribes still exist. But once some become small enough or scattered enough, it becomes impossible, unless they would want to go full incest.

Property exists only for those who can and will defend it, or have someone else do it for them.

Your point being? Serfdom was worse in some places than others.

Now its pure PR for Rome. Even today people in that region die from malnutrition.

Malnutrition among children in Latin America and the Caribbean | CEPAL

Descubre cómo trabajamos en torno a Malnutrition among children in Latin America and the Caribbean en la CEPAL. Accede a toda la información aquí.

www.cepal.org

How did having to work for church make them more free than having to work for another landowner?


Yet somehow that nice PR is ruined by the reality where the former Spanish colonies are noted as shitholes, from which millions of people want to run to former English colonies.

1.We live in reality,not Jesus Kingdom.Sometimes church must ignore crimes of some fuckers,becouse they could be replaced only by worst ones.Like in this case - thanks to that till 1517 german peasants still have normal church who helped poor.
How exactly would it help anybdy,if germans become protestants in 1415?

2.Then why those tribes still existed in spanish hold lands ? Becouse nobody take their lands - till spanish crown ruled.

3.So,it not exist for children,if goverment decide to arrest adult.And not exist for anybody without private army or powerfull friends.Do not play that game,or,when they come for you,you could not even complain.

4.You claimed that in Poland was worst.Since sers run to Poland from Russia and Prussia,it means,that serfs was less fucked there.

5.Then why protestants send their poor to prisons,or let them die ? they do not wanted good PR ? If you doing something - like helping poor - when it is not neccessery to keep power,it mean that you belive in it.Just like catholics once belived.
And problem now - how it matter ? masons or leftist rule there,not catholics.

6.Former spanish colonies.Ruled by masons,USA puppets,or leftists.Not countries ruled by catholics kings.It would mattered if countries ruled by catholic kings was shitholes,and by protestants paradises.

@LordsFire - spanish ex-coonies becomed that way,becouse cathoics stopped rule there in 19th century.Till spanish crown,even influenced by masons rule,they were mostly OK.For example - indians in Guatemala have their lands till USA-controled junta steal it from them,and made them poor and fleeing to USA.Not catholics.

 

[Marduk]

Former colonies.Ruled by masons,not catholics.ho


1.We live in reality,not Jesus Kingdom.Sometimes church must ignore crimes of some fuckers,becouse they could be replaced only by worst ones.Like in this case - thanks to that till 1517 german peasants still have normal church who helped poor.
How exactly would it help anybdy,if germans become protestants in 1415?

If the Church itself is free to do realpolitik above its very own professed rules, why shouldn't everyone else do the same?

Also i love how "helping the poor" is supposed to be the grand excuse here. Every bloody cult and islamist organization uses the same excuse.

2.Then why those tribes still existed in spanish hold lands ? Becouse nobody take their lands - till spanish crown ruled.

It was Spanish crown land then, not theirs.

3.So,it not exist for children,if goverment decide to arrest adult.And not exist for anybody without private army or powerfull friends.Do not play that game,or,when they come for you,you could not even complain.

Back to this discussion... No one gives a damn about your "right to complain". Unless you have people willing to do violence over your complaints. Aka army, police, militia, something like that. Then your complaints matter.
This is why we don't live in ancapistan, we have nations and countries to settle these complaints, with armies if need be.
That was originally the #1 job of a king - maintain a bunch of armsmen who will do that job for his subjects, who are supposed to be loyal, follow the king's law and pay taxes in exchange.
If Mongols, Islamists or some other barbarians from far away come they will care neither about your property rights nor about your right to complain. Dead people don't complain.

4.You claimed that in Poland was worst.Since sers run to Poland from Russia and Prussia,it means,that serfs was less fucked there.

I didn't? I said encomienda was worse.

5.Then why protestants send their poor to prisons,or let them die ? they do not wanted good PR ? If you doing something - like helping poor - when it is not neccessery to keep power,it mean that you belive in it.Just like catholics once belived.
And problem now - how it matter ? masons or leftist rule there,not catholics.

So now you suggest the same "DO SOMETHING" stupid politics leftists do. In the end catholic countries were poor and had plenty of people die from poverty anyway. Possibly more than protestant. But the church would "DO SOMETHING" and that excuses everything.

6.Former spanish colonies.Ruled by masons,USA puppets,or leftists.Not countries ruled by catholics kings.It would mattered if countries ruled by catholic kings was shitholes,and by protestants paradises.

Spain, Italy, Portugal and France were paradises while England, Norway and Sweden were shitholes?

 

[ATP]

If the Church itself is free to do realpolitik above its very own professed rules, why shouldn't everyone else do the same?

Also i love how "helping the poor" is supposed to be the grand excuse here. Every bloody cult and islamist organization uses the same excuse.

It was Spanish crown land then, not theirs.

Back to this discussion... No one gives a damn about your "right to complain". Unless you have people willing to do violence over your complaints. Aka army, police, militia, something like that. Then your complaints matter.
This is why we don't live in ancapistan, we have nations and countries to settle these complaints, with armies if need be.
That was originally the #1 job of a king - maintain a bunch of armsmen who will do that job for his subjects, who are supposed to be loyal, follow the king's law and pay taxes in exchange.
If Mongols, Islamists or some other barbarians from far away come they will care neither about your property rights nor about your right to complain. Dead people don't complain.

I didn't? I said encomienda was worse.

So now you suggest the same "DO SOMETHING" stupid politics leftists do. In the end catholic countries were poor and had plenty of people die from poverty anyway. Possibly more than protestant. But the church would "DO SOMETHING" and that excuses everything.

Spain, Italy, Portugal and France were paradises while England, Norway and Sweden were shitholes?

1.Not free - but choosing lesser evil,like we voting for fake right to prevent real leftist from rule.And helping the poor was reality,not excuse.Catholics did so when nobody threthened their rule.

2.Nope,land belonged still to indian tribes.Which were spanish crown subject treted as bad/or well/ as whites in Spain.

3.There we are again,indeed.We are not average animals,we are humans - which mean thinking animals.And thanks to that we knew,that people who wont justice could not steal,becouse it is illogical to do so.
We are animals,yes - but we must use logic.Which mean,that we could not demand for ourselves right which we denied to others.
It is not matter of religion or even morality,but using brain.

4.Encomienda worst then serfdoom in Russia....nope,they do not sell peasants like moscovities did.

5.Reallly? difference in poverty exist from second half of 19th century,when catholic countries was arleady ruled by masons.Do not blame us for something which was made by our enemies.

6.You do not undarstandt my post.You blame cathoics for effect of mason/leftist ruling in catholic countries.Becouse last catholic ruler not controlled by masons existed in early 18th century,or earlier.

Current countries,or those from at least 200 years,are not ruled by catholic - so do not blame catholics for what occur there.

 

[Marduk]

1.Not free - but choosing lesser evil,like we voting for fake right to prevent real leftist from rule.And helping the poor was reality,not excuse.Catholics did so when nobody threthened their rule.

Ah, so Catholic Church is not to be expected to follow its own rules any more than any random secular political organization. Unless it has absolute power. Which it never had. Got it.

2.Nope,land belonged still to indian tribes.Which were spanish crown subject treted as bad/or well/ as whites in Spain.

No, encomienda wasn't a thing in Spain.

3.There we are again,indeed.We are not average animals,we are humans - which mean thinking animals.And thanks to that we knew,that people who wont justice could not steal,becouse it is illogical to do so.
We are animals,yes - but we must use logic.Which mean,that we could not demand for ourselves right which we denied to others.
It is not matter of religion or even morality,but using brain.

Yes, we use our brains. This is why i disagree. There are societies, cultures, other groups of people who have very different ideas of justice, property and rights. There is no reason for us to project our own understanding of these on them, and pretend this in any way benefits us, or is going to work as some kind of mutual treaty that will make our version of law be recognized by the second party and third parties because of it. This is pure wishful thinking.Wishful thinking is not logic, wishful thinking is delusional.

4.Encomienda worst then serfdoom in Russia....nope,they do not sell peasants like moscovities did.

But they could sell peasants with the land. Selling serfs separately in Russia was also theoretically illegal, its just that some did it anyway because Russia.

5.Reallly? difference in poverty exist from second half of 19th century,when catholic countries was arleady ruled by masons.Do not blame us for something which was made by our enemies.
Its a weird and completely unreasonable assumption to make.

6.You do not undarstandt my post.You blame cathoics for effect of mason/leftist ruling in catholic countries.Becouse last catholic ruler not controlled by masons existed in early 18th century,or earlier.

Current countries,or those from at least 200 years,are not ruled by catholic - so do not blame catholics for what occur there.

List of famines - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see, France is commonly mentioned on the famine list even before protestants existed, and Italy is also there quite a few times long before.
I'm not saying its because of Catholics, but it happened. It happened elsewhere, and before Catholics existed to. I am however saying that the grand claim of Church fixing poverty deaths to such a degree that it justifies all its blatant failures is greatly exaggerated.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

.Nope,land belonged still to indian tribes.Which were spanish crown subject treted as bad/or well/ as whites in Spain.

Ah yes, that's why that one monk dude got so outraged by the treatment of the natives and then exiled for his agitation... yes... Spain treated the natives SOOOOOOO well...

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Ah yes, that's why that one monk dude got so outraged by the treatment of the natives and then exiled for his agitation... yes... Spain treated the natives SOOOOOOO well...

I believe you mean Bartolomeo de la Casas. On the other hand, he advocated that rather than continuing to enslave the native Americans, the Spanish should import African slaves to do the work instead.

 

[ATP]

Ah, so Catholic Church is not to be expected to follow its own rules any more than any random secular political organization. Unless it has absolute power. Which it never had. Got it.

No, encomienda wasn't a thing in Spain.

Yes, we use our brains. This is why i disagree. There are societies, cultures, other groups of people who have very different ideas of justice, property and rights. There is no reason for us to project our own understanding of these on them, and pretend this in any way benefits us, or is going to work as some kind of mutual treaty that will make our version of law be recognized by the second party and third parties because of it. This is pure wishful thinking.Wishful thinking is not logic, wishful thinking is delusional.


But they could sell peasants with the land. Selling serfs separately in Russia was also theoretically illegal, its just that some did it anyway because Russia.

List of famines - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see, France is commonly mentioned on the famine list even before protestants existed, and Italy is also there quite a few times long before.
I'm not saying its because of Catholics, but it happened. It happened elsewhere, and before Catholics existed to. I am however saying that the grand claim of Church fixing poverty deaths to such a degree that it justifies all its blatant failures is greatly exaggerated.

1.Bad thing,agree - still better then protestants or muslim.We choose between thing partially bad and bad.
2.But monk estates was.And whites in Spain lived as good as indians in monk estates.
3.Not project.You either have property law,or not.Those who has no,use law of fist.Good for them,all steppe cyvilizations worked that way - but they had no property,only khagan will.
We could become like them,sure - but,in that case,we would agree to not have property.Do you wont it? i prefer our christian civilization.
4.Famines happened - but only in protestant countries peoples died of hunger in normal times.Becouse they destroyed Church which helped and replaced with sects.

Back to monarchy - King must be normal catholic,or it would not work better then our current mess.

 

[Marduk]

1.Bad thing,agree - still better then protestants or muslim.We choose between thing partially bad and bad.

No, we choose between same thing and same thing with better, more centralized PR cover.

2.But monk estates was.And whites in Spain lived as good as indians in monk estates.

What portion lived in monk estates?

3.Not project.You either have property law,or not.Those who has no,use law of fist.Good for them,all steppe cyvilizations worked that way - but they had no property,only khagan will.
We could become like them,sure - but,in that case,we would agree to not have property.Do you wont it? i prefer our christian civilization.

You have your property law, someone else has their own. There is no universal property law, never was, never will. Sometimes the different laws agree, sometimes not. Sometimes property law changes too. Islamists still say that by their property law Al-Andalus rightfully should belong to Muslims. No reason for anyone else to care. Same about Khagan's property. And for the same reason, any other nomadic civilizations.

4.Famines happened - but only in protestant countries peoples died of hunger in normal times.Becouse they destroyed Church which helped and replaced with sects.

No, that happened everywhere.

Back to monarchy - King must be normal catholic,or it would not work better then our current mess.

And if it doesn't, then its not real Catholicism, or what?

 

[ATP]

No, we choose between same thing and same thing with better, more centralized PR cover.

What portion lived in monk estates?

You have your property law, someone else has their own. There is no universal property law, never was, never will. Sometimes the different laws agree, sometimes not. Sometimes property law changes too. Islamists still say that by their property law Al-Andalus rightfully should belong to Muslims. No reason for anyone else to care. Same about Khagan's property. And for the same reason, any other nomadic civilizations.


No, that happened everywhere.


And if it doesn't, then its not real Catholicism, or what?

1.Catholics Kings who do not owned church/with said church helping poor/ is no the same as protestants with their sects being part of state and poors dying from hunger.
2. main orders/dominicans,faranciscans,augustians/ owned in Mexico more land then anybody else.
3.Our western cyvilization state,that everybody have property law.If you want take somebody else land,you must change cyvilization.
4.In normal days - no in cathoic countries,becouse church helped poor there.That is why protestant,after stealing church land,let people starve.They do not wonted pay for help ,even if land they stealed once funded that help.
5.We would see,when we have normal catholic kings again.Last time it was....300 year ago?

And normal catholic King - not absoute ruler,but stopped by laws of provinces,cities,and,of cours,God.