I renounce modern politics-I guess i'm a Monarchist - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14522682
One Degree wrote:
This dismisses the fact that the vast majority of humans still need religion to alleviate their fear of death.

This simple fact has controlled politics for thousands of years.

I see no reason it should be dismissed for the immediate future.


What patronizing and inane rubbish. I'm Christian, almost pathologically so, lol, and I not only don't fear death I positively welcome my 'heavenly birthday', should I be graced by merciful God and walk the path of true Life.

'Long live Death'.....

People who do happen to have a fear of death tend to carry this innate Atheism into religion, not from It.

But anyway, i'm talking about earthly things moreso in this thread, and upon reflection, I can even be something of a 'pan-monarchist' to a degree.

If I support the leaders of any republican regime in the world these days, i've come to think that it is only because they are the best of a bad lot, whatever their intentions, whereas the worst monarch or monarchy is superior at least theoretically to the best of republics.

Because even in a Republic, there is no denying that the tendency is always towards unitary power concentrated in one leader, yet because the dynamic of that leadership is based on the chimera of the 'popular will' of the 'masses', and a fig-leaf of democratic liberalist forms, said leader will always have sociopathic, even psychopathic, traits.... Lying out of necessity but more likely out of personal nature.
#14522737
annatar1914 wrote: I not only don't fear death I positively welcome my 'heavenly birthday', should I be graced by merciful God and walk the path of true Life.




Because even in a Republic, there is no denying that the tendency is always towards unitary power concentrated in one leader, yet because the dynamic of that leadership is based on the chimera of the 'popular will' of the 'masses', and a fig-leaf of democratic liberalist forms, said leader will always have sociopathic, even psychopathic, traits.... Lying out of necessity but more likely out of personal nature.


Reminds me of Augustus. Deceit may be a necessity but doesn't precludes good, effective government.
#14522787
One Degree wrote:

This dismisses the fact that the vast majority of humans still need religion to alleviate their fear of death.

This simple fact has controlled politics for thousands of years.

I see no reason it should be dismissed for the immediate future.

Annatar1914 wrote:
What patronizing and inane rubbish. I'm Christian, almost pathologically so, lol, and I not only don't fear death I positively welcome my 'heavenly birthday', should I be graced by merciful God and walk the path of true Life.


Thank you for so elegantly proving my point.
#14523128
One Degree wrote:
Thank you for so elegantly proving my point.


Which you didn't, because you use the word; 'fear'. If there is indeed a true message from the true faith that one need not fear death, than obviously the false messages which attempt the same thing are exactly... nothing.

False 'religion', in that sense, positively encourages fear of death by a penal view of God's (or the gods) judgement of one's moral and ethical conformity to a given societies standards of conduct.
#14523137
What do you hope to gain from an afterlife?

More life.

Why do you want more life?

You are afraid of leaving this one.

Word it anyway you want, the result is the same.

I fully support your need for a loving God and an afterlife. I wish in no way to dissuade you from something that gives you comfort.
I object when you turn that need into an organization which is a political tool. A political tool that has proven itself to be a major hindrance to the quality of life to those currently living on Earth.
#14523142
One Degree wrote:I object when you turn that need into an organization which is a political tool. A political tool that has proven itself to be a major hindrance to the quality of life to those currently living on Earth.

Well to be fair the organisation of religion is a mixed bag that hasn't altogether been a "major hinderance" to quality of life for the people of this planet. Organised religion while often being a pest to the governors has also been a haven of scholarship, education, almsgiving and healing particularly of poor people who couldn't afford more professional services. They also provided services relating to the important rites of passage for the human: birth, marriage and death.
#14523163
'One Degree', you asked me some fair questions, so i'll give you straight answers, although be prepared to consider they may not be the answers you as a 'non-theist'? might think of yourself. You asked me;

What do you hope to gain from an afterlife?


God.

More life.


No, different life, which makes this life a kind of 'death' in reality.
Why do you want more life?


Already answered-false premise from false conclusion.
You are afraid of leaving this one.


Not in the slightest, you might be projecting yourself into what a Theist like me is thinking-but you'd be mistaken.
Word it anyway you want, the result is the same.


Not really.


I fully support your need for a loving God and an afterlife.


It's not at all as simple as that.

I wish in no way to dissuade you from something that gives you comfort.


You can't, and believe me, it is often not a 'comfort' at all.


I object when you turn that need into an organization which is a political tool.


'As a man thinks, so is he'
, as Scripture says, and so like-minded men wish to have God's will 'Be done on Earth as it is in Heaven'.



A political tool that has proven itself to be a major hindrance to the quality of life to those currently living on Earth.


And that entirely depends on how you define 'quality of life', or as I call it; 'a kind of death', doesn't it?
#14523200
You can't, and believe me, it is often not a 'comfort' at all.


This is actually part of my objection to religion. I have had people very close to me pursue their religion without hypocrisy. The end result was they reached a point where they could no longer justify their faith and they were shattered.

I find it hard to accept that a loving God would want us to live a miserable existence on Earth, so we could earn a place in Heaven.
Even if his reasons are beyond my comprehension, he supplied plenty of natural misery without organized religion needing to add more to our burden.

Then again, in the Christian religion, I thought Jesus made it pretty clear he did not want organized religion.
There seem to be a few people who disagree with me.

I was happy to find out that some of my ancestors were Quakers. They believe in a very personal God. I can accept that form of God.
#14523206
One Degree, you replied to me;


This is actually part of my objection to religion. I have had people very close to me pursue their religion without hypocrisy. The end result was they reached a point where they could no longer justify their faith and they were shattered.


Seems to me again that where the wheels come off is on your non-defined term; 'hypocrisy'. If people have faith, their faith is by definition not 'shattered'.


I find it hard to accept that a loving God would want us to live a miserable existence on Earth, so we could earn a place in Heaven.


I agree with the first part of your sentence-He does not wish us a miserable existence on Earth, nor do we, but our primordial alienation from Him has produced exactly that. Not His fault, but a consequence of the very way in which we are made in His Image; Free Will. He won't make us love Him, He won't make us do the right thing, even if the end result of doing the wrong thing is self-destruction.


Even if his reasons are beyond my comprehension, he supplied plenty of natural misery without organized religion needing to add more to our burden.


He is not the origin of Evil, as I explained above.

Then again, in the Christian religion, I thought Jesus made it pretty clear he did not want organized religion.


Source? Organized Religion is both the Highest Good and very Bad, yet it conceals the truth from the proud and reveals it to the humble.... And it protects truth from force and fraud, or attempts to use force and fraud against it. In a word, it is a microcosm of the cross section of humanity. Marriage is good, even if it has abuses and distortions in individual cases, the ideal is true, and so it is with religion, ideally the Marriage of Man with God.


There seem to be a few people who disagree with me.


They might be on to something, for it's as Aristotle said; 'that which is believed in by all cannot be entirely false.' but see above, you are not entirely wrong.

I was happy to find out that some of my ancestors were Quakers. They believe in a very personal God. I can accept that form of God.


As can I to a degree, with the Orthodox Christian encounter of the Glorious Theophany of the Triune God, in the Uncreated Light of mt. Tabor.
#14523648
Potemkin wrote:It is not the truth which sets us free, starman. It is our attitude towards the truth which sets us free, or which destroys us.


True. Btw getting back to

Uncreated Light of mt. Tabor


The NT doesn't indicates on what mountain the "transfiguration" supposedly happened. Mt Tabor is a guess. Not that critical scholars think it happened; see Ehrman's latest work.
#14524697
starman2003 wrote:


The NT doesn't indicates on what mountain the "transfiguration" supposedly happened. Mt Tabor is a guess. Not that critical scholars think it happened; see Ehrman's latest work.


Back to being a one-trick pony when you can't argue against the utility of Monarchism?

Of course you and Ehrman have no 'confirmation bias' against Christianity and it's claims, and would reject them in any event, so you're not fooling anybody. Ehrman and his ilk are rather old in their thinking really, and would dare not expose other works like the Talmud or the Koran to the same biased 'scholarship' they pretend to with the New Testament.

Funny thing about this thread is that as the OP who started it, i've yet to have any serious anti-monarchical replies at all from anybody, and you certainly haven't made any. Are you going to expose your own beliefs to the naked glare of PoFo's naked eyes, tell the world in explicit detail on a thread all your own what you wish to see the world look like?

I think not, you'd rather troll from the sidelines.

As for me, i'm going to 'flesh out' what I think the role of Monarchy should be, and what the future trends are that I think will lead to a return to the 'Ancien Regime' worldwide....
#14524713
I will make a small start of throwing down my gauntlet, with this quote, unfortunately upon reflection all too true;
"I hate rebels, I hate traitors, I hate tyranny come from where it will. I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny & oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster's grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt."


-Lord Horatio Nelson


And;

“In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it.”

-Konstantin Pobedonostsev


And this;
“You had better have one King than five hundred.”

-King Charles II of Britain


And;
“The Imperial Household, as represented by the Emperor, has been praying for the welfare of the people while nurturing harmonious relationship with them. Based on the people’s respect and adoration for the Emperor, the Japanese people have stayed united. That is the essence of Japan’s national heritage, I believe.”

-Yoshiko Sakurai


And this;
"We can reasonably affirm that a true Right without the monarchy ends up deprived of its natural centre of gravity and crystallisation, because in almost all traditional states the principal reference point for realizing the independent and stable principle of pure political authority has been the crown."

-Julius Evola


Ponder upon these statements, and you will see in your innermost heart that it is true.
Last edited by annatar1914 on 13 Feb 2015 04:55, edited 1 time in total.
#14524714
annatar1914 wrote:I will make a small start of throwing down my gauntlet, with this quote, unfortunately upon reflection all too true;

Yes I do love that quote. It must fairly cause consternation in the mind of the republican such that he must look away and pretend he saw nothing.
#14524717
taxizen wrote:Yes I do love that quote. It must fairly cause consternation in the mind of the republican such that he must look away and pretend he saw nothing.


Yes indeed, or to know the historical fact that pretty much any Monarchy on Earth has been Minarchist and almost Libertarian in ideology (in comparison with almost any Republic) with but a few exceptions-and those being modern republics with a 'monarch' as a 'living flag' (although by this hypocrisy it the republic still pays tribute to the truth of the Crown ).

And despite what i've seen of some of your comments, I hasten to add for you my opinion that the real Christian God is THE Monarch, the Model and Archetype. Still, Monarchism in general is a good start, towards breaking with the universal madness of the Modern Age.
#14524720
annatar1914 wrote:And despite what i've seen of some of your comments, I hasten to add for you my opinion that the real Christian God is THE Monarch, the Model and Archetype. Still, Monarchism in general is a good start, towards breaking with the universal madness of the Modern Age.

Ah well I don't think I could agree with that.. Christianity has actually been rather subversive in general regarding monarchy, even going back to its earliest times. A less Christian God may well be a model and archetype though I think it is the reflection of the earthly reality rather than the original image of which the earthly reality is the reflection, if you understand me. The figure of Jesus is particulary un-monarchic whilst being dubbed "King of the Jews", it's almost a parody or a mockery of Monarchy.
#14524725
taxizen wrote:Ah well I don't think I could agree with that.. Christianity has actually been rather subversive in general regarding monarchy, even going back to its earliest times. A less Christian God may well be a model and archetype though I think it is the reflection of the earthly reality rather than the original image of which the earthly reality is the reflection, if you understand me. The figure of Jesus is particulary un-monarchic whilst being dubbed "King of the Jews", it's almost a parody or a mockery of Monarchy.


You see the Beginning without reference to Soteriology, when it would be best to take a holistic approach and consider Eschatology also.

But aside from that aspect, Martyrdom did not reduce, but rather enhanced, the Royalty of Martyr Kings of the Modern Age like Charles I, Louis XVI, and Nicholas II, for they had the Model of the King to look to. The Jews had every option of following their King, and formally rejected Him. Rome and Jerusalem were given other means of becoming One, and 20 centuries later we find ourselves full circle in more ways than we realize.

I also hasten to add that Christ thru St. Constantine won over the Roman Empire, and which Union of the Two was heralded previously by the fact that the Holy Family, while of the House of David, were loyal Roman Citizens who registered during the Census of Citizens called for by Emperor Augustus (obfuscated, lied about, or ignored by all today).

Not a parody or mockery of Monarchy at all.
#14524756
annatar1914 wrote:Ehrman and his ilk are rather old in their thinking really,


Relative to the time the NT has been around critical scholarship, exemplified by Ehrman, is quite recent.

and would dare not expose other works like the Talmud or the Koran to the same biased 'scholarship' they pretend to with the New Testament.


Those works have their critics, but books on the NT are naturally of greater interest in western countries.

i've yet to have any serious anti-monarchical replies at all from anybody, and you certainly haven't made any.


I'd certainly oppose traditional, hereditary monarchy. Even if the father is capable, that's no guarantee the son will be; many like commodus, have been screwballs.


Are you going to expose your own beliefs to the naked glare of PoFo's naked eyes, tell the world in explicit detail on a thread all your own what you wish to see the world look like?


Done that many times in the past decade or more.

Census of Citizens called for by Emperor Augustus.


You are so naive...reall you should read Ehrman. That was fiction, not mentioned anywhere outside the NT and part of a scam by a gospel writer--Luke(?)--to get jesus born in bethlehem, thus "fulfilling prophecy."
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 12

GOP group pitches T-shirts featuring Greenland as[…]

The energy demands of the developing world, wher[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

It was never in reference to Epstein's suicide(Au[…]

And if we use someone’s past history as an indica[…]