Les royalistes c'est quoi vos arguments ?

Le 04 juillet 2021 à 12:55:16 :

Le 04 juillet 2021 à 12:54:42 :

Le 04 juillet 2021 à 12:51:47 :

Le 04 juillet 2021 à 12:50:36 :
Pour que vive la France, vive le roi.

Le roi est mort décapité et depuis on est goldé

Depuis on est des cucks gauchistes consanguin et beauf

Ca par contre ça a toujours été le cas

Non, c’est que depuis l’apparition de ton espèce que les gauchistes détruisent le pays.

Le 04 juillet 2021 à 12:57:34 :

Le 04 juillet 2021 à 12:48:04 :
Parce qu'il y a encore des imbéciles qui pensent que ce qu'il fallait pour nourrir le peuple de France, c'était la démocratie et non pas la machine à vapeur ou l'électricité ?

L'innovation technologique est fortement liée à la liberté accordée aux individus.
Les anciennes monarchies françaises qui voulaient tout régenter étaient une entrave au progrès.
Il n'y a guère que sous les expériences de monarchie parlementaire (Louis-Philippe essentiellement) que la France a pu rivaliser avec l'Angleterre

On retrouve encore ce clivage au XXe siècle entre les économies planifiées soviétiques et les économies décentralisées occidentales. Ce sont ces dernières qui sont les plus efficaces. Les économies planifiées sont souvent en retard, et réduites à copier ce qui a fonctionné ailleurs, au lieu d'en profiter aux premières loges.

Et le libéralisme qui détruit le biocapital humain est un facteur de progrès ?

Le Qi (élément indispensable à l'innovation) n'augmente que par une sélection intense provoquée par la guerre.
L'intelligence occidentale est le fruit d'un carnage sans nom et d'un gâchis darwinien intense. Tout ce qui à de la valeur est forgée en enfers.

Vous confondez un système qui permet la diffusion d'une innovation avec la qualité biologique des individus nécessaires à l'arrivée des innovations. (Je passerais sur le fait que la démocratie n'implique pas forcément une économie libre et que pas mal de libertariens défendent la monarchie comme un cadre nécessaire à un véritable libre marché).

Notre système fabrique des détritus humains à cadence industrielle et décourage fortement la reproduction des plus intelligents. La compétition acharnée du capitalisme pousse les individus dans des villes-monde pour leur carrière (Singapour est le meilleur exemple actuel), ils se battent entre eux dans un environnement hautement compétitif au détriment de leur fertilité. Même les mesures eugénistes de Lee Kuan Yew ne suffisent pas à enrayer le phénomène. La natalité est catastrophique chez les HQI.

Oui, c'est chouette pour la croissance à court terme mais c'est un drain de cerveau mondial + destruction de gènes de haute valeur à long terme. Votre système est en train de scier la branche sur laquelle il est assis et va nous renvoyer au Moyen-âge que vous décriez tant.

Il n'y a que deux options:
- Accélérer jusqu'à ce que l'eugénisme et l'édition génétique corrigent le problème (ce qui n'est pas une certitude).
- Ralentir et privilégier une gestion responsable du biocapital humain en sacrifiant un peu de croissance.

Whether you are in history class or watching your favorite history YouTuber there is a very particular way we are taught about revolutions. Revolutions are always portrayed as struggles between the commoners and the ruling establishment. The people either become conscious of their situation and class or the establishment messes up and starts burdening the commoners more and then they rise up to fix the wrongs and bring prosperity to the average Joe. The French Revolution is portrayed as a popular Uprising against Royal tyranny. The German Revolutions of 1848 as a struggle for civil liberties and the Russian Empire fell in 1917 when the working class and peasants could no longer tolerate oppression and reach the breaking point. Basically you have two sides the rich establishment made up of Kings Aristocrats clergymen and businessmen who are always Allied and best friends with each other and then the Common People the 99% Factory workers peasants and so. The first side wants to suppress and squeeze the commoners as much as possible for their own benefit while the average people well just don't want to starve and be treated like. Many people don't realize but this is an approach adopted for Marxist historiography. In this view class struggle is seen as the driving force behind historical developments. Basically history is largely seen as a series of conflicts between different classes most notably the working class and the ruling class or the Bourgeois. Thus revolutions are pivotal moments when the oppressed classes rise up against their oppressors leading to significant social economic political changes as Marx and Engels would write in The Communist Manifesto.

" Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf huild master and journeyman, in a word oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one anothercarried on an uninterrupted Now hidden now open fight a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. " " The history of all hitherto is existing society is the history of class struggles. " People often ask hy did the overwhelming majority of them fall. Why is the majority of Europe today made up of democratic republics. Why did monarchy start crumbling as the Age of Enlightenment and democracy rolled in. Why did these people rise up in so many countries wanting to tear it down if monarchies really are such beneficial forms of governance why does no one want to return a monarchy after they became a republic. Also about why there are so many coutries republics. You rarely if at all hear about revolutions aiming to restore a monarchy but always revolutions aiming to dismantle monarchies. The reason why no one is able to properly debunk this thesis is because there isn't much to debunk it makes sense again but the problem is that people still try to address it through this populist interpretation but what if we completely ditch Marx and Engels and start looking at this issue through another lens, one that might actually make more sense than the previous one. I don't believe that monarchies fell because they were such bad systems that people rose up to tear them down. I believe there is another cold perent reason here one we could very easily notice if we change our interpretations of these events. One Thing Remains consistent there are two classes of people.

There's a class that rules and a class that is ruled over. Now egalitarians try to bridge this Gap as best as possible by advocating for equality and having the masses have a voice in how their country is run with democracy but the question arises. If societies always have a a ruling class and the ruled class no matter whether they are democratic or not, can the people trully be sovereign? In his book " The ruling class " Gaetano Mosca emphasized that it is always inevitable that a small minority of people will be able to effectively control and keep the majority population in line and because every society has this distinction between ruler and ruled, the people can never truly be in charge. " In reality the Dominion of an organized minority obeying a single impulse over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistable as against each single individual in the majority who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. 100 men acting uniformly in concert with a common understanding will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. " " Meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in conquer and have a mut ual understanding simply because they are a 100 and not a thousand. It follows that the larger the political Community the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the govern majority be and the more difficult will it be for the majority to organize for reaction against the minority. " Page 53. Robert Michels would write about the same thing. : " The most striking proof of the organic weakness of the mass is furnished by the way in which when deprived of the leaders in time of action they abandon the field of battle in disordered flight; they eem to have no power of instinctive reorganization and are useless until new captains arise capable of replacing those that have been lost. " Source : " Political Parties " By Michels. Page 90.

So the solution then is for the people to have a leader that leads them towards victory. And the very moment that happens Michelle's famous iron law of oligarchy comes into effect. Michelle's law states that : " All forms of organization regardless of how democratic they may be at the start will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies. " especially in large groups and complex organizations he would write : " Organization implies a tendency to oligarchy. In every organization whether it be a political party a professional Union or any other association of any kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly. As a result of organization every party or professional Union becomes divided into a minority of directors and the majority of directed. Who says organization says oligarchy. " Source :" Political Parties " Page 70. Large complex organizations as opposed to smaller and simpler ones tend to become more controlled by a few leaders. Matter of fact is most people don't have the time or interest to constantly participate in voting or decision making and due to this you have to narrow down choices to a few main ones. Many prominent political parties have hundreds of thousands of members. But not all of them are active in decision making. For that reason a specific number of active members is going to take charge of the party. And if that is the case how can you claim that your movement represents the will of the people if it is led by the select and active view. Take communism as a prime example. In its doctrine, it claims that a dictatorship of the proletariat needs to emerge where the proletariat is elevated to the ruling class. " Proletariat race to a governing class ". What does it mean? Factory workers number in the millions will all millions be members of the government? The entire nation will apparently rule but no one will be ruled. But if that is the case then there will be no government, there will be no state.

But if there is a state there will also be those who are ruled. So it doesn't matter the point of view we look at this question, it always comes down to the same dismal result : government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. Some marxist saying this government will consist of workers. Yyes perhaps of former workers who as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers World from the heights of the state and not from below as an ordinary worker. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretentions to govern them. Anyone who doubts this is not at all familiar with human nature. Because of this the Democratic principle has to give way to the oligarchical principle for practical reasons. But still these movements and organizations need countless bureaucratic tasks that must be managed to keep it all running. Groups aiming for power have to handle finances, administration and diplomacy. It must also organize voting canvas supporters provide information to speakers raise funds and maintain its legal status. To keep this machine well oiled you must then have people who are more educated and are in higher positions than normal people so you need elite backing. Here is the crux of the Italian Elite Theory. It doesn't view historical events as fights between Elites and the people but rather Elites and other Elites. They are not natural allies but competitors aiming to take power and consolidate it. Evolutions occur when the existing ruling class loses the capability and motivation to stay in power leading to widespread public discontent. This then creates an opening for a counter Elite group to step in and take control. Rebellions happen revolutions are engineered and whether the counter Elite is actually fighting for the people or taking advantage of it is another story.

We always heard about the people versus aristocracy Monarch and clergy. If we apply it here that means this Triple Alliance never truly existed but rather they were competing against one another and this is in fact true. Historically this Alliance was extremely rare. Numerous monarchs and Kings throughout history had conflicts with both the aristocracy and clergy. French historian Marc Bloch in his work " Feudal society " or " Société féodale " made it clear : " The Monarch's Authority was constantly checked by the Ambitions of the nobility and the church each seeking to assert its own autonomy and influence. The notion of a harmonious alliance between these powers is more of a reflection of idealized medieval theory than of historical reality. The actual relationships were marked by tension and conflict as each sought to expand its own power at the expense of the others. " Source : Feudal Society. Page 48. Erik Von Leddihn also odescribed in his book " Menace of the herd " : We must not forget in that connection that the intimate alliance between monarchy aristocracy and clergy was unknown prior to the French Revolution. Only second rate historians would consider the Coalition between Throne alter and nobility a standard phenomenon these elements formed usually a triangle of opposing forces. Kings and Emperors usually received support from the urban elements in their struggle against the powerful aristocratic oligarchs and in some religious Rebellion we see similarly a coalition between the first and Third Estate against the Second. " Source :" Menace of the Herd " Page 71. When talking about King Louis the 16th and the French Revolution the common story is that Louie disregarded the Third Estate and let the first and second do with them as they pleased in the Estates General.

However the historian John Hardman in his book " The life of Louis XVI " challenges this narrative making the point that it was not uncommon for him to actually side with a Third Estate against the first two Estates. One notable instance is that during a session there was a debate over whether the Estates should verify their credentials separately or together. The first and second were against verifying it together because it would favor the third state by giving them a stronger position against them. Louis actually sided with the Third Estate on this one. One frustrated Aristocrat would write in his Memoirs : " We never ceased repeating to the king that the Third Estate would wreck everything and we were right. We begged him to restrain them to impose his Sovereign Authority on party Intrigue. The king replied : " But it is not clear that the theor are wrong different forms have been followed each time the Estates have been held so why reject verification in common? I am for it. " The king has to be admitted was then numbered among revolutionaries : a strange fatality which can only be explained by detecting the hand of Providence. " Source :" The Life of Louis XVI " Page 383.

Now sure these three sides definitely competed with one another for power but they were all still in favor of a monarchy and they all generally had some benefit of their class by upkeeping the system. so if the Italian elite theory is followed What kind of elite would benefit from breaking this statu quo? Who would benefit from the the monarchy being overthrown? It was in fact a certain class that was rapidly on the rise during this time. I am talking about none other than the Bourgeoisie. Before the French Revolution there were numerous republics across Europe. Most notably you had those centered in Italy prominent republics like Venice Florence Genoa. The interesting thing about them was that their ruling class was not made up of aristocrats or clergymen but rather merchants and bankers and from them many banking families and political dynasties emerged. But what made them different from Aristocrats and Kings is that they governed not in accordance with a noble and divine duty but rather financially and what was good for business. In his book " A history of Florence "

John M. Najemy would describe how the government of Florence operated. " Florence was in many respects the quintessential Mercantile Republic it was a city whose political life was dominated by merchants and bankers who used their economic resources to secure and maintain political power. The ruling Elite compromising a handful of powerful families like the Medici, Albizzi, and Strozzi did not merely participate in political life; they controlled it. These families turned political office into to an instrument of their private economic interests, using their control over the Republic's institutions to manipulate laws taxes and public resources to favor their businesses. " " The great families were thus at the center of a political system that revolved around the preservation and augmentation of wealth which meant that the political structure of the Republic was inherently oligarchic, despite its nominal Republican form political competition was less about ideology or public good and more about controlling the economic resources of the state. " Source : " A History of Florence " Page 22. That all sounds oddly identical to what we have today no in our modern world. It's not that easy to know how exactly corrupt and Shady of businesses you are buying from or an organization that you are working withWhat if we came up with a way of measuring how corrupt an organization is using data and people using the results when making decisions. Here we can with Mystick.dk. Historically merchants and Aristocrats really did not get along well with each other.

They practically lived and experienced two different worlds and French historian Fernand Braudel would also take a note of this in one of his works on the early developments of capitalism : " Merchants and Aristocrats lived in different worlds shaped by opposing values and interests. The aristocracy was entrenched in a social order that was static dependent on land honor and inherited privilege. They viewed merchants with suspicion as disruptive forces driven by profit and change who undermine traditional hierarchies and values. Merchants in turn, saw the aristocracy as barriers to economic freedom and growth, wielding power to protect their privileges and impose their will over commerce. " " This mutual distrust and hostility defined their relations for Centuries with Merchants often finding themselves on the defensive against aristocratic power struggling for autonomy within a system that was fundamentally geared to sustain aristocratic rule. " Source : " Civilization and capitalism. Page 371. It inherently within their class interest to gear more towards a republican form of governance than a monarchical one. Keep in mind the way merchants and bankers exercised their power was through finance and money but the Monarch did not run a business that could go bankrupt. His as well as the rule of his offsprings was codified in the law and he could not be bribed because he was already at the top of the hierarchy. As it turns out your usual strategy of throwing money at the problem and coercing doesn't exactly work with a monarch. No matter how you see it from their point of view the mere presence of a figure at the top that is outside of their sphere of influence is a big liability to their plans of gaining power.

They have to either restrict his powers to such an extent that he could never pose a threat or abolish the system as a whole and it just so happens that coincidentally revolutionary Republican movements and ideas sprung up during and after the Industrial Revolution where the Bourgeois started growing rapidly and accumulating more and more power and influence. This rivalry between the two carried over well into the industrial revolution and if anything it further escalated it. Now that private corporations and businesses could produce tons of goods and commodities in a much faster way it led to the Bourgeois slowly but surely accumulating more wealth which they could use to wiggle their way into the power structure. Notable English historian Eirc Hobsbawn emphasized that they were becoming so powerful that they could have been considered their own Army : " he effect of the Industrial Revolution on the structure of Bourgeois Society was superficially less drastic but in fact far more profound. For it created new blocks of Bourgeois which coexisted with the official Society too large to be absorbed by it except by a little assimilation at the very top, and too to self-confident and dynamic to wish for absorption except on their own terms. The merchants bankers and even the industrialists of the 18th century had been few enough to be assimilated into official society. " " The new men from the provinces were a formidable army all the more so as they became increasingly conscious of themselves as a class rather than a middle rank bridging the Gap between the upper and lower orders. Moreover, they were not merely a class, but a class army of combat organized at first in conjunction with the laboring poor against the aristocratic society. " Source : " Age of Revolution, 1789 - 1848 " Page 185.

When the aristocracy Monarch and clergy fought over power, it was more like a gentleman's chess game knowing to influence and secure the right people and cleverly outmaneuver their opponents with rhetoric connections and traps. These were battles fought with an elite; Because they were small in numbers they had to be much more careful and strategic if they wanted to win this Grand chess game. But the Bourgeois on the other hand were not interested in engaging in these petty little games. Instead they came up with a new strategy, one that would grant them victory against their opponents but at the same time, change the entire landscape of political power which would make sure their opponents could never properly challenge them. It's mass politics. There is a good reason reason why throughout the 19th century the ideal of democratic equality and capitalism worked so well with one another. The aim was to crush the aristocracy and clergy with sheer numbers and ensure in a new playing field where now your legitimacy depends on the people and how much you appeal to them. For the Bourgeois this was an ideal system because now now they could use their Mass wealth to organize campaigns channel the masses and unleash them on their enemies. And the aristocracy and clergy would have an extremely difficult time adapting to this new playing field because they are more used to influencing and persuading individual people in certain positions, not a massive wave of tens of thousands.

Eriv von Leddihn would write about this : " Money was certainly a means of the ocratic or mob rule middle classes to fight their Victorious battles against the first and second Estates and this is one of the reasons why democratism and capitalism had such a fine tradition of intimate cooperation in the past. On account of the intellectual model caused by the forerunners of the epigones of the French Revolution we see capitalism infecting even ochlocracy with its liberalistic conceptions. " Source : " Menace of the Herd " Page 83. " Mob rule in the 19th century was indeed sweet and persuasive and capitalism helped it to spread its ideology by advertising and propaganda. The masses in their naive enthusiasm and optimism were still far from seeing the demoniacal qualities inherent in their majoritarianism or in the rule of the machines. Capitalism and democracy share the techniques of the art of persuasion; they are both essentially anthropocentric in their pretentious going to the public as well as in their undignified megaphonic appeal to the heard. " Page 84 As Leddihn said, the Bourgeois mastered the art of persuation and gathering large groups with the assistance of capitalism. As their power grew the influence of the other Estates started declining until they successfully pulled the rug under them and established themselves as the new ruling class. Aristocrats lost their privileges as they depended on their inherited land and the clergy was decapitated with a separation of church and state and the Monarch either overthrown or his powers were limited to such an extent where he could no longer pose a threat to them.Hobsbawn admitted it in the introduction of his book : " This revolution has transformed and continues to transform the entire world. The great revolution of 1789 to 1848 was the Triumph not of Industry as such but of capitalist industry; not of Liberty and equality in general but of middle class or Bourgeois liberal Society not of the modern economy or the modern state but of the economies and states in a particular geographical region of the world whose Center was the neighboring and rival states of Great Britain and France. " " Age of Revolution, 1789 - 1848 " Page 1

The French Revolution is a major piece of evidence for this. The Revolution was largely driven by the ambitions and frustrations of the Bourgeois. The urban middle class class which included Merchants lawyers and other professionals were dissatisfied with their lack of political power and the restrictions on their activities under the old regime. They saw the revolution as an opportunity to overthrow the Privileges of the nobility and to establish a society where their economic and social status would be more accurately reflected in political power. It has almost nothing to do with the common people. They were just their pawns. French historian George Lefebvre, who was a Marxist by the way would write extensively on the role of the Bourgeois in his book " The Coming of the French Revolution " : " The old regime threw indiscriminately into the Third Estate all commoners from the wealthiest bourgeois to the poorest beggar or some 96% of the nation according to Sieyes. The Third Estate was a purely legal entity in which the only real elements were the social ones and of these the most important the one which led and mainly benefited from The Revolution was the Bourgeois. The Bourgeois was intermixed with the rest of the population. That is why it was able to assume the leadership of the Revolution. " Source :" The coming of the french revolution " Page 41.

These revolutions and movements weren't spearheaded by the people seeking to end their oppression but a new emerging Elite Class seeking to entrench themselves and defeat their rivals, all while utilizing public sentiments to legitimize their rule. The true enemy of the monarchy has never been the people but other Elite groups seeking to strengthen their own power and influence over the country. Some might say that sure, democratic republicanism may have been coming from the Bourgeois and was spearheaded by them but they still brought us democracy the form of governance where we get to choose our own leaders and not having to fear about tyrants. A system where the people are the judge jury and executioner. If the whole point of introducing the system was for it to benefit them and entrench their rule why would they do something so stupid as to actually give people an actual say over their country. Why would they sabotage their power? If voting truly changed anything they would make it illegal. How exactly and specifically does a Democratic Republic benefit the ruling Elite? When talking about republics you need to split the government into two parts the visible one which is the parliament prime minister or president and other public offices and then the invisible one which is made up of corporate lobbyists rich and influential families and other groups. The invisible one is the true ruling class that influences. The visible one and makes sure every everything goes smoothly. When we say that we elect our Representatives I would say that instead they have themselves elected by their friends. These friends tend to be rich individuals who can afford to fund politicians and to advance their specific agendas often at the expense of the broader Public's interests.

These figures often own newspapers and other media outlets granting them the power to control the narrative and shape public opinion to their advantage. The campaigns are typically orchestrated by tight-knit groups that work to ensure that the election results align with their own goals. As a result even though elections might appear democratic, the outcomes frequently reflect the wishes of these powerful minorities and since you are in the shadows out of the public eye and safe from scrutiny, there is no incentive for you to act morally and righteously, you can be as corrupt as you want but as long as their eyes are on the president and everyone in Parliament who cares what they truly think. Monarchies by contrast never had this distinction. The government so to say was always visible, there is the king and his castle and there are all the Nobles and the exact Estates. They own and here are all the priests running churches You know exactly where to find them and how sensitive their next to Sharp blades are because as it turns out the people being able to confidently and correctly identify who rules over them kind of gives you more of an incentive to watch out and do some good lest your head be separated from the rest of your body. In democratic republic, who needs that when you can puppet the guy? You have people think that the president or prime minister is actually in charge and when things start going bad they just have to throw him out of the mob as a sacrifice. The people calm down new guy comes in and they start influencing him. Now you start to understand why they would rather have republics than monarchies?

Eric von Leddihn wrote : " A republic is an ideal form of government for an aristocracy and aristocracy that wants to rule directly instead of serving a ruler has to choose between a temporary monarchy like England or a republic like Venice Genoa or early Florence. Historically, monarchy protected against oligarchical rule and monarchs often sided with the lower classes against the nobility. Every strong and independent aristocracy tends to be "Republican" . Only a weakened degenerate or very wise aristocracy supports monarchy. " Source :" Menace of the Herd " Pages 73 - 74. Patrick J. Deneen wrote : " Why liberalism failed " He makes this exact observation as well. Instead of abolishing the old aristocracy in favor of a system managed by the people liberalism instead just created a new one that is less transparent and even more powerful. : " Liberalism was justified and gained popular support as the opponent of an alternative to the old aristocracy. It attacked inherited privilege overturned prescribed economic roles and abolished fixed social positions arguing instead for openness based upon choice, talent, opportunity and Industry the irony is the creation of a new aristocracy that has enjoyed inherited privileges prescribed economic roles and fixed social positions. Even as liberalism's architects were forthright about their ambition to displace the old aristocracy, they were not silent about their hopes of creating a new aristocracy. " " Liberalism success thus Fosters the conditions of its failure having claimed to bring about a downfall of aristocratic rule of the strong over the week, it culminates in a new more powerful even more permanent aristocracy that fights ceaselessly to maintain the structures of liberal Injustice. " Source :" Why liberalism failed " Pages 134 - 135.

This obviously does not mean that everyone who runs for office is a puppet. In fact I do believe that there are some good people who base their campaigns on good goals and genuinely want to act on them and bring about change. The issue here is that even when you win an election and come into office you are then going to be placed in this Grand chess game against the elites who obviously do not want to see you acting completely on your own people. Some people think that when you become a president or prime minister you can just start doing stuff right away. Especially in a republic, power is more complicated than that. You need to know how to navigate that field and play your cards right to gain the upper hand against many interest groups who stand in opposition to you.When you vote for someone in an election all you do is throw them in the ring against the leads and hope they will win and if they don't, they will not be able to achieve much. Now it just comes down to how well the candidat is going to play their cards. True change can only come when you have firm hands on both governments. So Ironically in the end it is a game of chance, something many Republicans criticize monarchy for.

How is a republic inherently better than a monarch monarchy? The one major principle that in a republic the officials chosen by the people wield the power instead of a hereditary family with no public say. The sad part is people still believe this they are still fooled by the fact that they actually wield powers through The ballot box fighting over which one of the two corporate puppet candidates is better and never thinking about questioning democracy and republicanism. To them, anyone who questions these systems is a person who wants to establish brutal tyrannies with no freedom. Monarchies weren't overthrown by the people seeking Liberation and realizing that the system is bad and tyrannical but rather they were headed by the merchant and later Bourgeois classes seeking to dominate the power structure. And the way they maintain their influence and power is by giving the illusion of choice voice so that the people may never dare question it. On a surface level who would trade a system where they have a say in how their country should be run for a system where power is in the hands of a family and people who get it just by the privilege of being born in that position. In reality monarchs often stood as Defenders of the common people against the ambitions of powerful oligarchies. They held a sense of responsibility guided by a belief in in Divine Duty that guided them to protect the broader interests of their subjects. What we have today is exactly that which dominated Florence and other republics only difference is that now we just have the illusion that we are the ones in charge. It is absolute childish nonsense to say that we have a government of the People by the people for the people. It has nothing to do with the people.

We went from a ruling class that saw itself as having a Divine duty to care for their subjects and having more of an incentive for doing so to one that is hiding in the shadows seeing humans as walking dollar signs, customers who exist only to consume a financial government ruling by the decree of money and money alone.

L avantage d un roi c est qu il est eduqué des son enfance à administrer un pays.souvent il a une relation charnel au royaume car il l a herité de ses ancetres et veut le transmettre à sa descendance.

De plus si il fait vraiment de la merde il peut pas se desister comme tout nos politiciens actuelles qui dans le pire des cas demissionnent en prenant aucune responsabilité

Contrairement à une idée reçue de par le passé, la monarchie française et les classes laborieuses ont plutôt fait bon ménage. C'est grâce à la monarchie que dans l'ancienne France, le régime corporatif a pu s'établir, durer et prospérer. Le monarchie est le courant des 3 pouvoirs, à savoir démocratie dans la commune, l'aristocratie dans la province et la monarchie dans l'Etat. La monarchie possède en son institution le principe de subsidiarité cher aux chrétiens qui est l'autonomie complète du citoyen au sens grec du terme. Cela veut dire que tout ce que le citoyen peut et doit gérer lui même dans ces sphères d'attribution, responsabilités, familles, métiers, associations, ville, commune, ne doivent pas être gérées par l'Etat. Deuxièmement la monarchie est intéressée à la réorganisation corporative comme les libertés régionales, provinciales et familiales. Elle ne se maintient qu'à la condition de les protéger de même que la République subsiste pour les étouffer car un principe qui est à la base de la République c'est l'élection. A la base de la monarchie française, il y a l'hérédité. Pour durer, la République s'arrange à ce que le scrutin soit toujours favorable en faisant de l'individu son débiteur. Or l'individu ne devient débiteur du pouvoir républicain que lorsque ce pouvoir est le seul dispensateur des grâces c'est à dire lorsqu'il n'existe pas pour protéger l'individu d'autres forteresses que l'Etat républicain. Cela ne signifie pas que les élections n'existent pas en monarchie mais celles ci sont débarrassées du parasitisme des partis politiques corrompus. Les élections en monarchie sont liées au quotidien des français, à ce qui les touche de près ou de loin que soit les organisations des villes, villages, quartiers, la gestion des métiers, les représentants provinciaux, les impôts, la gestion des écoles, etc....

C'est pour cela qu'une République corporative est impossible car le corporatisme est par définition une décentralisation du pouvoir. On parle de corporatisme autonome. L'Etat républicain veut tout maîtriser. Puisqu'il est créé par l'élection, il dépend donc des électeurs. Pour se maintenir au pouvoir il veillera donc à ce que l'électeur lui soit toujours fidèle. Il y arrivera en fonctionnarisant le corps électoral ou tout au moins en mettant à l'électeur une corde au cou. C'est pour cela qu'elle contrôle l'école, les médias, falsifie l'histoire et l'information. Réfléchissez. Pourquoi est ce qu'on encourage la mère de famille à travailler à l'extérieur au lieu de lui fournir un choix d'emploi du temps et lui permettre d'obtenir un salaire maternel et une retraite. Voire travailler en fonction de son choix, 20, 30, 50, 80% de son temps. Sous prétexte d'égalité, la femme est devenue moins libre que l'homme. Que quelqu'un désire une assistance, pension d'assistance ou retraite, c'est l'Etat qui tient la caisse. En fait c'est l'électeur qui dépend du gouvernement. Le régime ne tient qu'à la condition de s'emparer des attributions économiques, politiques et sociales, qui incombent tout à fait aux corporations. le régime républicain suppose que l'Etat soit le pourvoyeur nécessaire des places et des sinécures de toute sorte. N'est il pas évident que si la République laissait aux corporations le soin d'organiser elle même les services d'assurance et d'assistance pour leurs membres, alors les citoyens ne seraient plus débiteurs du gouvernement.
La République essaie de créer une sixième forfaiture par manque de nouveauté. La France étouffe d'une administration tentaculaire et oppressive, d'une fiscalité pire que quasiment tout ce que l'humanité a connu. Incapable de se renouveler et de reconnaître ses erreurs : génocide de Vendée en 1793, déportation du Pays Basque, et d'autres scandales. Cette République mondialiste entraîne son peuple vers l'esclavage dont les individus deviendront des numéros délocalisables à merci. Pierre Joseph Proudhon disait : " O roi! Laissez donc ces banquiers avides; ces avocats disputeurs, ces bourgeois ignobles, ces écrivains infâmes, ces nobles flétris, tous ces gens là, Sire, vous haissent, et ne vous soutiennent encore que parce qu'ils ont peur de vous. Achevez l'oeuvre de nos rois, écrasez l'aristocratie et le privilège, conspirez avec ces prolétaires fidèles, avec le peuple qui seul, sait honorer un souverain, et crier avec franchise : Vive le Roi! " dans Lettre à Mr Blanqui pour la propriété Page 177, 1841. Est ce que la République a protégé nos enfants du trafic des laboratoires pharmaceutiques dont le business de la santé augmente les profits scandaleux? Ils ne défendent pas les abeilles qui meurent alors qu'on laisse les multinationales gérer la pollution sur notre sol. Un grand ministre de la Restauration Joseph de Villèle écrivait : " La Monarchie peut sans danger, elle doit par politique, permettre aux citoyens de se grouper autour de leurs intérêts communs pour combiner les moyens les plus propres à obtenir qu'ils soient protégés.
Aussi doivent s'établir les conseils des administrations secondaires, les corps de ville, les chambres de commerce, d'hommes de loi, de gens de lettre, de corporations de toute espèce. " Chambre des députés. Opinion de Mr Villèle sur le projet de loi relative aux élections. 28 décembre 1816. Page 12. Ces corporations débarrassent le pouvoir royal d'attributions secondaires et lui permettent de se consacrer librement à ses devoirs, qui sont la garde des intérêts généraux de la nation, la représentation diplomatique, la défense, la justice et l'ordre public, les grandes réglementations de protection ( sanitaire par exemple ), ou encore l'énergie. Le régime corporatif offre à la monarchie son assise la plus sûre. Cela ne signifie pas pour autant que la question sociale sera résolue du simple fait que la France redevienne monarchique. Il n'y a pas de régime idéal, seulement des institutions qui favorisent les libertés. Bref, qui créent le bien et l'épanouissement des peuples dans leur recherche à l'élévation.
Par contre la réforme sociale sera possible à partir de ce moment là. Elle l'est dans la mesure où la monarchie est décentralisée, dans la mesure où elle n'est pas absolue et éloignée du parlementarisme. C'est à dire dans la mesure où elle est corporative. La monarchie se bornera à faire du travailleur un professionnel, c'est à dire un connaisseur, un homme politique de métier, un propriétaire comme le sont les médecins, les sages femmes, les avocats et les notaires. C'est un connaisseur, un homme de métier qu'elle place à la tête de l'Etat. Le roi est un spécialiste, un professionnel car jeune, il est initié à tous les détails du métier qu'il doit exercer un jour. Il est apte à gouverner bien plus que les politicards des partis politiques de la République. Ce qui fait du roi un homme étant plus capable de gouverner, c'est justement l'hérédité dynastique qui est un apprentissage perpétuel de la fonction royale. Pourquoi cela? Car l'hérédité dynastique ni le sort du roi à la fortune de l'Etat assurer de laisser à son fils l'administration du bien national, le roi sens par le force des choses son intérêt particulier se confondre avec celui du pays. Il est ainsi intéressé à la prospérité du pays, comme le cultivateur à la bonne culture de son champ, l'industriel au développement de son industrie, le père ou la mère à celui de sa famille, etc...

Par contre la réforme sociale sera possible à partir de ce moment là. Elle l'est dans la mesure où la monarchie est décentralisée, dans la mesure où elle n'est pas absolue et éloignée du parlementarisme. C'est à dire dans la mesure où elle est corporative. La monarchie se bornera à faire du travailleur un professionnel, c'est à dire un connaisseur, un homme politique de métier, un propriétaire comme le sont les médecins, les sages femmes, les avocats et les notaires. C'est un connaisseur, un homme de métier qu'elle place à la tête de l'Etat. Le roi est un spécialiste, un professionnel car jeune, il est initié à tous les détails du métier qu'il doit exercer un jour. Il est apte à gouverner bien plus que les politicards des partis politiques de la République. Ce qui fait du roi un homme étant plus capable de gouverner, c'est justement l'hérédité dynastique qui est un apprentissage perpétuel de la fonction royale. Pourquoi cela? Car l'hérédité dynastique ni le sort du roi à la fortune de l'Etat assurer de laisser à son fils l'administration du bien national, le roi sens par le force des choses son intérêt particulier se confondre avec celui du pays. Il est ainsi intéressé à la prospérité du pays, comme le cultivateur à la bonne culture de son champ, l'industriel au développement de son industrie, le père ou la mère à celui de sa famille, etc...

Le régime électif serait le meilleur qui soit s'il y avait une corrélation stricte entre ce qu'il faut faire pour le Pays, et ce qu'il faut faire pour être élu. Or, ce n'est pas le cas.

Le Régime électif, c'est celui des querelles partisanes et des visions à court termes, sauf que tu ne diriges pas un pays en ne regardant que cinq ans à l'avance.

9 mauvais présidents sur 10

contre 9 bon rois sur 10