Quote: (07-31-2016 11:28 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:
The problem with monarchy are bloodlines and the resulting mess it always causes when it comes to succession. Then of course the idea of "royal" blood and divinity starts to rear its head eventually too. If you're from a line that has absolute power based on descent then at some point you will try your hand at convincing the people you are a god king also. It's the next step in absolute power.
This seems to end up happening more often than not. Even the pragmatic Romans weren't immune to this sort of thing.
In modern times you just have to look at the King of Thailand to see a living breathing example of someone who is pumped up to near god king status. He actually has to downplay his image to prevent over the top fanaticism.
But that would imply that succession problems were THE cause behind succession wars, and not the simple power struggle.
Also, that would also imply that democracy, as a system that has an inherent flaw of holiness spin, does not posses the same mechanism for inciting wars. Why do you think that America invaded half of the world ? Because of democracy !
Reality is, once the succession wars were concluded, and the real interests, that is, territories, were divided, everyone would forget about his succession claim
Quote:Quote:
you will try your hand at convincing the people you are a god king also. It's the next step in absolute power.
You are trying to make it sound like the whole God-King concept was some kind of bizarre mania of Kings, and not a well thought spiritual and political idea of hierarchy.
Has anyone read The Protocols by the way ? Besides of what everyone thinks that they are just a tirade, they have many golden quotes. One of them is, i paraphrase "The Goyim had willingly overthrown their despots, and now, they shall live under OUR despotism"
And that's the reality. Form of government is a matter of practicality for every sane person. If i consider myself a nationalist and traditionalist, then for my ideas, democracy is THE worst form of government, because it is designed to subvert and destroy nation and tradition. Quite plain and simple approach. Monarchy is therefore more acceptable, because to much greater extent lessens the possibility of subversive elements taking grip of political power. Which again, depends on the level to which the ruler will be willing to control things, rather than let his country be run by the winds of fortune
Quote: (08-01-2016 05:10 AM)Mercenary Wrote:
A few examples from history:
Kaiser Wilhelm II - Destroyed the Germany empire built by Bismarck by embarking on one of the most destructive wars in history of mankind.
Tsar Nicholas II - Totally pussified ruler who was unable to prevent the rise of communism and the destruction of the Russian empire. He also was a total cuck who let his slut wife cheat on him with Rasputin, which probably was a main reason for his inability to rule properly.
George III - Totally insane. Overtaxed the American colonies so harshly they broke off and created the USA and got into a war with them that decimated the British Army and nearly bankrupted the country.
Honorius - Roman emperor who outlawed trousers and was so lazy and passive (and probably gay) it lead to the sack of Rome in 410
No wonder you agree with him when you share such a simplified approach in which every historical upheaval can be explained in terms of "peculiar" leaders, and not through profound and powerful political motions, in which rulers found themselves in the midst of, as much they have created them